Was the Conservative-led coalition’s sudden attempt to stampede the Scottish government into holding an early independence referendum a blunder or a blinder for the Union?
Probably this may only be judged when the outcome of the poll is known, three years down the line. What is clear already is that the bullying manoeuvre has plunged all the contending political forces into a fine stew of confusion and uncertainty.
It was unquestionably the ruling SNP government’s right to spurn the coalition’s demands to bring the poll forward, and to insist on its electoral mandate to call its own advisory referendum in the autumn
of 2014.
The SNP has always judged, for a variety of reasons, that its chances of turning a minority in favour of independence into a majority will be better by then, but it can also be argued that a 1,000 days of debate are much needed to thrash out and clarify the issues.
What the coalition’s attempted railroading has done is to bring the whole matter right up into the political forefront, not only in Scotland, but across the United Kingdom and internationally – and this is a good thing.
What is a bad thing is the Tory-Lib Democrat endeavour to force the poll into a single question of “Yes” or “No” to independence itself, and worse is that
the Labour opposition has willingly acquiesced.
The SNP has yet to declare its hand, because of internal divisions. Many in its ranks are equally keen to limit the question to one, in the belief that this is a once-in-a-generation chance to break through to their cherished goal.
On the other hand, they realise that a “Yes” to a second question, radically increasing Holyrood’s fiscal powers, known as “devo-max,” would enable them to operate a considerably more effective administration, albeit within the Union.
The nationalists have shilly-shallied on this for far too long and need to make up their minds to supporting two questions. Maximum devolution is the preferred way forward for most Scots expressed in one opinion poll after another.
Devo-max – a horrid but handy term – means Scotland raising and spending all its own taxes, reserving only defence and foreign affairs to the Westminster government. This can also be called the federal solution.
The Lib Dems, once a strongly federalist party, will now oblige their Tory masters by seeking to exclude this option during the negotiations which they have been delegated to undertake with the SNP.
The most startling response to the coalition’s bombardment was Labour’s, both Ed Miliband and new Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont lining themselves up to campaign with the Tories and Lib Dems for a single, independence or nothing question and a “No” vote.
What persuaded them to get boxed in like this? Their tactic is to bury independence, and leave any significant development of the existing devolution settlement to the distant future. But this betrays that same negativity, lack of vision and ambition for Scotland which has seen Labour’s recent downfall.
At bottom, it could be down to simple Westminster parliamentary arithmetic. With independence, Labour would lose 40-50 MPs. With devo-max, Scottish representation in the House of Commons would be cut back.
Not everyone in Scottish Labour is as hidebound as its London and Holyrood leaderships. The former First Minister Henry McLeish has stated: “Instead of saving the Union, the key objective must be to change it. In my view, the Union is not fit for purpose.”
He wants to see an autonomous Scotland with full fiscal powers. He warned his party not to link its anti-independence campaign with the toxic Tories, or the dysfunctional Lib Dems.
Taken with the London leadership’s recent volte face of largely accepting the coalition cuts programme, it is difficult to see how Labour can regain power in Scotland on any terms, never mind the rest of Britain.
Canon Kenyon Wright, the venerable church leader, has made a strong intervention. He said the Westminster Government “must not be allowed to dictate the terms of the referendum or the options to
be offered”.
He declared: “My own view is that a straight choice between independence and the status quo effectively disenfranchises a large number of Scots who want neither.”
He strongly urged that discussions on a second question about more powers must be included in the ensuing consultations.
Why should the views of this worthy cleric carry so much weight? He will be little known south of the border, but is highly regarded in Scotland as one of the architects behind the recreation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.
He convened the cross-party Scottish Constitutional Convention, which provided the blueprint for the two-question referendum of 1997, and for the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
If only that Scottish Constitutional Convention, or an equivalent body, was sitting today. Under its umbrella, all the main political parties co-operated (except the SNP), together with a broad range of civic bodies, from the Scottish TUC, to individual trade unions, the churches, voluntary organisations and pressure groups.
Its participants worked for years to reach a consensus in devising a package for the restored Parliament, for which the incoming Labour Government was largely able to accept and legislate.
It is much to be hoped that the consultations shortly to be launched by the Westminster and Scottish governments will embrace views from across Scottish society, ensuring that they are ultimately given a voice in a two-question referendum
