WHAT’S so different about Scotland?
The tumultuous events of the past month have only served to underline the different journeys that the people in Scotland and the rest of the UK are currently on.
When we reflect on the enormous strategic issues facing the whole of the UK today, it seems clear that Scotland is choosing a different path.
The biggest democratic events of the last month underline this point; Brexit and Parliament’s vote on Trident.
Four weeks ago, we went to the polls in a referendum on our EU membership that we didn’t ask for, and woke up the morning after with a result we didn’t vote for.
The result shows that 62 per cent of voters in Scotland backed the retention of our EU membership, compared to only 46 per cent of voters in England.
This is a significant divergence of public opinion between what is often termed “Little England” and an outward looking, internationalist Scotland; a difference in public attitudes between those who live north and south of the border about our place in this interdependent world. I suppose in some ways, it reflects the relative confidence that we each have in our relevant country’s ability to meet other European countries confidently on a basis of equals, without the need to pull up the drawbridge and withdraw from our mutually beneficial partnerships.
The political fallout from this vote in Scotland and Westminster could not have been more stark.
Here, Nicola Sturgeon provided stability and reassurance to all those who live here who were concerned by the result. She quickly convened a resilience meeting of the Scottish Government, got her cabinet round the table to agree a way forward for Scotland and provided direct reassurance for EU nationals who have chosen to live in Scotland. At Westminster, Labour and the Tories took this as an opportunity to engage in a round of backstabbing and plots which could almost have come straight out of an episode of Game of Thrones.
On Monday evening, MPs debated the replacement of Trident, the UK’s own weapon of mass destruction. I didn’t agree with much of what the Prime Minister had to say on her first visit to the Despatch Box in her new role, but I agree wholeheartedly that it was an enormous decision which will underpin our defence and security strategy for the coming decades.
After four and a half hours of questions, speeches and interventions, all MPs had to make their decision. While 58 of Scotland’s 59 members of parliament chose to vote against nuclear weapons, the overwhelming majority of MPs from the rest of the UK voted in favour. More SNP MPs voted against Trident than from any other group in parliament, including Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.
Once again, Scotland had chosen its own path.
This particular vote on Trident was not an isolated act. In the recent past a wide range of democratic and civic organisations in Scotland have demonstrated their opposition of nuclear weapons, from the Scottish Government to our Scottish Parliament, a majority of Scotland’s political parties, churches, trade unions and other civic groups.
Given this situation, if Theresa May is to be sincere in her declaration that she wishes to be “fully engaged” with Scotland, her new government should act now to respect this outcome, and begin to remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde.
Instead, we have seen the new Prime Minister embark on the effective trashing of the UK’s reputation abroad. In all seriousness, who in Scotland could make a cogent argument for having Boris Johnson represent our interests to our international partners at this vital time? It’s an act that speaks to Theresa May’s fundamental weakness within her own party and her need to keep potentially troublesome Leavers occupied while the grown-ups get on with running the country.
So where do the events of the last month leave Scotland?
There are clear challenges and opportunities ahead.
In the short term, those of us elected to serve in Holyrood and Westminster must continue to make the case for the best possible deal for Scotland. We need to reach out to our international partners, and fully explore the options available to us to retain our EU membership. We must engage constructively and positively to ensure that when key decisions are taken in the weeks and months to come Scotland’s voice is heard loudly and clearly.
That’s what Scotland expects of us.
But, let us be clear about the facts as they stand. These recent events only serve to underline the fact that the opinions, interests and aspirations of the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK have never been more different, than they are today.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here