Scotland throws a Brexit surprise — or is it?

Even as British prime minister Theresa May prepares to formally trigger Brexit by the end of this month, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a second referendum of independence generated substantial buzz around global media.

“Like all the best political rows there is in fact remarkably little that, on the surface, actually divides Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon,” said The Independent in an editorial.

“The First Minister of Scotland wants to have a referendum when the terms of the Brexit deal are known, which, as the UK Government says, will be somewhere around the autumn of 2018 to the spring of 2019.

"The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn’t want a referendum at least until the terms of the Brexit deal are known, which she imagines will be around the same time. The answer of course, is that Ms May is attempting to employ a degree of subterfuge so obvious as to be almost comical.

"She says that no one wants a referendum now, which of course they do not,” the paper said.

Arguing that Sturgeon has the better of the argument over the Scottish referendum, while May has the power of law on her side, the paper said: “Most Scots may well favour remaining in the UK and are in no hurry to return to the bitter and divisive debates that characterised the first independence referendum ... However their patience will be tested if the Westminster government insists on denying the Scottish parliament its moral right to call a further vote when constitutional circumstances are changing so demonstrably.”

The Guardian drew its readers’ attention to a comprehensive policy plan on Brexit published by May in January and said: “The white paper talks about a vote on the terms of a final Brexit deal but leaves open the question: what if there is no deal? This allows Tory Brexiters to indulge the magical thinking of a Britain unchained from Europe by a hard Brexit.

"The government peddles the fantasy of a tax haven, regulation-lite British lion prowling global markets. It’s a delusion encouraged by ministers who suggest Europe is secretly terrified of dealing with such a beast.

"Labour and Tory rebels should not fall for this circus — and should profitably join hands over the issue. Else they face endorsing a disaster brought about by government distraction and hubris.”

The Financial Times meanwhile highlighted what it called was a situation where “Brexit was pushing the Union towards the cliff edge,” and said: “Brexit was always a threat to the territorial integrity of the UK. The Leave campaign airily dismissed such talk as scaremongering.

"It was not, as Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, made plain on Monday. Ms Sturgeon’s demand for a second referendum on Scottish independence comes as the UK government prepares to trigger Article 50, setting in motion divorce proceedings with the EU.

"The Brexit negotiations will be hard enough. Simultaneously fighting a Scottish referendum campaign would be a nightmare for Theresa May. It would also be against Scotland’s interests to make an irrevocable decision without knowing the terms of Brexit — an irony which will not be lost on Britain’s voters.”

The New York Times took a ringside view of the situation, observing that “the British were fully warned before they voted to quit the European Union that this also risked a break-up of the United Kingdom”. In an editorial titled ‘The Scottish referendum can wait’, the paper said: “When a majority of Scots voted against breaking with Britain in 2014, they were not then voting to break with the European Union, and their preference for staying in the union was firmly confirmed when 62 per cent voted against Brexit in the referendum in June 2016.

So the call by Nicola Sturgeon, head of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland, for another Scottish referendum on independence should come as no surprise to Westminster ... But another plebiscite before Britain concludes the Brexit process would not be prudent.

And though Prime Minister Theresa May appears inconsistent in defending British unity while breaking European unity, she is right in arguing that the Scots need to wait until the complex negotiations with the union are concluded to make a reasoned judgement on what Scotland has to gain or lose from going it alone.”