This is one lesson we have taken from the 2014 referendum
The Tories in particular had no shortage of advice about what they thought the First Minister should and should not be doing when he met with the US president – something which momentarily put me in mind of a line from a Christy Moore song about how Irish politicians carried on when Ronald Reagan visited Ireland.
READ MORE: Why Craig Murray is lobbying UN ambassadors on Scottish 'decolonisation'
There's an old military adage that you salute the rank rather than the person and in politics, the struggle is to respect the office no matter how difficult it might be to respect the office holder. On that score, during a visit which had much more scope for things to go wrong for him than go right, I think that the First Minister carried both his person and his rank on behalf of the country he represents flawlessly.
There's a place for tub-thumping in politics and there's a place for subtlety, even where Donald Trump is concerned. I think that the dignified speaking of truth to power exhibited by the First Minister is the way that most Scots want their leaders to engage with the rest of the world.
The contrast with the fawning obsequiousness that will be on display next month when Trump has his state visit to Windsor will be illuminating, at least for those with eyes willing to see it.
Without trying to grandstand or posture, the First Minister landed key and serious points about the desperate situation in Gaza, as well as the impact of continued US tariffs on Scotch whisky. Meanwhile, in the very opposite of what he probably thought was a 'power move', Keir Starmer opted to disappear before the coffee was served.
But perhaps the most significant meeting in the First Minister's diary last week was that with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. The small talk for the cameras beforehand and the sanitised official 'readouts' afterwards can only tell us so much.
READ MORE: It's Scots who should be telling the stories of our country's culture and traditions
However, we should be in no doubt about the symbolism involved, and the importance of such meetings taking place in terms of keeping the light on for Scotland in Brussels.
Listening on the radio afterwards to the sniffy disdain of former UK ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, it was clear that the right people in the British establishment had been left suitably miffed by the First Minister and Scotland's prominence in events. For which thoughts and prayers, obviously.
Casting minds back to 2014, it's clear that while there was a lot of interest internationally when it came to the prospect of Scottish independence, there was also a lot of nervousness over what the ramifications might be for other states, as well as organisations like Nato and the EU.
Being honest, there was also a fair amount of international bafflement about why Scots might want to leave the UK at all.
No-one now cares what Mariano Rajoy and José Barroso had to say at the time about Scottish independence, or how it suited their own domestic politics and personal ambitions respectively to make it sound like something that was at best difficult and at worst undesirable and impossible.
But like it or not, their words had impact, and were repeated gleefully by a Scottish press corps dominated by those in hock to Unionism.
I've written plenty in these columns about the need to have the kind of democratic legitimacy for independence which only comes from building up solid public backing. But taking our place in the world as an independent state will also require the legitimacy which only comes from gaining international recognition.
Getting to that point – even with the support of enough of the Scottish people behind us and perhaps even to attract such levels of domestic democratic support in the first place – requires if not the explicit support, then at least the understanding of the international community about the direction of travel Scotland is engaged in and the desire of independence supporters to make it happen peaceably and democratically.
Post-Brexit, there is a much better understanding in Europe of why Scotland might now wish to be independent although realistically, we are never going to get a full-throated endorsement for independence from any of our neighbours.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes doesn't rule out return to politics after shock decision to stand down
However, navigating as many as possible to a place where they instead say 'independence is an internal matter and we will respect the choice of the people of Scotland, whatever that is' would be a significant advance on 2014. There are lessons which were never properly learned from the outcome of 2014, but the signs are good that this is one of the lessons that was learned.
Soft power and influence matter. Our elected representatives – backbenchers as well as ministers and first ministers – all have lots of opportunities to engage both formally and informally with international opinion-formers and decision-makers, be they politicians, diplomats, journalists or representatives of business and civil society.
