serendipity
Verified User
.
The evil old witch has resigned finally after her policies came back to bite her on the arse. Andrew Neil provides a scathing analysis of her failings.
In a long, rambling and solipsistic resignation speech today Nicola Sturgeon claimed that she had led Scotland so close to independence that the process was now in its final stages.
In fact, the opposite is true. The prospect of Scottish separation from the rest of United Kingdom is now even further away than it was at the time of the 2014 referendum, when Scots clearly rejected it 55 per cent to 45 per cent. That is the real reason she is stepping down as First Minister.
After all, if she truly believed that what she’s described as her ‘lifetime’s work’ was just around the corner, why would she go? Whoever delivered Scottish independence would take their place in nationalist folklore alongside William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. No self-respecting Scottish nationalist would forego being in that historic company if independence was within their grasp.
In truth, Sturgeon has run out of road. All possible paths to independence are blocked. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that the Scottish Parliament, which she has dominated, does not have the power to call a referendum. To proceed down that route would be unconstitutional, illegal. It would also be meaningless: Scotland’s pro-union parties would boycott it, producing a nonsense result.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks. A mere 21 per cent of Scots approve of such an approach. Even her own party faithful is sniffy about it. It is also fraught with problems.
In every recent election for Westminster and Holyrood, Sturgeon has urged voters to back the SNP even if they didn’t want independence because the SNP was supposedly the only party guaranteed to stand up for Scotland, in or out of the Union. She could not have made the same pitch at the next election and also claimed it was a de facto referendum. The SNP’s electoral appeal would have been undermined; some of its MPs would have lost their seats.
It all looked so much more promising when Sturgeon took over as First Minister from Alex Salmond in the aftermath of his referendum defeat. Lest the English think the Scots could now be ignored because they’d turned their backs on independence, they voted en masse for the SNP to represent them in Westminster and Holyrood. Sturgeon enjoyed electoral success unrivalled in any modern democracy.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 looked like it could give independence a new lease of life. The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union but Scotland voted to remain by a large margin. Being pulled out of the EU against its will was the perfect issue for the SNP’s grievance politics.
Yet, curiously, it failed to move the dial in favour of independence. Indeed, as time passed it became clear that Brexit complicated the case for it. The SNP had fought the 2014 referendum on the basis that Scotland and the rest of the UK would still be in the EU, still all together in the European single market and customs union. There was no question of a border at Berwick. The movement of goods and people between Scotland and England would remain seamless.
But, post-Brexit, if an independent Scotland joined the EU — which the SNP averred it was determined to do — then the border would be far from seamless, as the endless row over the Northern Ireland protocol has illustrated. Access to England, Scotland’s biggest market, would be more restricted. Scottish jobs would be at risk.
Brexit also complicated the currency issue. In 2014, the SNP had blithely assured voters an independent Scotland would simply carry on using the pound. Post-Brexit it soon became apparent that Brussels would not let an independent Scotland join the EU using the currency of a country which was no longer a member of the EU.
But what would Scotland’s currency be? A Scottish pound? The euro? The groat? Convincing answers came there none.
The issue was exacerbated by the fact that Scotland could no longer count on North Sea oil revenues to shore up its own currency, since the existing oil fields were running out and the SNP, after a generation of claiming ‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, was now in coalition with the Greens and espousing a ‘net zero’ mantra, which ruled out drilling new oil fields.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks.
A mere 21 per cent of Scots approve of such an approach. Even her own party faithful is sniffy about it. It is also fraught with problems.
In every recent election for Westminster and Holyrood, Sturgeon has urged voters to back the SNP even if they didn’t want independence because the SNP was supposedly the only party guaranteed to stand up for Scotland, in or out of the Union. She could not have made the same pitch at the next election and also claimed it was a de facto referendum. The SNP’s electoral appeal would have been undermined; some of its MPs would have lost their seats.
It all looked so much more promising when Sturgeon took over as First Minister from Alex Salmond in the aftermath of his referendum defeat. Lest the English think the Scots could now be ignored because they’d turned their backs on independence, they voted en masse for the SNP to represent them in Westminster and Holyrood. Sturgeon enjoyed electoral success unrivalled in any modern democracy.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 looked like it could give independence a new lease of life. The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union but Scotland voted to remain by a large margin. Being pulled out of the EU against its will was the perfect issue for the SNP’s grievance politics.
Yet, curiously, it failed to move the dial in favour of independence. Indeed, as time passed it became clear that Brexit complicated the case for it. The SNP had fought the 2014 referendum on the basis that Scotland and the rest of the UK would still be in the EU, still all together in the European single market and customs union. There was no question of a border at Berwick. The movement of goods and people between Scotland and England would remain seamless.
But, post-Brexit, if an independent Scotland joined the EU — which the SNP averred it was determined to do — then the border would be far from seamless, as the endless row over the Northern Ireland protocol has illustrated. Access to England, Scotland’s biggest market, would be more restricted. Scottish jobs would be at risk.
Brexit also complicated the currency issue. In 2014, the SNP had blithely assured voters an independent Scotland would simply carry on using the pound. Post-Brexit it soon became apparent that Brussels would not let an independent Scotland join the EU using the currency of a country which was no longer a member of the EU.
But what would Scotland’s currency be? A Scottish pound? The euro? The groat? Convincing answers came there none.
The issue was exacerbated by the fact that Scotland could no longer count on North Sea oil revenues to shore up its own currency, since the existing oil fields were running out and the SNP, after a generation of claiming ‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, was now in coalition with the Greens and espousing a ‘net zero’ mantra, which ruled out drilling new oil fields.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...e-paths-independence-blocked-ANDREW-NEIL.html
The evil old witch has resigned finally after her policies came back to bite her on the arse. Andrew Neil provides a scathing analysis of her failings.
