NICOLA Sturgeon’s plan to keep Scotland in the single market even if the rest of the UK leaves has received backing from senior Scottish Labour figures.
Mark Lazarowicz, who was one of Edinburgh’s Labour MPs for 14 years, said the Scotland’s Place in Europe plan was both workable and sensible.
He urged Scottish Labour to back the Norway-style deal being proposed by the Scottish Government.
Writing on the Labour Hame site, Lazarowicz said: “The publication of the Scottish Government’s options for Scotland’s relations in Europe post-Brexit drew predictable responses, not least within Scottish Labour.
Although Kezia Dugdale wisely responded that by saying she would consider the proposals carefully, some of the more gung-ho Labour commentators and bloggers immediately damned the proposals as yet another cunning plan by the SNP to force Scotland on to the high road to a second independence referendum.”
He added: “The first thing anyone should do is actually read what the document it says. It is true that the First Minister says that her preferred option is for an independent Scotland within the EU. Is anyone surprised at that? It was hardly a secret.
“But the possibility of a second independence referendum is way down on the list of the options. Her stated preference is that Scotland and the UK remain as full members of the EU. I agree with that.
“The next best option is for the entire UK to remain within the European Economic Area, the EEA. I agree with that too. It is only if those two options are rejected that the option of a Scotland-only membership of the EEA is proposed in the Scottish Government document.”
He goes on to say the Scottish Government’s proposals would be “challenging” to implement, but they are workable. It would help, he says, if Scottish Labour threw their support behind the proposal.
“That is because support from Scottish Labour for such an option could help persuade the UK Labour Party to support it. And support from UK Labour could mean that, in turn, other social democratic and socialist forces within the rest of the EU – still a powerful force – would be persuaded to take such proposals seriously, and make their achievement more possible.”
He concludes: “If they are workable, they would certainly be a lot better for Scotland than being outside the EU, or the UK – or both.”
Earlier in the week Malcolm Chisholm, who represented the same areas of the capital as Lazarowicz in Holyrood, said he could not “find anything in the plan” he disagreed with and hoped that all political parties would rally behind it.
A source close to Kezia Dugdale told The Times: “Mark and Malcolm have years of parliamentary experience and their opinions will always be welcome.”
Meanwhile, the Queen is said to be “disappointed” that Theresa May has not shared details about the Government’s Brexit plans.
According to The Times, a “source close to the monarch” said the Prime Minister would only say “Brexit means Brexit”, when she spent the weekend with the royals in Balmoral this September.
The account suggests their relationship did not get off to an ideal start, although a newspaper report at the time suggested the two women “got on famously” and share an interest in outdoor pursuits.
Neither Buckingham Palace nor Downing Street would comment on the report.
A palace spokeswoman said: “By long-established convention we never disclose details of discussions between the Queen and her prime ministers. Nor would we comment on anonymously sourced conjecture of this kind.”
The visit is an annual fixture for prime ministers. They are expected to take part in parlour games and outdoor pursuits.
Although the Queen is supposedly neutral she is said to be a keen observer of the UK’s political scene. Previous prime ministers have spoken of how they confided in her about difficult decisions.
Four days before Scots voted in the independence referendum, as she left the Crathie Kirk near Balmoral, the monarch was overheard saying she hoped people would “think very carefully about the future” – a comment which was taken to show her support for the Union.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel