Cameron be quiet - let the Scottish unionists speak up

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron's declaration that Scotland should conduct a referendum within the next 18 months on whether or not it wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom has angered Scottish nationalists who see it as another example of Westminster interference in Scotland's affairs. But while some commentators have applauded Cameron for boldly taking the initiative, others suggest the PM risks alienating Scottish voters and undermining the unionist cause. Better for Scotland's unionists to speak up themselves.

Where are the unionists?

There is currently only minor support, about 32 per cent, for full Scottish independence, says John Curtice in The Guardian. So it's little wonder the unionists fancy their chances of winning a referendum held now. But there is significantly more support in Scotland for a more powerful Scottish parliament (known as "Devo max"), and Salmond has indicated that he would offer that option as an alternative to full independence. The unionists should consider this compromise.

What this debate needs is more union voices from Scotland itself, says an editorial in The Times. "A London-led unionism under the stewardship of a plummy-voiced Old Etonian is the stuff of Salmond's dreams." Cameron is right that the unionist movement needs a figurehead, "but it must not be him".
 
Cameron is entitled to speak
 
To the casual observer, Cameron appears to be offering those who favour separatism the opportunity they have long sought, says an editorial in The Daily Telegraph. Yet the Scottish National Party has reacted with "outright hostility", accusing Cameron of interfering in Scotland's affairs.  
 
It is true that Cameron is interfering, the editorial continues, "but he is legally entitled to. Moreover, he is doing so on behalf of the Scottish people." Cameron wants to set out clear terms on how and when a referendum would happen. By contrast, SNP leader Alex Salmond, "is being characteristically manipulative and scheming in his approach".

But he should be careful
 
It would be a tragedy if the most successful and mutually enriching partnership between nations in human history were to break up, says an editorial in The Daily Mail. But Cameron should be careful about threatening to impose conditions on the format and timing of an independence referendum.
 
This sort of gamesmanship could raise hackles "among chippier Scots over high-handed English interference", says the Mail, "so playing into the hands of Salmond (himself one of the most slippery and accomplished gamesmen on the political scene)".

The very real danger of Cameron's short-sighted boldness is that he pushes wavering Scots towards the separatist movement, says an editorial in The Independent. Like Cameron's ill-considered use of Britain's EU veto, this seems like another "attention-grabbing move made without taking into account the full implications".   
 
The big questions

Before we get to any sort of vote, however, there are some questions that need answering, writes Richard Ehrman for The Week. "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?"

It is in the interest of both sides that these issues are aired, Ehrman concludes. ·