General Election 2017 - SNP and Scotland: To have a wider influence at Westminster, Scottish MPs must bring soft power to bear

Thanks to devolution, Scottish MPs occupy an awkward role at Westminster - dependent upon the soft power of Westminster outside of the reserved questions of foreign policy and defence.

MPs for Scotland, thanks to the devolution of powers, have a very particular role. The few matters still reserved to Westminster are foreign policy and defence, energy and welfare - and with the extension of tax raising powers, even welfare can now be influenced from Holyrood.

So, for those who represent Scottish constituencies, Westminster has become in fact a federal parliament - focused on collective questions of Britain's relationship with the world and how it makes use of its natural resources.

Scottish National Party

Strangely though, the SNP have chosen to release a full manifesto that covers even the devolved matters. Perhaps the opportunity to put across its intentions at Holyrood or pressure to appear comprehensive has forced the party's hand.

On the devolved matters are some major pledges: centred on an £118 billion investment package in public services to counteract Tory cuts impact on Scotland - including investment in the NHS and introducing a new 50p tax rate.

But it's on reserved matters, what the party's MPs will tackle at Westminster, that attention here will focus.

The party has pledged to push for devolution of immigration powers to ensure a fairer immigration policy. The SNP argue that Scotland has different needs to those of the UK as a whole - that free movement of working age immigrants is vital to the economy of Scotland.

The party has also pledged to fight against fight cuts to welfare, treading ground on which even other progressive parties have been timid. Labour have not pledged much and while the Lib Dems pledged a little more, they have not really campaigned on those proposals.

Now, welfare policy will soon be something that can be adjusted and added to in Scotland, but baseline will be set for UK in Westminster. The SNP has promised to fight funding cuts and to raise money to make welfare more generous North of the border.

On foreign policy and defence - including Brexit - the SNP have the advantage of a clear stance. While the party supports EU cooperation, remaining in the Single Market, and ending the use of the Trident nuclear deterrent, there is a not a lot of depth on foreign policy in the area of defence and intervention.

Historically though, the SNP has taken a similar, centrist line to the Liberal Democrats - that the military should be maintained and that interventions should be led by United Nations resolutions, in accordance with international law.

The lack of depth perhaps reflects the question which muddies the waters of the SNP's voice on foreign policy and how much it influences, or should influence, wider UK opinion: if the SNP wishes for Scotland to be independent of the UK, how can it hope to play a leading role in setting the tone of Britain's relationship with the world?

SNP and their opposition

The SNP's opponents have their own stances on foreign policy that might be more clear, for better or worse.

The Tories are now resolved to pursue Brexit, are very clearly prepared to intervene militarily, and are clearly pro-Nuclear deterrent. Opposite to them stand the Liberal Democrats, who are the pro-European party. They want EU cooperation on foreign policy. On other questions though, they tread a tightrope of centrist equivocation.

Labour has also faced being indistinct on some of these big foreign policy questions - though it has been a symptom of being deeply divided internal politics rather than pragmatism.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn's own stances, however, the party has resolved in favour of NATO and in favour of retaining Trident. The party's MPs also rebelled against the party line, following a Hillary Benn speech, to support intervention in Syria.

On foreign policy the SNP are pro-UN, anti-Nuclear weapons, pragmatists, in a field of pragmatists, with independence hanging over their stances. So it is unsurprising that they are trying to distinguish themselves by way of their role at the head of the Scottish Government.

Above all, the SNP are promising to be an anti-Tory party of strong opposition. But for the SNP, as with other parties in Scotland, MPs from Scotland's constituencies will have little voting power on the broad majority of issues.

Soft Power

Defending the party's ability to act as an opposition at Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon praised Angus Robertson - the SNP's Westminster leader - for being the effective voice of opposition at PMQs and raising important issues in key debates. The SNP have also repeatedly stressed that they are prepared to work with other progressive parties at Westminster, to cooperate and collaborate in defending common values that are threatened by Tory policies.

Sturgeon stressed how the SNP had played a pivotal role at Westminster in exposing the issues hidden within Tory policies and forcing Theresa May and David Cameron, and their respective governments, into one U-turn after another.

