THE new Trumpian world “disorder” means Scottish independence outwith the EU “makes no sense at all”, according to a leading expert on Europe.
“In this new and uncertain international context, the case for independence will rest, even more than before, on Scotland’s future role and base in European organisations, notably the European Union,” says Dr Kirsty Hughes, former director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations.
In a new blog she points out that even though the Labour Government’s latest round of cuts are hitting the poorest people in the UK, the Scottish Government still appears “rather absent” on making the independence case.
Yet as US President Donald Trump sides with Russia, three substantial issues – security, transition and uncertainty – now set a new context for independence, Hughes believes.
“Showing that Scotland can handle the dynamic transition that setting out as a new state will require has always been the most challenging part of the independence case,” she said. “That is even more true in this new world disorder.”
However she says the uncertainty and disruption need not undermine the argument for an independent Scotland’s future security arrangements.
“Scotland is a European country. It will be able to participate in whatever evolving arrangements we see in the coming years. And, on hard security and defence, we are likely to see the continuation of both new EU defence programmes and EU collaboration, formal and informal, with non-EU countries, including notably the UK.”
Hughes says that flexibility may even help an independent Scotland during the early days of independence, if it means Scotland can easily step into some security groupings as a new state while taking whatever time is needed to join Nato or whatever European security grouping may have replaced it by then.
That may include participating in EU defence structures where possible as a candidate country.
On the economic security and opportunities that the EU’s economic clout, single market and customs union would provide, the future looks “murky” too, states Hughes.
“Making the economic case for independence in an uncertain world where economic prospects are unstable is not easy. But there may never be a good, as in upbeat, time to make this case for choosing between the UK and EU,” she says.
“The new global reality calls for a new realism and a new look at the advantages of EU membership for an independent Scotland in a much tougher world than the one of 2014.”
On the economic side, Hughes says that if independence comes in the next decade, then Scotland’s path to joining the EU will still look “fairly robust” within EU enlargement and accession processes.
“But much more clarity is needed, especially in an uncertain economic environment, of how an independent Scotland will access EU and UK markets during transition,” she states.
“It won’t be able to afford to stand alone economically as it leaves the UK. A much clearer and fuller case of how a trade and association agreement with the EU would work will be needed.”
The case for an independent Scotland in the EU will have to “face up” to this evolving and uncertain European and global landscape.
“It will need to be a deeper case and one that requires contributing to European and global debates not watching from outside,” Hughes says.
“And how Scotland may fit into the EU’s wider enlargement strategy, at the time of independence, is currently unclear.”
Hughes adds that Scotland’s constitutional debate needs to “transform in this new and dangerous geopolitical era”.
“The case for independence will have to be made fit for this uncertain and turbulent world,” she says.
“That means prioritising European and wider international networks, and contributing in whatever ways possible to a constructive, democratic European future rather than a weakening of Europe. And it means facing up to the key challenges of transition and the sharp questions transition poses for becoming an independent state at a time of
Trumpian world disorder.”