In a long, rambling and solipsistic resignation speech today Nicola Sturgeon claimed that she had led Scotland so close to independence that the process was now in its final stages.
In fact, the opposite is true. The prospect of Scottish separation from the rest of United Kingdom is now even further away than it was at the time of the 2014 referendum, when Scots clearly rejected it 55 per cent to 45 per cent. That is the real reason she is stepping down as First Minister.
After all, if she truly believed that what she’s described as her ‘lifetime’s work’ was just around the corner, why would she go? Whoever delivered Scottish independence would take their place in nationalist folklore alongside William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. No self-respecting Scottish nationalist would forego being in that historic company if independence was within their grasp.
In truth, Sturgeon has run out of road. All possible paths to independence are blocked. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that the Scottish Parliament, which she has dominated, does not have the power to call a referendum. To proceed down that route would be unconstitutional, illegal. It would also be meaningless: Scotland’s pro-union parties would boycott it, producing a nonsense result.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks. A mere 21 per cent of Scots approve of such an approach. Even her own party faithful is sniffy about it. It is also fraught with problems.
In every recent election for Westminster and Holyrood, Sturgeon has urged voters to back the SNP even if they didn’t want independence because the SNP was supposedly the only party guaranteed to stand up for Scotland, in or out of the Union. She could not have made the same pitch at the next election and also claimed it was a de facto referendum. The SNP’s electoral appeal would have been undermined; some of its MPs would have lost their seats.
It all looked so much more promising when Sturgeon took over as First Minister from Alex Salmond in the aftermath of his referendum defeat. Lest the English think the Scots could now be ignored because they’d turned their backs on independence, they voted en masse for the SNP to represent them in Westminster and Holyrood. Sturgeon enjoyed electoral success unrivalled in any modern democracy.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 looked like it could give independence a new lease of life. The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union but Scotland voted to remain by a large margin. Being pulled out of the EU against its will was the perfect issue for the SNP’s grievance politics.
Yet, curiously, it failed to move the dial in favour of independence. Indeed, as time passed it became clear that Brexit complicated the case for it. The SNP had fought the 2014 referendum on the basis that Scotland and the rest of the UK would still be in the EU, still all together in the European single market and customs union. There was no question of a border at Berwick. The movement of goods and people between Scotland and England would remain seamless.
But, post-Brexit, if an independent Scotland joined the EU — which the SNP averred it was determined to do — then the border would be far from seamless, as the endless row over the Northern Ireland protocol has illustrated. Access to England, Scotland’s biggest market, would be more restricted. Scottish jobs would be at risk.
Brexit also complicated the currency issue. In 2014, the SNP had blithely assured voters an independent Scotland would simply carry on using the pound. Post-Brexit it soon became apparent that Brussels would not let an independent Scotland join the EU using the currency of a country which was no longer a member of the EU.
But what would Scotland’s currency be? A Scottish pound? The euro? The groat? Convincing answers came there none.
The issue was exacerbated by the fact that Scotland could no longer count on North Sea oil revenues to shore up its own currency, since the existing oil fields were running out and the SNP, after a generation of claiming ‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, was now in coalition with the Greens and espousing a ‘net zero’ mantra, which ruled out drilling new oil fields.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks.
A mere 21 per cent of Scots approve of such an approach. Even her own party faithful is sniffy about it. It is also fraught with problems.
In every recent election for Westminster and Holyrood, Sturgeon has urged voters to back the SNP even if they didn’t want independence because the SNP was supposedly the only party guaranteed to stand up for Scotland, in or out of the Union. She could not have made the same pitch at the next election and also claimed it was a de facto referendum. The SNP’s electoral appeal would have been undermined; some of its MPs would have lost their seats.
It all looked so much more promising when Sturgeon took over as First Minister from Alex Salmond in the aftermath of his referendum defeat. Lest the English think the Scots could now be ignored because they’d turned their backs on independence, they voted en masse for the SNP to represent them in Westminster and Holyrood. Sturgeon enjoyed electoral success unrivalled in any modern democracy.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 looked like it could give independence a new lease of life. The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union but Scotland voted to remain by a large margin. Being pulled out of the EU against its will was the perfect issue for the SNP’s grievance politics.
Yet, curiously, it failed to move the dial in favour of independence. Indeed, as time passed it became clear that Brexit complicated the case for it. The SNP had fought the 2014 referendum on the basis that Scotland and the rest of the UK would still be in the EU, still all together in the European single market and customs union. There was no question of a border at Berwick. The movement of goods and people between Scotland and England would remain seamless.
But, post-Brexit, if an independent Scotland joined the EU — which the SNP averred it was determined to do — then the border would be far from seamless, as the endless row over the Northern Ireland protocol has illustrated. Access to England, Scotland’s biggest market, would be more restricted. Scottish jobs would be at risk.
Brexit also complicated the currency issue. In 2014, the SNP had blithely assured voters an independent Scotland would simply carry on using the pound. Post-Brexit it soon became apparent that Brussels would not let an independent Scotland join the EU using the currency of a country which was no longer a member of the EU.
But what would Scotland’s currency be? A Scottish pound? The euro? The groat? Convincing answers came there none.
The issue was exacerbated by the fact that Scotland could no longer count on North Sea oil revenues to shore up its own currency, since the existing oil fields were running out and the SNP, after a generation of claiming ‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, was now in coalition with the Greens and espousing a ‘net zero’ mantra, which ruled out drilling new oil fields.
Her fall-back position — to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence — is unlikely ever to get off the starting blocks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...e-paths-independence-blocked-ANDREW-NEIL.html