There is undoubtedly a logic to the proposal that Westminster should legislate to give the Scottish parliament the right to hold a binding referendum on independence – yes or no. It is to inflict the maximum possible damage on the SNP and its leader Alex Salmond.
The SNP may have won a majority in last May's Scottish parliament election, but this success was not occasioned by any dramatic rise in independence fervour. Most opinion polls suggest independence remains a minority preference. For example, the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes survey put support at just 32%, so it is little wonder that unionists fancy their chances of winning a referendum held now.
However, for some time Salmond has had a rather different kind of ballot in mind. Following a process of consultation with the Scottish public, dubbed the "national conversation", the SNP discovered that, while there were still only limited calls for independence, there was support for a much more powerful Scottish parliament within the framework of the union.
Thus the SNP coined the idea of "devolution max". Under this scenario the Scottish parliament would decide more or less all of Scotland's domestic affairs, leaving just defence and foreign affairs in Westminster's hands. And, while indicating that such an option would be his second preference, Salmond has persistently suggested he was minded to give Scots the chance to vote on that option as well as independence. Opinion polls affirm the idea is popular. A recent Ipsos-Mori poll, for example, found that as many as 68% would vote for it.
However, unionists spot a trap. They fear voters would be confused by being asked to consider how much devolution they want, as well as whether they want independence or not. They suspect the anti-independence argument would be heard less clearly. Indeed, such a referendum would probably create a split in the unionist camp. At present the Liberal Democrats north of the border are developing a proposal for Scottish home rule. In contrast, the new Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has set her face against any further devolution beyond that proposed in the Scotland bill currently before parliament. But above all, unionists calculate that a multi-option referendum would give Salmond two bites at the separation cherry. If voters rejected independence but backed devolution max, he would still have secured a valuable consolation prize. Far from bursting the nationalist bubble, Salmond would appear to have brought Scotland closer to the nationalists' eventual goal of independence.
Yet, in their wish to deny Salmond such a prize, unionists are pursuing a high-risk strategy. Unlike Salmond, none of the unionists parties has an electoral mandate to hold any kind of referendum at all. Consequently, it will be all too easy for him to portray the manoeuvre as an unwarranted interference in Scotland's affairs.
Above all, the unionist strategy assumes that, if they were forced to choose between the current devolution settlement and independence, those who want a more powerful Scottish parliament would opt for the status quo. However, having been denied the chance to vote for what they want, those who want more devolution might wonder whether unionists could be relied upon to deliver any more devolution at all, especially once the threat of independence was removed. If just one in three such voters were to adopt that view then suddenly the outcome of the referendum would look too close to call.
There is a potential alternative unionist strategy – one less concerned to maximise the damage inflicted on Salmond and more concerned to minimise the risk that Scotland might vote for independence after all. It would be for unionists to campaign for a new, more radical devolution settlement themselves. But, at the moment at least, there is apparently little prospect of this path being pursued at all.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
9 January 2012 5:37PM
Cameron is gambling with all our lives.
9 January 2012 5:40PM
Scrape 'em off.
9 January 2012 5:41PM
The sooner the better, Salmond and the SNP have been talking the so called referendum to death? How about just having it, most English people would not loose any sleep over Scotland getting its independence at all, in fact many English people would welcome it.
Wonder how Scotland would have dealt with the bailout of Royal Bank of Scotland dire finances going pear shaped without UK financial help?
9 January 2012 5:42PM
Once again Cameron shows arrogance and ignorance towards Scotland and the Scots.
John Curtice to head the No campaign!
9 January 2012 5:43PM
A lot of the (left leaning) media are being highly cynical of Cameron's words today but few are being as cycnical over Salmond's plans to hold the referendum on the 700th aniversary of the last Scottish victory over the English.
Salmond knows independce in a minority view in Scotland right now and is just waiting for the time he thinks he'll get the result he wants, what better way that to hold on a day when anti-English sentiment is at it's highest and give yourself 2 whole years to talk down the English and try and overturn the deficit in Yes's he needs.
9 January 2012 5:44PM
The SNP: "We will not rest until Scotland is free!
Cameron: "Well, why waste more time when we can agree to have Scotland free right now?
The SNP: We will rest for two years, then we will want Scotland free!
Talk about having one's cake and eating it.
9 January 2012 5:45PM
After this intervention, and placing Osborne at the head of the committee to decide what and when Scotland will get to vote on (because the committee requires a "Senior Minister" not the Secretary of State for Scotland) it's hard not to see Cameron as supporting Independence.
9 January 2012 5:46PM
There's no evidence, anywhere, that Salmond plans to have the referendum on the anniverary of Bannockburn. Or of any of the Jacobite victories, come to that.
9 January 2012 5:47PM
Talk about following the policies you were elected on.
Strange concept, eh?
9 January 2012 5:47PM
Surely a union has at least two side to it. In this case Scotland and the rest of the UK. It would seem reasonable for the referendum to cover both sides and only if both sides wish the union to continue should it do so.
So if Scotland vote to stay but the rest of us wish Scotland to become independent then they're on their own.
9 January 2012 5:48PM
As a nationalist I don't want it but have to ask unionists what the hell is wrong with devo max from their point of view?
It removes the west Lothian question as there would be no need for Scottish MPs at Westminister, gets rid of the subsidy junkie jibes as Scotland would raise It's own revenue and ensures the UK remains as a political entity.
The only other thing that is being offered is the status quo which most Scots definetly do not want.
