More like this
Scottish independence: PM leaps into the unknown again
Would Scotland join the euro? Would it have its own army? The big questions start here
ONE of the most striking things about David Cameron is how many of his major decisions come completely out of the blue.
Before the morning of 7 May 2010, no one thought he would end up forming a coalition government. Last month, his decision to veto the new European treaty caught even his own ministers on the hop. Fast forward to the weekend, and no one expected him to throw the future of the United Kingdom up in the air by calling a referendum on Scottish independence, probably to be held in the next 18 months.
To be fair to the Prime Minister, he has been sorely provoked. By announcing that he would hold his own referendum on Scotland’s future in the run-up to the next UK general election, the SNP’s leader, Alex Salmond, was effectively dangling a sword of Damocles over Cameron’s head.
Seen in this light, trying to spike the nationalists’ guns must have made obvious sense. If the referendum is a straight choice between leaving or staying in the UK, which is what Cameron is set to offer, it seems unlikely the Scots will vote to cut themselves adrift – particularly in these uncertain economic times.
Nonetheless, he is taking a leap into the unknown once again. With just 15 out of 123 Members of the Scottish Parliament compared to the SNP’s 69, the Conservatives are a minor force north of the border.
Their leader, Ruth Davidson, has only been in the Edinburgh parliament since last year, and won the leadership in a poll that saw the Scottish Tories nearly tear themselves apart. Salmond, by contrast, has led the SNP for over 20 years (with a break from 2000 to 2004), and been Scotland’s First Minister for the last five of them.
Given the Scots’ deeply ingrained antipathy to English Tories, Salmond’s home advantage will count for a lot. But he can also make the point that his referendum would not just be a straight question of in or out but offer a third option, “devo max”, under which Scotland would have almost complete financial independence but stop short of formal separation. For nationalist-minded but nervous Scots, worried about following the SNP all the way to full independence, this might well prove attractive.
Before we get to any sort of vote, however, there are some questions that need answering. Would an independent Scotland have its own currency or would it join the euro? Who would be responsible for its banks, including the ruinous RBS? How would debts and assets be split between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Would it have its own armed forces? Which country would Scots living elsewhere be citizens of?
“Devo max” has problems too, but different ones. Who would be ultimately responsible for the debts of a financially devolved Scotland? What contribution would it make to services like defence, and what say would it have on them? What role, if any, would be left for Scottish MPs at Westminster?
It should be in the interest of both sides that these issues be aired. Yet the SNP seems to assume that Scotland’s future relationship with the rest of the UK should be for the Scots alone to decide. Cameron, meanwhile, appears intent on stifling discussion of “devo max” before it has even properly begun.
Whoever gets to hold this referendum, therefore, it is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. For Cameron, a bigger risk than losing is that the nationalists will be able to portray a vote ordered by London as somehow illegitimate. If Salmond calls for a boycott, and then holds his own referendum a couple of years later, we could even end up with two plebiscites on the same subject in the space of one parliament.
In the past, the SNP has said it sees no reason why separation from the rest of the UK need be anything other than straightforward and amicable. Yet Scotland and England have been united for over three centuries. The more one considers how such a deep and complex union might be unravelled, the more difficult and potentially acrimonious it looks.
One thing, ironically, that both the Prime Minister and the First Minister probably could agree on is that neither much cares for “devo max”. For Salmond it falls short, while for Cameron it is a step too far. If the Scots really are unwilling, however, to go either for full independence or settle for the status quo, it could well be the compromise we end up with. ·
