Independent Premium

Given that the SNP has been in power since 2007 and that Nicola Sturgeon has been first minister for the last six momentous years, it is surprising, if not miraculous, that the party is still riding high in the opinion polls. While a little off the highs of last autumn, the Scot Nats still register solidly above 50 per cent, and are well on course for a substantial victory at the elections for the Scottish parliament in May. With that will come a pledge, and arguably a mandate, for a fresh referendum on independence. On that issue, too, the party is currently on track to achieve its historic aim.  So, treble Scotches all round? Apparently not. So far from concentrating on delivering its precious cargo of Scottish nationhood safely into harbour, the SNP is squabbling and split. Fortunately the voters appear to have taken little even notice of the arguments for them to defect to any of the unionist alternatives, but that may change. What is going on?  It’s complicated, but the key seems to be that the wrangling seems mostly more personal and confined to subjects, rightly or wrongly, not at the top of voters’ minds just now.   More

While there may be no such thing as a miracle cure for political unpopularity, Boris Johnson may have discovered the nearest thing to it – the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine. Like the Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax products also coming on stream, their arrival has boosted Johnson’s personal poll ratings and those of his party. For the first time in months, the prime minister and the Conservatives are starting to regain their poll leads, albeit by slim margins, over Sir Keir Starmer and Labour.  It certainly makes a change for the government, and the recent spat with the European Union over the supply of the proudly British Oxford-AstraZeneca jab added a patriotic, Brexit quality to the generally good news about the vaccine rollout. (Notwithstanding the fact that all vaccines have complex multinational supply chains and rely on global scientific collaboration). Even the most ardent Remainer has had to concede that the EU has recently misjudged things, and managed to make the British seem paragons of public health, even as Britain gained the unwelcome distinction of suffering the worst Covid death rate in Europe. If, as Tony Blair says, Labour “should” be 20 points ahead in the polls, the fact that it is roughly neck and neck, given the margin of error, at about 40 per cent, is cause for concern. It is possible that as the vaccine programme exceeds expectations and the memories of Dominic Cummings and the disastrous decisions of the last year fade, then the Conservatives lead could stretch further as the big round of elections across the UK arrive in May. The hard work and brilliance of the scientists and the NHS have rubbed off on the popularity of the government, galling as that may be to some. More

Imagine if AstraZeneca happened to be an American or Chinese company, and manufactured all of its Covid vaccines far away from the EU and Britain. The chances are that the stories about production problems, breaches of contract and export bans would not have acquired the heated, chauvinistic Brexity quality that they have in recent days. It would be much more of a business story than yet another episode of the Brexit saga. It would matter, but the focus would be on the prosaic aspects of contractual obligations, complex supply chains and the impact on public health.  Instead, of course, with a somewhat similar set of rows about the Pfizer vaccine, it has been itself infected by the virus of populist nationalism. In some ways, this probably suits the European Union, to be seen to be standing up for Europe’s citizens and demanding its fair share, legally and morally. Who cares, on this reading, if the British got their big order in first? Any company is obliged to honour its obligations no matter when any order was placed. So the EU wants transparency, from AstraZeneca. The company is sticking to its “first come first served” policy.  The EU’s subsequent proposal to require approval for vaccine exports to third countries (mainly Britain), looks illogical, and nationalistic, even if it is only part of a continuing struggle with a private sector pharma giant. Conveniently, though, it distracts from any criticism among the member states about the EU’s own mistakes, if any. This may not last.   More

What are to make of the “vaccine war” between Britain and the European Union?The underlying problem would seem to be a lack of trust, entirely comprehensible given the history of Brexit. Chauvinism and suspicion seem to be driving public pronouncements and policy on vaccine procurement. A ridiculous race has been set up, in the minds of some, between the UK and EU to see who can vaccinate their populations fastest. Britain has reached 10 per cent, continental Europe 2 per cent. This, absurdly, has been used to justify Brexit, leaving aside Britain’s grim record on deaths from Covid. If this cross-Channel competition has the effect of spurring on efforts it might have something to be said for it, but it seems unlikely given that supply is a constraint everywhere. What’s more, the coronavirus does not respect national borders; if it is raging in France it will not remain there. Tempers have flared, as with previous skirmishes over the closures of borders, supermarket deliveries to Northern Ireland, fish (inevitably) and a lorry driver who was upset to find his ham sandwich impounded at the Hook of Holland (“Welcome to the Brexit, sir”).   More

Keir Starmer accuses Boris Johnson of wanting to use Brexit to weaken legal protections for workers, and will use an opposition debate in the Commons today to demand that “all existing employment rights and protections must be maintained”.The prime minister has always rejected the idea that one of the Conservative motives for leaving the EU was to rid Britain of European law guaranteeing workers’ rights. And it is fair to say that the problem of “excessive” social protection has never been central to most Brexiteers’ arguments – except for the 48-hour working week, which was controversial when the Labour government legislated for it in 1998.  British worker rights were probably better than those in most member states when the UK joined the EEC in 1973, and remained so while we were a member, but clearly there is a possibility that they could be cut below the minimum levels required by the EU now that we have left. Hence the significance of a report by the Financial Times 10 days ago that the government was considering repealing aspects of EU employment law, including the 48-hour working week, the inclusion of overtime in calculating holiday pay and the duty of employers to record workers’ hours.   More