The battle for Scotland began in earnest this week with David Cameron’s offer to give Alex Salmond the power to hold a decisive referendum on independence—but only if that referendum is held “sooner rather than later,” and only if it is on a clear in-or-out vote.
Salmond’s response has been equally bold. Ignoring Westminster he has declared that the referendum will be held in the autumn of 2014, and is refusing to rule out a third option of more powers by insisting that the referendum must be “made, built and run” in Scotland. A major constitutional crisis is brewing which may only be resolved by a protracted fight in the courts.
On the surface of it, the logic behind Cameron’s decision is obvious. Polls consistently put support for independence around the 30 per cent mark, meaning that an early in-or-out vote would give him the best possible chance of winning. Ideally, he would like to stop the Scottish government from holding the referendum at the time most convenient to the cause of Scottish nationalism: the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
Moreover, he wants to deprive Salmond of a third option: the consolation prize of “devolution-max,” which would not only hand the SNP control of all domestic affairs north of the border, but which would also allow him to keep the political momentum with the SNP, even if they lose the vote on independence.
Since the two governments look set to clash over the timing of referendum and especially the question put to Scottish voters, it is worth asking whether Cameron’s rationale—one shared by all unionist parties—stacks up.
An early referendum might scupper SNP plans but it shouldn’t be assumed that it will automatically help the forces of unionism. Are they really ready to do battle with the undisputed king of Scottish politics? To win they can’t simply gamble on the fact that polls indicate only minority support for independence. They will have to advance a compelling account of why the Union matters in the 21st century—something they have signally failed to articulate in recent years.
In the absence of a positive argument in favour of union, an early referendum would in all likelihood see them forced into running a negative and counterproductive campaign about how an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to survive in the world. These scare tactics no longer work. Just ask Scottish Labour, which has lost two elections doing just that.
In many important respects the SNP are much better prepared than the Union camp. They have amassed an impressive war chest for their campaign, they have a slick ground operation in place, and they have a senior team to front it. The unionist parties, in contrast, can’t even decide who should lead a “no” campaign. A referendum in the second half of the parliament might suit the SNP, but equally it might give unionist parties the time they need to get their act together too. It wouldn’t surprise me if Westminster let Salmond have his 2014 date.
The UK government will, however, be much more resistant to making concessions about the question. From a unionist perspective, it is easy to see why they are reluctant to give Salmond a fall-back option. But they need to recognise that their refusal to countenance more powers runs the risk of further weakening their appeal in Scotland. Unlike independence, “devo max” is something which a clear majority of them say they support. A recent Ipsos Mori poll found that 68 per cent of Scottish voters said they would back a “devolution-max” proposal. By blocking Scots the right to vote for more powers it might encourage them to support the more radical separatist option.
Rather than ruling out more powers in principle, the UK government could commit ahead of the referendum to devolving significant powers to Scotland, should Scots decide to stay in the union. These powers would need to be agreed in advance (no mean feat as the three main parties are currently divided on this issue) so that Scots trust the UK government to deliver on them. The attractions of such an approach is that it makes a “no” vote in any referendum a positive vote and it puts unionism firmly on the side of mainstream public opinion in Scotland.
Alternatively, the UK government could back a third option and then campaign vigorously for a new, devolved settlement—an approach which would force the SNP to make its case for independence. It is only by becoming the champions of greater devolution within the UK that unionism will really recapture the political initiative in Scotland.
Edward Harkins
“The battle for Scotland began in earnest this week with David Cameron’s offer… “
What a give-away, so metro London elite concentric; so Westminster myopic.
We are told that when PM Cameron tries on an opportunistic wheeze, that is the start of the battle for Scotland. Never mind then: the establishment of the Independent Labour Party in the 19th century; the avowed Home Rule, then a version of Devo Max once promoted by the Liberals; Conservative Leaders Home and Heath’s reneged promises to the Scottish electorate on devolution; the motivation behind Labour’s original devolution Act (“to kill Nationalism stone dead”); the fact that the SNP having been established in the 1920s have been in the ascendant in Town Halls and the Scottish Parliament as a governing force for over two decades now?
Nope, all that doesn’t count, it only counts when the metro London elites decide to take belated notice of what has been going on.
Cameron’s clumsy attempt at a Westminster-managed referendum, steered at a distance from Downing Street, is typical of the clod-thumping ineptness that seems to mark the anti-independence Westminster Parties at every turn.
I, incidentally, have heard or read virtually no reference to the Scottish Conservative Party, or its Scottish Leader, in the recent interviews with PM Cameron on this topic, or in the media reports (presumably part-briefed by the Conservative Party.UK Government).
So the Scottish Conservative Party Leader is marginalised and belittled by her own UK Party Leader on what should be her ‘home ground’. Her counterpart predecessors in the Scottish Labour Party suffered, again and again, much the same treatment from their London Party managers.
It was so correct of Henry McLeish, a former Labour first minister who opposes independence, to have recently, in the FT (09.01.12), accused Mr Cameron of behaving opportunistically with his latest wheeze on setting referendum terms to Scotland. McLeish said: “The danger in David Cameron’s approach is that he polarises opinion between this rock of Unionism at Westminster and a hard place of independence.”
