Lesley Riddoch: There must be a calm choice – either Britain or Scotland

Did the Labour leader look floored and unable to act spontaneously when Theresa May announced there would be a Brexit White Paper? Yes, again.

Is it important for Labour-leaning Scots to really grasp there is no consistent or capable opposition to Britain’s future as a tax haven by the Labour Party at Westminster – of course it is. Is it therefore tempting to spend the next thousand words elaborating on that fact – you betcha.

But that’s not the big lesson from Prime Minister’s Question yesterday, the Supreme Court’s ruling the day before or even the enduring nightmare that is the big, moody bairn in the White Hoose.

Sure, there is a lot of political weather right now, but what supporters of independence are trying to achieve is not a few sunny days but genuine and positive climate change. So, in addition to the ritualistic mockery of Corbyn in the Commons and on top of stern warnings about Scotland’s democratic deficit by Nicola Sturgeon – a deficit that grew larger when the Supreme Court ridiculed Westminster claims that the meaty Sewel Convention guaranteed Holyrood input – over and above all these necessary moments of political dualling, something else must happen.

We must resist the temptation to mock, poke fun and feel superior – well okay a little of that does no great harm. But the big task for supporters of independence is to convert the forthcoming maelstrom into a calm choice between two countries – Britain and Scotland – and their very different perceptions of what trade, diplomatic, social and political arrangements are in their own best interests.

Not so sexy – I ken.

Nor so easy to define or so easy to get across during TV and radio interviews where the interviewer is far more interested in the latest political storm or the establishment’s perpetual one-sided worry about Scotland’s ability to go it alone.

But still.

From all this blaw and bluster, we need to single out a consistently different tune – an authentically-distinctive sense of purpose and direction in Scotland based on what’s in the interests of this country.

And in many ways, the task has already begun.

At Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, the SNP’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson asked if Theresa May is prepared to lower food and safety standards to get a trade deal with Donald Trump. The SNP’s Philippa Whitford followed up by asking why post Brexit Britain will quit membership of the European Medicine Agency whose single drug licensing system for 500 million EU citizens means new drugs are licensed here up to a year before Canada and Australia.

These are good questions which highlight the tangible, practical problems that accompany a hard Brexit and a trade deal with a hard-faced Donald Trump. Doubtless, the SNP are right to think that relentless nit-picking – mimicking the flak that accompanied publication of the Scottish Government’s Independence White Paper – is the best use of the very short time allotted to them in the Commons.

But besides this we need to build consensus on the kind of powers and policies that would benefit Scotland and best reflect Scottish social and political culture. And then ask whether they are best achieved in or out of Europe and in or out of the UK.

Without time spent on these unifying objectives, this menu for a better Scotland, there’s a danger debate leading up to Indyref2 will just mimic Indyref1 with all sorts of technical objections about the path of independence. It’s funny how much more committed to a difficult path the average person can get, when they have mapped out the terrain beforehand and know each difficulty can be offset by a counterbalancing advantage and cannot become any less difficult in the current powerless set up.

Way back when I first committed to supporting indy in a BBC Question Time programme it was for four big reasons. I want rid of Trident because it is an expensive, misfiring and American-controlled illegal weapon of mass destruction. I want an energy system based on harnessing all of Scotland’s many renewable energy resources and not sitting frustrated cos Westminster has axed subsidies. I want a welfare system that releases the potential of people instead of crippling them with fear and hobbling them with red tape – one which realises the truth of everyone from Rabbie Burns to the authors of the Spirit Level when they demonstrate in verse and in hard statistics that more equal societies produce happier, healthier and more productive people – even amongst the better off. I don’t want to live in a marketised tax-haven society where big is beautiful and people are regarded as expendable irritants in a profit-making machine.

I’m sure many Scots would agree.

What we currently disagree about is how to get there.

Through Europe or through Brexit. Through the United Kingdom or through independence.

Curiously though some EU migrants think they already know enough about the distinctively Scottish way of doing things to move out of London and come here. The online magazine The Local reports on one young Swede who’s so concerned that commenting on Brexit may impact his employment prospects in the UK, Nicklas does not want to provide his full name. He says the victory for the Leave campaign has changed his opinion of the country he lives in.

“Honestly, we’ve been talking about moving to Scotland,” London-based Nicklas says. The Swede, who works in the travel industry in London, isn’t joking. The uncertain atmosphere in the wake of the Brexit vote has left many of his compatriots in the British capital considering their options, he claims, and a trip north is one option being touted.

“I’ve spoken with many Swedish and Scandinavian friends, and we’re all rooting for Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU,” he adds. “It could be a new frontier for business and innovation. We’ve talked about that. Why not move up a couple of hours and continue what we’re doing, but in another accent?”

Why not indeed, as long as we act swiftly and decisively.

It’s interesting this call on Scots to seize the moment and defend our different, outward looking political culture should be coming from a Nordic citizen. Despite being very remote, the five Nordic nations have a clear track record of taking bold and extraordinary actions which defend their countries’ interests not their most sentimental and fearful attachments. The Faroese for example are currently debating whether to hand back the two seats they have in the Danish Parliament because they want to have all the power over foreign affairs devolved to their genuinely-powerful Parliament. Equally, Norwegians were perhaps the most pro-European country after the Second World War – huge supporters of the League of Nations and so active in promoting peace across the world that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo not Stockholm where Alfred Nobel’s Sweden-based outfit is headquartered. Yet, the idea of having fishing policy dictated by non-fishing-based countries – indeed by anyone else except themselves – was so obviously harmful to Norway’s interests that the population voted No to membership. Norway’s No also affected the Icelanders, who saw their interests coinciding more with Norway than any other nation.

Now of course there was internal dissent.

In Norway, 70 per cent of Oslo-based professionals voted to join the EU while 70 per cent of the other cities and countryside voted No.

But this is the way to make a big decision – decide on the interests of your nation and then see what alliance/union or strategy advances it.

Watch this space.