When they do, the question of when Scotland will be holding another referendum is the one which is often asked first. No such opportunity can or will be missed for making our case, building that understanding and, ultimately, for staking our claim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
To be a success, Starmer's migrant deal must pass tough tests
First came the Starmer-Macron handshake, sealing the UK-France migrant treaty. Following that was a series of Home Office stories about crackdowns on illegal working and smuggler gang adverts, filling the sleepy summer news pages. Then, the 21-page treaty itself was unveiled. And, finally, on Thursday morning Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, sombrely declared that the first migrants had been detained pending their return to France, with pixelated video footage of them supplied to broadcasters just in time for the evening TV bulletins. In terms of media handling, press coverage and communications, the one-in, one-out migrant deal with France has been impressively choreographed, with a drumbeat of related announcements, statements and policies building up to the launch of the plan. It has demonstrated that the government are taking action, rather than merely talking about taking action. It may also, at least for a few days, have slowed the bandwagon of Reform UK. But far tougher tests lie ahead. The main problem is that the scheme is unproven; indeed, it is a pilot, which means that things are likely to go wrong or not work as intended, as tends to happen when ideas are trialled. One obvious risk is that the French authorities refuse to accept a significant number of the migrants selected by the British for removal or delay making decisions about taking them. There are strict timescales laid out in the treaty, which says both countries have agreed to work towards an 'end-to-end process' of three months. It is also unclear how the one-in, one-out balance between returns to France of migrants on small boats and arrivals in the UK of asylum seekers will be achieved. There is a danger, for the government, that the process of requesting transfer to Britain from France is seen to be smooth and swift, acting as a magnet for refugees to apply, while the reciprocal returns arrangements become gummed up. Capacity in immigration detention centres, where there are currently only 400 spare beds, may limit the number of migrants who can be identified for return to France under the pact, particularly as the government continues to ramp up detentions and removals under other immigration powers. As constitutional experts have pointed out, the treaty was laid before parliament on Tuesday when neither the Commons nor the Lords was sitting and ratified by the government 24 hours later. That meant that the standard procedure for the scrutiny of international treaties by MPs and Peers, under which ratification can take place only after 21 days, was not followed. Ministers are permitted to bypass these rules in 'exceptional' cases, but whether it was lawful to do so for the one-in, one-out treaty is expected to form one of the main grounds of legal challenges against it that will inevitably be brought on behalf of at least some of the migrants chosen for removal to France. Their cases are also likely to revolve around the way officials selected them for deportation, ahead of others, and whether an individual's personal circumstances were sufficiently taken into account. The legal hazard for the Home Office is that some migrants will reveal background details about their treatment in their homeland, during their journey to British shores or at the hands of smuggler gangs that make the courts uncomfortable about their detention and imminent removal, potentially undermining the entire scheme. But there are a number of key factors that will work in the government's favour – and help them clear many of the hurdles. On the legal front, France is regarded as a 'safe' country, so human rights claims that migrants will not be treated properly or fairly are destined to fail. In contrast, the Rwanda scheme, introduced by the Conservatives, was blocked because the UK Supreme Court ruled that the east African state was not a safe place for migrants. Operationally, the Rwanda experiment provided Home Office civil servants with valuable experience in devising a large-scale removals programme. Dan Hobbs, director general of the migration and borders group, who led the planning, is now helping to steer through the accord with France. And the principle behind the new treaty – returning people who've arrived in the UK without permission to a safe country they've just travelled from – is likely to command broad public and political support which the government will try to capitalise on during its forthcoming court battles against migrants and campaigners. The biggest question, however, is whether the one-in, one-out deal will work in stopping, or at least substantially reducing, small boat crossings. It's been widely reported that only around 50 migrants will be returned to France each week, compared with an average of more than 800 who make the journey to Britain. At that tiny level of returns – one in 16, migrants who have risked their lives to get to camps in northern France will willingly take the chance that they might be sent back, while smugglers could even use the low return rate to promote their services. It could be that suggestions that returns will be in such low numbers are part of a subtle campaign of expectation management by the Home Office – a common practice among seasoned politicians and advisers. If returns were to exceed 50 per week, it would be viewed by some as a great success. A more likely scenario is that 50 is a figure which is considered to be achievable on practical grounds and acceptable to the French, who have their own major issues around immigration. The government deserves credit for putting the treaty in place 12 months after taking office. But unless the number of returns ramps up significantly, it is virtually impossible to see the one-in, one-out scheme acting as a deterrent, certainly on any meaningful scale. That means ministers must accelerate their work on other fronts to stem the crossings, bring order to the asylum system and move migrants out of hotels. A deal with countries in the Balkans for 'return hubs' to house asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected must be next on the agenda.
