Scotland has no power over foreign affairs until independence

On Wednesday, Rishi Sunak successfully steered legislation through the House of Commons, which aims to effectively rule out a legal challenge to the plan.

I remain baffled that MPs could believe that Rwanda deportation is an acceptable response to those so desperate to find a better life that they are prepared to risk their lives and those of their children to cross the Channel in small boats.

But then those Tories who threatened to vote against the Prime Minister’s plans did not do so because of moral objections, but because they feared it would not overcome legal challenges, which have so far stopped a single refugee from being forced to go to Rwanda instead of Britain.

READ MORE: Therese Coffey red-faced after 'excruciating' Rwanda gaffe

And Sunak’s defeat of the rebels within his own party has been hailed as a celebrated victory instead of being recognised for what it is … one of the darkest days in British history.

The arguments that inspired the Tory MPs who threatened to block their leader’s plot were not those put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, which has the ability in British law to stop Westminster ministers from mistreating those who have fled for their lives to seek safety here.

The UK’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the plan would leave people at risk of having their human rights violated.

It was not that risk that prompted Tory rebels to threaten to vote against the Rwanda plan. Human rights, particularly those protected by a court in Europe after Brexit was finally pushed through, are not high on their list of priorities.

Suella Braverman championed the Rwanda idea when she was home secretary, infamous for declaring her dream was to see a Daily Telegraph front page reporting that the first plane carrying refugees had taken off for Africa.

She didn’t change her mind about that aim … she just disagreed with Sunak about how to achieve it. She said in December that “stopping the boats’’ was the key to winning the next General Election, but that Sunak’s Rwanda Bill would fail to do that.

In the event, only eleven Tory MPs voted against the bill. Braverman was one of them. “I could not vote for yet another law destined to fail,’’ she said. “The British people deserve honesty, and so I voted against.’’ Whatever else these rebels on the right are, they are not heroes championing the oppressed.

The battle is not over yet.

The Prime Minister still has to win over the House of Lords. But for now, his shameful plan has increased his standing rather than traduced it, because he can claim the Commons vote as a political victory, even if it’s the polar opposite of a moral one.

It’s yet another example of Westminster acting against Scotland’s wishes. Scotland did not vote for Rishi Sunak’s government, but can do nothing but stand back and watch his actions with horror. Well, some Scots can do a little more.

There are only seven Scottish Tory MPs, and every one of them voted to back the Rwanda bill, including Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross. Hardly a triumph for democracy.

We can proclaim as loudly as we want about this action happening without our consent and not in our name, but the reality is, that until we gain independence, there is nothing we can do to temper Westminster’s inhumanity.

READ MORE: Scottish independence in the EU would be better than the Union, Scots say

The recent history of the UK is littered with examples. Huge anti-war demonstrations did nothing to stop the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And if you thought such an affront could never happen again, more recent events have proved exactly how wrong you were.

The British attacks on the Houthis in Yemen last week, went ahead without the authority of the British Parliament. The action was authorised by Sunak’s new Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, elected by precisely no one, but who was made a life peer so that he could take the job.

Cameron didn’t even recall parliament to inform MPs of his decision to join US president Joe Biden in the Yemen action, a decision with scary parallels to Tony Blair’s blind obedience to US president, George Bush, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Scotland, of course, has no influence over its own foreign policy under devolution, which keeps such decisions firmly in the hands of Westminster. The Scottish Government’s ability to even speak to international government has been restricted by the UK parliament’s insistence that any such meeting be attended by one of its own officials, just in case the chat veers into forbidden territory.

The nonsensities of such an arrangement are thrown into stark relief by the ongoing tragedy in Gaza.

Westminster stood against calls for a humanitarian ceasefire on the grounds that Israel had the right to “defend itself’’ from Hamas attacks. The Scottish parliament voted for a ceasefire back in November, but can do nothing to bring one any closer.

First Minister, Humza Yousaf, whose in-laws found themselves in danger during a visit with family in Gaza, could only hit out angrily at MPs who refused to back a ceasefire. He has described the slaughter of children in Gaza – most recent figures show more than 10,000 have died – as “senseless”.

The leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may have publicly supported a ceasefire, but he can’t force his UK boss to go further than supporting a more vague “sustainable ceasefire”, a phrase also used by the Prime Minster.

READ MORE: Benjamin Netanyahu has told US he opposes Palestinian state post-war

So while Scotland is denied the power to even influence calls for a more humane approach to Gaza, it continues to be routinely dragged into seriously dangerous conflicts against its will, without even being consulted.

One of the most important benefits independence will bring Scotland, is to give our country a voice in international affairs that reflects the beliefs and values of most of the people who live here. At the moment, the foreign policies that are forced upon us do not do that.

Those who oppose independence are keen to portray independence supporters as, at best, narrow-minded and parochial, and at worst, right-wing and racist.

That’s why Boris Johnson, and others like him, refer to the “Scottish Nationalist Party”, and then pretend it was a slip of the tongue. They want the word “nationalist”, to be seen as inherently racist.

READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Rachel Reeves has no idea what Scottish firms want

I understood what Humza Yousaf meant when he said this week that he has been uncomfortable with the word, National, in the party’s name. I understood it, but I don’t agree. The world has been divided into nations, not by us but by those who came before us. 

There is the National Museum, the National Theatre, the National Library and, indeed, the National, the newspaper you are reading today. No one in their right senses would describe any of these as right-wing or racist.

The First Minister is absolutely right to define the civic nationalism of Scotland as progressive, outward-looking, welcoming, and protective of human rights. None of these descriptions could accurately be applied to modern Britain.

Independence would not just make Scotland fairer, more equal, richer and happier, although it has the potential to do all that. It would also allow us to show the world exactly what type of country we are and aspire to be.