Stephen Gethins: How Scottish-influenced foreign policy could bring hope

INDEPENDENCE would bring benefits such as a Foreign Ministry, membership of the UN and international recognition. That would be my preference of course but even without independence an enhanced role for Scotland can be achieved within the Union.

The international community is starting to recognise the role that we could play in peace-building and conflict resolution. As those working for ngos have acknowledged there could be a role for Scotland given our political story in recent years and the fact that the Scottish Government has a distinctive policy agenda from the UK Government. That means a different relationship with international partners.

Beyond conflict the UK could make more of Scotland’s brand and soft power in other areas too. Trade is one such area as former Brexit campaigner and Conservative MEP David Campbell Bannerman acknowledged where he said the diaspora could be a means of reaching into the USA. That is just one country where Scotland does have a strong recognised brand and a track record of positive engagement with elected representatives and millions who identify with our country.

On a visit to Washington DC in 2018 with the Foreign Affairs Committee we received a briefing from the British Ambassador about the latest trade negotiations. Ambassador Kim Darroch was getting a hard time, not least from Conservative members, about the country’s perceived lack of clout in the White House and Congress. There was an admission that very few elected members were taking part in briefings on the UK’s trade position and they were looking at ways to improve engagement.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: The challenge for independent Scotland to rejoin the world stage

The day after that meeting I met with one of the Scottish Government officials based at the British Embassy in Washington DC who told me that their events in Congress to promote Scottish produce had been busy with elected members from across the USA both Republican and Democrat.

It is easy to see why elected members took an interest when members of the Scots diaspora make up a big proportion of the electorate in all 50 states. Naturally politicians want to show support for and engagement with the “old” country. The Scottish diaspora has political and economic clout. Despite this the UK Government had never made use of the Scottish Government’s soft power even though it has significant political reach that could complement that of the UK.

The same failure was seen in another area where Scotland is seen to be leading that of climate change. We looked at the failure to engage with Scotland in Copenhagen in 2009. There is a concern that the UK Government could be about to make the same mistake at the next UN Climate Change Conference, COP26, in Glasgow that will draw global attention.

READ MORE: Scotland looks to boost Nordic and Baltic links with new Denmark office

Climate change is the biggest challenge of this generation. It will continue to be an area where Scotland can build on its work and international outreach especially on the run up to those climate talks. Cooperation between the different administrations in the UK is not looking positive.

Claire O’Neill, who served as a Conservative MP and Minister and the former COP26 Event Coordinator, said given Scotland’s “great track record” on the environment, that: “I did suggest that we give Nicola Sturgeon a job and she was involved in this, which the Prime Minister heartily and saltily rebutted.”

That is a disappointing and short-sighted approach by the British Government. Across areas of foreign policy, the UK could and should be making more of Scotland’s foreign policy footprint as part of a decentralised approach that takes advantages of the soft power strengths of its constituent parts.

When I highlighted the work that had been done in the area of peace-building by NGOs and practitioners drawing on Scotland’s brand and story in the House of Commons the Foreign Office Minister, Alan Duncan, responded: “I must say that his notion of the soft power of Robbie Burns’ poetry solving the conflicts in Georgia rather stretched me.”

%image('5661764', type="article-full", alt="Former SNP MP Stephen Gethins")

The comments by Alan Duncan and Claire O’Neill, both thoughtful Ministers who felt ill at ease in a Johnson Government, does not bode well for those Ministers who remain. Indeed, there is significant concern that has been expressed by politicians, officials and others close to the UK Government around its ability and commitment to working with the Scottish Government as a true partner. One former Foreign Office official told me: “If London can’t recognise the strong assets it has in Scotland then does it not make sense for Scotland to get on with what it does well in terms of external relations.”

Jonathan Cohen of Conciliation ­Resources also said: “As Boris Johnson pursues the UK national interest could Scotland pursue a distinctive multilateralist agenda. Mark Muller Stuart also commented on this in his Royal Scottish Academy speech in November 2017 saying: “Scotland has a profound contribution to make in the field of peace building, conflict resolution and wider cultural exchange between different nations, ­cultures and religions.

“The time has surely come for UK policy-makers to consider whether these islands should adopt a more innovative, asymmetrical, full-spectrum approach to conflict resolution, in which the power of state and non-state actors, hard and soft power institutions, as well as the nations in our Kingdom, work in partnership in the service of cultural diplomacy and peace-making.”

Chris Deerin of Reform Scotland said that Brexit makes it possible for Scotland to be “good cop to England’s bad cop” in foreign policy.

That distinction and acceptance of ­multilateralism and pooling sovereignty that is accepted in Scotland but ­rejected by an “isolationist” government in ­Whitehall provides space for Scotland to pursue its owns ideas. That is even ­possible, though more restricted, within the confines of the Union.

Professor Caron Gentry, Head of the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews has argued that Scotland could lead the way in pursuing a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP). She has told me that this is an area where that would particularly suit the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon.

%image('12410522', type="article-full")

The First Minister has already been appointed by UN Women as the “first global advocate for the UN’s #HeForShe campaign”.

Nicola Sturgeon also told the UN in a speech in July 2017 that she wanted to see progress on gender issues both in Scotland and elsewhere: “My country will take a lead in trying to drive forward progress – both within Scotland, but also, where possible, by nation to nation, helping promote gender equality beyond our own borders… we were the first country in the world to establish a climate justice fund – helped to empower women.”

In an article for Reform Scotland published in August 2020 Professor Gentry looks at FFP and how Scotland could lead in this area. It begins by setting out what constitutes an FFP: “FFP does not just address women’s material positions around the world but embraces a ‘reorientation’ of foreign policy based upon cosmopolitan ideals of justice, peace, and pragmatic security.

