WHEN Wordsworth became Poet Laureate in 1843, his final absorption into the establishment (he had already accepted a pension of £300 a year from the Government) was too much to bear for those who had idealised him for his liberal views.
His disciple Robert Browning called him out in The Lost Leader, demanding that he:
“ … never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation, and pain,
Forced praise on our part – the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!”
I suspect the extreme Brexiteers of the Conservative party will be dressing similar, if a bit more robust, words to Boris Johnson this weekend.
Johnson, having been one of the instigators of the Brexit disaster and having repeatedly reviled the Prime Minister’s deal, voted for it on Friday, in the hope that it would carry him into Downing St. In Browning’s words about Wordsworth, he left his comrades in the lurch “just for a ribbon to wear in his coat”.
READ MORE: A storm is brewing for the Scottish Tories as May rusts away
Double dealing is one thing – double double double dealing quite another. Having been against Brexit until the campaign was called, then for it in the hope of winning the ultimate prize and then both for and against the Prime Minister as she tried to negotiate a deal, the only constancy he has shown is an unquenchable thirst for power. As a result, while he may yet get what he wants, the number of ABB Tories – Anyone But Boris – grows by the hour.
He is not alone, of course. The sinisterly unconvincing Dominic Raab, whose house at Hogwarts can only have been Slytherin, has been equally duplicitous. And Jacob Rees-Mogg , who during the week said that he would do whatever the DUP did, and then didn’t, makes up a triumvirate of charlatans who have been finally exposed by the third doomed attempt to save the Prime Minister’s face.
Although I profoundly disagree with their point of view and their politics, I have some respect for those of the ERG who are not fanatics – and there are some. Bernard Jenkin is a civilised man whose work chairing Westminster’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee produced a critique of inter-governmental relations that is accurate and helpful, while I found Suella Braverman a very courteous minister when she was in office. She tried hard to ensure that Scotland and Wales were kept informed about the detail of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill for which she had responsibility.I accept that these people honestly believe in the position they have taken and will not be swayed from it.
Honest belief, dictated by conscience, is going to be needed in the coming days. MPs will have to decide what they think is right for the people and the countries (and it is countries, not country) they represent rather than for themselves.
READ MORE: Senior Scottish Tory confirms talk of split from UK party
The Scottish Government has followed that approach – of doing what is right for both Scotland and indeed the UK as a whole – from the very beginning of this process. Our initial and very detailed proposals, published as Scotland’s Place In Europe in December 2016, made it clear that we did not wish to leave the EU and that we were firmly grounded in the vote of the Scottish people to that effect.
That is more true than ever.
We also put forward compromises that we thought might command support and which could reconcile the various positions that had been taken up. Central to those was ensuring that the single market’s four freedoms, including freedom of movement which is absolutely essential for Scotland’s wellbeing, continued to apply.
That also remains true.
Given that there is now a real prospect of not leaving the EU, achieving that aim of remaining must be a prime objective in resolving a crisis caused by a massively botched attempt to leave the EU. So, revocation, which, failing a People’s Vote, must be the immediate objective.
Scotland should also recognise the difference between the immediate steps needed to speedily resolve what is, as the historian Anthony Seldon pointed out this week, the worst constitutional crisis on these islands for centuries and the steps thereafter which would be of most benefit to Scotland.
And in that regard, if revocation or a People’s Vote are what is needed now, it is undoubtedly independence that is needed for our collective, better future.
Not least in case Downing St is ever occupied by Johnson, Raab or even, God help us, Rees-Mogg.
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