However, devolution for Scotland has created in fact a two-tier Parliament at Westminster and taken away the hard power, the ability to vote, of Scottish MPs on many issues. With devolved matters, the SNP's accomplishments have to be achieved with soft power. With speeches, by getting press interest on an issue, and then gathering public pressure - and bringing it to bear.

Voters in Scotland should keep this in mind when casting their ballots. Who represents them on foreign policy? On defence? On Brexit? And, who can bring the soft power of public opinion and rhetoric to bear on those issues that fall on the periphery of Scottish jurisdiction?

When it comes down to it, Scottish MPs go to Westminster with a very specific mandate to address collective UK matters of foreign policy, defence and reserved broader economic questions. It is really on these issues that Scottish voters should make their choice.

May's foreign policy has the contradictions, nuances and cynicism of the twentieth century and it's alienating a generation who want fair, earnest and ethical government

Demonstrators in London turnout in large numbers to show that the Trump brand of exclusion isn't welcome. Photograph: Women's March London, 21 January 2017 by David Holt (License) (Cropped)

Prime Minister Theresa May's past week looks like the scary version of life after Brexit. To Washington, to play chief diplomatic sycophant to Trump. Then off to Turkey to sell Erdogan some British manufactured arms.

Diplomacy has always been about picking friends carefully. That has often meant making unsavoury friends and condemning the more reasonable ones. But now, more than ever, striking that delicate balance must account for the public.

Diplomacy and foreign policy is an art practised as far inside the 'corridors of power', and as far away from the citizens on the street, as any element of government. That cannot continue. It needs to change.

It is no longer sustainable for the Prime Minister to jet jet off around the world to gladhand, and do deals with, leaders who have human rights questions - inadequately answered - hanging over them.

In the US, Trump has the lowest approval ratings in history (Carlsen, 2017), and has faced protests against nearly every policy he has announced in his first two weeks - not just in the US, but around the world. But May is there on business.

May wants to talk trade, wants an exclusive deal. The trouble is that any deal is likely to be disadvantageous to all but American corporations and fraught with many of the same problems as EU-US trade talks: TTIP, food quality standards, private competition in healthcare (Umunna, 2017).

And what about Erdogan? The backlash from the PM's visit to America had not settled down when she arrived in Turkey, almost unnoticed in the furore, to sign a £100m deal for fighter jets (BBC, 2017).

The UK's cynical role in the arms trade has already caused a lot of controversy, waved away with denials, bluster and the promise of jobs. The UK-Saudi relationship has been a frequent embarrassment and horror - from the suppression of women's rights (Withnall, 2016) to, and particularly apt for May's visit to Turkey, British arms being used in the ongoing war in Yemen (Graham-Harrison, 2016).

In Turkey, 140,000 people rounded up, academics fired, and journalists suppressed or arrested, in a consolidation of power following last year's attempted coup (Lowen, 2017).

That these are likely to be the UK's new and enduring friends after leaving the European Union, as the UK scrambles to accumulate trade cash, will not endear Britain's new horizon to progressives.

It will be even harder to comprehend for many of the younger people who are turning out to protest, even many into their thirties, who did not grow up amidst the nuance and cynicism of twentieth century international politics.

Their formative years were under the governments of Bush and Blair. They saw dodgy dossiers lead to invasions, lead to countries collapsing, lead to extended occupations, lead to the selfish, almost gleeful, extraction of fossil fuels while all hell broke loose - and then the subsequent rise of terrorism.

It's not a mystery what these young people, whose views on international relations were formed in the years, want: ethical government. To be represented honestly. That's why Theresa May's visits to Trump, to Erdogan, can set people aflame and launch protest movements.

When Britain preaches its values one moment, threatens to withdraw from international human rights agreements and undermines the independence of the judiciary in another, then jets off for smiles and handshakes with the oppressors of minorities in the next, it is hard to find consistency.

Trump promises America First, and May to make a success of Brexit, but that sense of narrow interest belies the reality that many people now have broader horizons and greater empathy. This national-level cognitive dissonance, between the official voice and the citizens, will be expressed today in more protests.

Across Britain, Theresa May's foreign policy will face protests in solidarity with Muslims everywhere and with refugees who flee from violence and oppression just to be labelled and shunned by official acts of exclusion. And those demonstrations will carry with them the progressive call for the idea of a government, and international relations, based on deals that are fair and ethical.