“A feminist foreign policy listens to marginalised voices and aims to remove gender, racial, sexual, and ­socio-economic boundaries, amongst others. It is ­empathetic, sensitive, caring, and ­relational. It then sets out where Scotland fits into this description by both looking at the nation’s domestic and foreign ­policy agenda:”

And this is where Scotland enters the picture. Contemporary Scottish politics are inherently feminist. They may not be known as such — perhaps the word feminism is too scary or off-putting. With devolution and the parties that have held the most power in Holyrood, Scottish voters have noted their interest in politics and policies that emphasise equality of all kinds, parity, justice and fairness.

READ MORE: Scotland has chance to become 'world leader' on human rights, Amnesty says

Scottish policies aim to create a society that removes barriers rather than foster them. Policies like these will, eventually, inherently upend masculinist power structures.

The combined strength of the SNP, ­Labour, Greens, and Liberal Democrats in Scotland demonstrates a population interested in social, economic, and climate justice. As a nation moves its political agenda beyond its borders it does so only based upon the issues and politics that are cared about internally.

THE Scottish vote to remain in the EU demonstrates the population’s desire to be part of cosmopolitan inter-governmental organisations. Professor Gentry told me that Scotland is already “following an unrealised Feminist Foreign Policy” given some of the priorities pursued by the snp and other political parties that she says shows a commitment to “people not institutions”.

She cites her experiences of arriving in Scotland and as an American being impressed when she found out there was no charge for prescriptions. She added the observation that Scotland is already pursuing a foreign policy that is more “multilateralist” and closer to the Nordics than some aspects of UK foreign policy.

It is interesting that Professor Gentry and others make direct reference to Scottish domestic policy as the main driver of foreign policy. Holyrood gives us the framework for identifying what our foreign policy looks like and where it may expand if Scotland has its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the reach and resource that would bring.

READ MORE: Tories ‘preparing for a Scottish independence referendum’ despite rhetoric

An honest, non-partisan and open appraisal about Scotland’s role within or independent of the UK is important. Far too often in today’s discourse one sees a huge amount of polarisation. Holding a different political view is seen as a characteristic flaw rather than an honestly held opinion.

The extremes are active on social media with abuse towards those they disagree with often hiding behind anonymous accounts. Women and minorities often bear the brunt of that abuse.

So, we must be honest and pluralistic in conducting our own debate if we are to have a mark on the world and be able to be an honest broker in some of the world’s most complicated conflicts. There is an opportunity as the UK steps back from multilateralism and there is uncertainty about what “Global Britain” means.

That recognition is a positive ­development but one that will bring its own ­challenges.

How we debate Scotland’s constitutional future and treat one another will have an impact on our soft power ­potential. The debate around Brexit has diminished the UK’s soft power just as surely as the actual act of leaving the EU damaged its brand.

%image('8276819', type="article-full")

Mark Muller Stuart observed in his book on Libya in the section entitled “Scotland’s Emerging Role in International Affairs” that: “It ill behoves any policy-maker serious about improving the peace-making record of the UK not to recognise Scotland’s growing capacity to act in this area. The positive values that underpin Scotland’s civic nationalism and humanitarianism can only make it a greater force for good in the world.”

That also means being realistic and having a mature debate over global affairs. We shouldn’t excuse say the violence of Spanish police towards voters and the imprisonment of Catalan politicians any more than we should overlook Russia’s appalling human rights record.

We must be realistic in engaging with our partners and expect them to maintain international norms regardless of how that fits into our domestic politics.

That means standing up to Saudi ­Arabia over Yemen and difficult decisions over arms exports. The war in Yemen is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world and we cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Why we must pay attention as UK slashes aid to Yemen

Similarly, no one should forget the Kremlin’s devastating wars and the regret of many in power there over the hard-won independence of its neighbours, many of them natural partners to Scotland.

Let’s not forget independence from the Soviet Union that has seen citizens’ rights and standard of living improve in the ­Baltic states and elsewhere. We must also stand with Russia’s citizens.

Sitting with human rights advocates in Russia is a powerful antidote to much of the Kremlin propaganda in a country where being an activist, opposition politician or journalist is a dangerous business. There must also be regard for democracy and due process.

There was huge respect across the world for the way in which the previous independence referendum was carried out. That has resonance for countries who have been unable to have the same respectful non-violent debate around ­issues that generate such passion. That is also important to our neighbours in ­Europe.

In the book Scotland’s Referendum and the Media Klaus Peter Müller observed in the section on how it was perceived in Germany, Austria and Switzerland that: “Consumers of these media will have gained a favourable understanding of Scotland, wherever its impressive democratic process has been described.”

Ensuring that there is due process and respect for each other and democracy will be critical to maintaining the branding that has been built up on these issues. As one NGO leader said to me “procedure is everything”.

READ MORE: Open Minds #9: How our pensions will be protected in an independent Scotland

That will provide a challenge for those in favour of independence who are frustrated by the lack of engagement by the UK as well as those in favour of the Union who cannot continue to deny repeated mandates and majorities for a referendum given the undeniable change in circumstances that Brexit brought.

PEOPLE also need to be realistic about the choices that we face in the future.

There is now a very distinctive choice between a UK outside the EU and an independent Scotland within it. There is clear red, white and blue water.

Lazy assumptions over nationalism no longer apply with Brexit seen as an English nationalist project that turns its back on neighbours, stops freedom of movement of it UK citizens (alone among its neighbours) and is hostile to immigration. On the other hand, Irish politicians regularly describe themselves as “nationalists” while pursuing an internationalist agenda.

As Alex Salmond once told the ­Brookings Institution in Washington DC: “self-determination cannot mean isolation, and nationalism must embrace internationalism.”