Meantime we had Chancellor Osborne’s frankly risible and legally inept ‘threat’ that an independent Scotland might not ‘be allowed’ to use the £ Sterling. Such petty and negative scaremongering has been repeated by the Conservative’s Coalition partners and the Labour Party.
‘Union’ appears to be an especially inappropriate label to apply to these parties.
Another aspect, however, that is disquieting is how an whole array of journalists and wanna-be commentators have come out with clone-like ‘messages’ very much in line with, and timed along with, the Westminster production line. We have the give-away start to this piece, and, for example, the normally dependable John Lloyd in the FT last produced a shallow, factually dubious, and stereo-typing piece that came close to being offensive to the average Scottish voter. The headline and sub-headline tells us much about the nature of his political polemic:
“Scotland’s secessionists are slaves to a romantic tartan past -SNP strategy boils down to medieval populist”
Positively arguing the merits and benefits of the UK is one thing (and the case could be made strong) – but diatribes and mocking references to tartan etc. recall an old Anglo-colonial patrician mindset of the worse sort.
The sole redeeming attribute in Guy Lodge’s piece is recognition that a pre-emptive offer to the Scottish electorate, along the lines of Devo Max, is now essential to the Unionist cause. (If you need some background on that, I suggest that you make reference to the excellent paper produced recently by Reform Scotland on the various constitutional options – thank goodness for couthy Edinburgh common sense instead of London hysteria and thrashing about).
Does it ever occur to anti-independent Westminster politicians and their supporting journalists that endless threats, personal sneers against a First Minister, polemics and commentaries of this sort, quite possibly has the effect of causing offence to many undecided, but perfectly sensible, Scottish voters, who may well then decide that being grown-up and independent might not be so bad an option after all?
Stephen Gash
A whole article about saving the UK without once mentioning England or English.
Unless the English are accepted as a nation and treated as equals with the smaller nations with the establishment of an English parliament there is no future for the UK.
33% of English people now want independence, the same proportion as Scots wanting Scotland’s.
The difference is it has taken Scotland 80 years to arrive at this proportion, while for England merely a decade. In 1997 those English people wanting independence was about 5%. The growth has been exponential.
English people will not accept devo-max without their own devolved parliament.
All parties are committed to reducing the unelected House of Lords in size. It would be easier to replace it with an elected English parliament. The House of Lords doesn’t even scrutinise the devolved chambers, only English affairs.
Rather than devo-max being the only thing that can save the Union, it is an English parliament.
Junius
Scotland – Scotland – Scotland – You can’t open a newspaper, a webpage – turn on the radio or TV without being inundated with this little nation and their oh so easily offended minority.
Like Stephen Nash – I ask the question What About England?; stop pandering to the disaffected 5 million and start worrying about the disenfranchised 55 million who could blow this union to kingdom come (metaphorically speaking of course!)
Home Rule for England
“the UK government could commit ahead of the referendum to devolving significant powers to Scotland”
Does the UK government have a mandate for that?
Will Scottish constituency MPs be excluded from any negotiations? If not then we will effectively have Scotland negotiating with itself!
shaun the brummie
who wants to save the union,not the english.force the scots to an in or out vote,dont let the carpet bagger salmond wheedle more money out of the english taxpayer.and while we’re at it lets plan for the day we make ourselves independent of wales and mini scotland(n.ireland).so much deceltification to do…and am looking forward so much to the pleadings of the celts.let them pay their own way(and one little personal favourite of mine,kick welsh teams out of english football).
John Drummond
Salmond is getting too much air. Give him an ultimatum a referendum as Cameron has described, or Scotland is booted out regardless.
As an expatriate Brit of Scottish descent I’m sick of Salmon’s posturing, he reminds me of a Scargill concerned more about his own importance than the interests of the community.
It shouldn’t worry Cameron too much anyway. Britain would be financially better off without Scotland.
And you never know Scotland may be financially better off too!
Toque
“Rather than ruling out more powers in principle, the UK government could commit ahead of the referendum to devolving significant powers to Scotland, should Scots decide to stay in the union.”
And what would the other inhabitants of the UK make of that?
And would it, in any case, be against the Electoral Commission rules (unless the Unionists quickly redraft the Elections and Referendums Act)?
The way to get devo-max is to ask a consultative question: Do you authorise the Scottish Government to enter into negotiations with Westminster….
Ramon Lull
It is time we had done with this counter-productive superannuated union charade. The Tory coalition has no mandate north of Leicester. The cabale of public school boys currently running the Westminster circus should keep their hands off North British affairs which do not concern them. Scotland, and Scotland alone, will decide its future political configuration.
Mr Gumdrop
why is it that only the Scots are allowed to vote on devolution? What about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The people of these countries will be afected just as much, if not more, than the Scots.
cHRIS yAPP
cAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS IF sCOTLAND VOTES FOR INDEPENDENCE IN 2014 WHEN IT COMES TO THE 2015 GENERAL ELECTION?