Glasgow Times
32 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Energy bill discounts of £250 a year included in new plans
Families living near new pylons would get a £125 discount on their energy bills every six months for a decade under Government plans to get electricity infrastructure built. New transmission cables and pylons are needed across the country to upgrade ageing electricity networks, connect up new wind and solar farms, nuclear power plants and large scale battery storage, and reinforce the grid to cope with the planned rise in electric heat pumps and car charging in homes. The Government says around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be needed by 2030 as has been built in the past decade. But building new pylons and cables through the British countryside has faced a backlash, with homeowners and campaigners concerned about the visual impact and disruption to local areas and beauty spots. (Image: John Kelly) The Government hopes cash benefits to local people will reduce opposition and planning delays to the infrastructure needed to deliver the clean energy plans. Households within 500 metres (a third of a mile) of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure could receive a discount of up to £250 via their electricity bill every year for 10 years, totalling £2,500. The discounts, which would be assigned to the home, and applied to the occupant, could be provided in instalments of £125 every six months. Recommended Reading: Minister for energy consumers Miatta Fahnbulleh said: 'As we build the infrastructure we need to deliver homegrown, affordable energy, communities must be given a stake. 'That is why we are teaming up with communities hosting new pylons to ensure they receive direct, tangible benefits. 'We are on the side of those who want Britain to get back to what it does best: building for the future, driving innovation and putting communities first.' Shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie said it was 'right that communities get some payback for pylons – with this scheme following initiatives started by the last Conservative government'. But he added that the public should 'be in no doubt' that more communities would see pylons built nearby 'as a consequence of Labour's net zero by 2050 zealotry'. Mr Bowie said the Government was now having to 'scramble to try and build the infrastructure needed to support their mad green projects' and urged more investment in nuclear power rather than solar.
Glasgow Times
32 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Recall sought on 'huge' battery storage plant near Clydebank
Scottish Ministers gave the go-ahead for a 560MW site covering 29 hectares on Whitehall Farm this week, causing uproar in the local community. A Facebook titled 'Save Our Countryside - Cochno Road' was set up shortly after the proposals were first announced, which has gained more than 1,000 members opposing the plans. Now, local MP, Douglas McAllister, has written to the Cabinet Secretary of Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, and Ivan McKee, Minister of Public Finance, to recall their decision. In the letter, Mr McAllister wrote: "The level of objection by the community of West Dunbartonshire is based on the sheer size and scale of this potential development, described as one of the largest of its kind in Europe. The application site is the wrong location; it is too close in proximity to the heavily populated residential area of Faifley. The Scottish Government, in partnership with West Dunbartonshire local authority, has recently invested in excess of £35 million, completing a community education campus in Faifley due to be open in the autumn of this year. This proposed BESS application is in close proximity to that. In the letter, he said: "It is incredibly disappointing that at a time when the local community is celebrating the largest capital investment since the construction of Faifley, that at the same time, the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit has consented to such a significant unwelcome construction. "In all the circumstances, I respectfully submit that consenting to this application is inappropriate, and therefore I formally request, as the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, that Scottish Ministers give consideration to calling in the application outcome by the Energy Consents Unit to review matters." Examining the cup and ring markings at Whitehill 4, this, and three others in the small hazel woodland, are less than 20m from the perimeter of the development. (Image: Kat Jones) Meanwhile, Action to Protect Rural Scotland (APRS) is calling for the reconsideration of planning policy surrounding the battery site after seven, including the Whitehall Farm, were approved. Dr Kat Jones, Director of APRS, said: "It is shocking that a site with such important archaeological and natural heritage, and of such importance for local people and visitors, can get permission for a huge and damaging battery storage facility. If this site can get permission for battery storage, then nowhere is safe.
