I wonder if either Jack McConnell or Jim Wallace has had occasion to examine his passport recently? Perhaps not. Perhaps our first minister and his deputy are so grand that neither has to produce his passport when travelling on official business. Yet it might be an idea for them to give it a glance. Though it will be of course an EU passport, it will also remind them that they are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Doubtless this wouldn’t come as a surprise to either. McConnell and Wallace are unionists, Scottish leaders of unionist parties. Neither, one supposes, contemplates pursuing a policy of secession from the UK. They leave that sort of thing to the SNP, and to assorted socialists, Trotskyites, and Greens. This makes it all the odder that they sometimes behave as if that secession had taken place, as if Scotland was no longer a constituent part of the UK.
Take, for instance, the question of identity cards. We all know that the home secretary, David Blunkett, is determined to introduce these. We may dislike the idea. We may think that the requirement to have an identity card is a further infringement by this most illiberal of governments on our individual liberties. We may think that Blunkett’s argument that the introduction of identity cards is a necessary measure in the fight against international terrorism is nonsense, and we may remark that the requirement for all Spanish citizens to carry such cards didn’t prevent the Madrid bombings last spring, and haven’t indeed stopped the Basque terror group ETA from bombing its way around the country for years now.
We may denounce Blunkett’s measure as something that will give the police the power to stop and question thousands of law-abiding citizens merely because their skins are black or brown. The panoply of liberal arguments is well stocked and, as it happens, I agree with most of them.
On the other hand it may be argued that our scruples are out of date; that the world has changed and become a more dangerous place since 9/11; that, though identity cards cannot be guaranteed to prevent terrorists from operating in Britain, they may at least make such operations more difficult; that, in any case, there are other justifications for introducing these cards, as, for instance, a means of identifying illegal immigrants, and as a protection against welfare fraud.
The arguments for and against identity cards may indeed be finely balanced, but it seems likely that in a few years’ time we shall all be required to possess, and perhaps also carry, one. Certainly if Labour is returned for a third term, Blunkett or his successor as home secretary will press ahead with plans for their introduction.
Why then are McConnell and Wallace contemplating a Scotland opt-out? “Nae identity cards this side of the border” is the cry. This defiance makes an immediate appeal to those among us who dislike the very idea of identity cards. “Wha sae base as be a slave?” and a’ that.
Yes, well, but second thoughts then occur. Have McConnell and Wallace really considered the implications? Or are they perhaps indulging in the politics of the playground? Suppose their opt-out is practical? Suppose, for the moment anyway, that the Scotland Act empowers them to reject Blunkett’s proposals, and refuse to implement them here in Scotland. What then?
Well, a pretty odd state of affairs would arise. First we would have the anomaly whereby some citizens of the United Kingdom would be required to have identity cards and some would not. What would be the consequence for us Scots? How would we fare any time we crossed the border? In the absence of identity cards, would we not be required to carry our passport? Either to satisfy the police that we were who we said we were, or to transact ordinary pieces of business such as hiring a car or getting medical treatment, business for which our British compatriots who are domiciled south of the border would by then be expected or obliged to produce their identity card?
For years unionists, in opposing the SNP, have charged the nationalist with wishing to see passport control and custom post established on the border. For all I know McConnell and Wallace may have joined in this mockery.
You may say this is frivolous, but now consider the reasons Blunkett gives for wanting to introduce identity cards: as a counterterrorist measure and to make it easier to identify and deal with illegal immigrants. The consequences of a Scottish opt-out immediately begin to look rather more serious.
Assume for the moment that the cards do actually make it easier for the authorities to identify and keep track of terrorist suspects. Suppose they make things more difficult for illegal immigrants. And suppose Scotland has opted out. What then? Well, clearly, Scotland becomes the safest part of the United Kingdom for anyone planning acts of terror. It is where they would have the best chance of lying low, undetected, not being required to produce an ID card when, for example, renting an apartment.
“Make Scotland a safe haven for terrorists.” Now that’s a good election slogan.
Likewise, Scotland becomes the natural destination of choice for illegal immigrants, the place where they can lurk while they try to regularise their position, or where they might never have to do that. We all know that McConnell is, quite sensibly, eager to attract more immigrants to Scotland, because of our falling population and the shortage of certain skills here. But whether illegals are the sort of immigrants he really wants to attract is another matter. They are, however, the kind that he would get if we opt out of ID cards.
Actually it is by no means clear that the Scottish executive has the power to do so. It’s more likely that Westminster will make the possession of an identity card a UK-wide measure; and, in truth, however objectionable you find the idea of such cards, allowing Scotland to opt out would make no more sense than allowing us to opt out of the requirement to possess a driving licence. One can only conclude that McConnell and Wallace are indulging in gesture politics.
This doesn’t mean that in one important respect we can’t do things differently.
It is not yet clear just what powers with regard to ID cards Blunkett intends to grant to the police. But it is clear that the Scottish executive can decide for us just what powers will be granted to the Scottish police in this regard. So, while we are unlikely to be able to choose whether we have ID cards or not, we will be able to decide for ourselves when, and in what circumstances, Scottish police will be empowered to require that we produce our card. In this way, the ID card regime might be more respectful of civil liberties in Scotland than in England. Or, of course, less respectful — depending on what the politicians in Westminster and Holyrood decide.