9 January 2012 5:49PM
No. It is frankly dishonest to act like offering Independence is a bad thing. If they don't want to be independent, they should be happy with what they have. The Home Counties don't get a referendum to opt out of funding council estates up North, because we are one country. You are either part of that country or not.
9 January 2012 5:50PM
It seems a remarkably risky thing to do for someone who is supposedly dedicated to the Union (I've never quite understood why Conservatives are so keen on the Union as most seem to hate the Scottish and without Scotland Labour could never take power again).
But any straight 'yes/no' referendum is always going to be a huge risk. 2012 is likely to be a very difficult year for everyone as the UK heads for a recession (which I suspect will be steeper than most are predicting) and the crisis within the Eurozone. Experience from countries more used to referendums is that when faced with a blunt yes/no, voters often give unexpected results - seeing (for example) the referendum as a way to punish unpopular politicians. I could easily see many pro-union Scots vote 'yes' for independence simply because they couldn't stand see Camerons smug face if he won.
A clear example would be the former Czechoslovakia - there was no real desire among either the Czechs or Slovaks to split up, despite their mutual resentments, but a series of political accidents and bluff-calling led to the almost accidental creation of two countries out of one. I could easily see this happen in the next year or two with the UK.
9 January 2012 5:50PM
Better tell that to media outlets then who are nearly all reporting it, including the [supposedly] reputable BBC.
9 January 2012 5:51PM
Opinion polls suggest the opposite.
9 January 2012 5:52PM
The SNP can not offer devo-max, only independence or no-change. The Scots are not the sole arbiters of their relationship with the rest of the UK whilst we share a common country in which they take full part; that relationship is by definition two-way. All the voters in Scotland can do is vote to negotiate for more devolution from the rest of the UK which will require Westminster to also address the government of England.
9 January 2012 5:52PM
If Cameron is so worried abot a Scottish devo vote then he should simply give the
English in one.
And regardless of that, he will let Scotland determine England's time zone
( if only by default ).
9 January 2012 5:52PM
If Scotland votes for independence from England, can Wales and Northern Ireland join them as well please?. I'd be quite happy living in the United Celtic Kingdom of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The North of England can join us too, as long as the Tory heartlands of Middle England and the City are kicked out of our Union.
9 January 2012 5:53PM
A referendum with anything other than 'Yes' or 'No' is a waste of time.
If you get a 60% Yes and 40% No you can claim a victory for Yes even if there is only a 50% turnout.
But if you get 40% A, 35% B and 25% C with a 50% turnout, what then? Could you get an independent Scotland when most people had voted for something else?
Salmond knows full well it's all or nothing. He's just hoping for some English interference to boost his chances.
9 January 2012 5:53PM
Oops. That should, of course, have been :
simply give the English a vote in one.
9 January 2012 5:53PM
Has it occurred to anyone else that, given the historical links, it would make miles more sense for Northern Ireland to be part of an independent Scotland than part of the UK without Scotland?
That is not a facetious question. It really would make more sense.
9 January 2012 5:53PM
No. Opinion polls show a majority in favour of futher devolution.
9 January 2012 5:54PM
On no evidence.
Actually, they are going to hold it on the anniversary of the English defeat at Wembley in 1967. Remember, you heard it here first.
9 January 2012 5:55PM
It seems perfectly satisfactorily for me as someone living in england for the scottish to choose there degree of independance from the rest of the UK but it would need to be on a fair basis for all involved
(1) Full independance with own foreign & defence matters with own tax system & accountability no involvement from within rest of uk
(2) Independance excluding foreign & defence with scotland making financial contributions towards the later & no payments made to scotland by rest of uk in subsidy
(3) Operate the status quo or some amendmant there of
On a note of warning to the scottish if it would likely lead to them being a full paid member of the eu then the whole exercise of independance would be wasted and id stick with the last two option
9 January 2012 5:55PM
Ouch. Those are not historical links I'd be keen on remembering.
9 January 2012 5:55PM
The English and Cameron had to put up with 13 years of Prudence Brown who showed no end of arrogance and ignorance towards England and the English.
Having said that, I love Scotland, it's a beautiful country and it will be better off without the English, our politicians don't like the English they never had.
9 January 2012 5:56PM
I'm an Englishman who is happy to see Scotland go. Cameron though belongs to the real believers who feel the Union is important (for reasons many English people simply don't see anymore).
I think Cameron is betting that human nature is that when times are hard people do not make risky political decisions; they tend to take political leaps of faith only when things are going well economically and they can afford the risk.
9 January 2012 5:57PM
Yep that's true, Most hardcore Ulster Unionists would regard themselves to be from Scottish descent and both Communities, Nationalist and Unionist have deep historical and family links to Scotland. We quite like Scottish people in Northern Ireland. It's only the English and Each other that we don't like
9 January 2012 5:58PM
Maybe not. But the Northern Irish link to the UK is originally a link to Scotland, in large part.
9 January 2012 5:59PM
Well if that's what the Scots why not?
Can the Welsh have it too please?
9 January 2012 5:59PM
It can only be "yes" or "no". That's the whole point of independence. Either you're independent, or you're not. There is no in-between.
This article is nothing more than yet another pitiful attempt to slag off Cameron. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan, but John Curtice is scraping the barrel here.
9 January 2012 5:59PM
If the unionist analysis is as you suggest they have it badly wrong. A sizeable share of potential 'Yes' voters for independence aren't nationalists at all, or at least not to the degree that would influence their political choices. They want better policy making, and they also want the social democratic values of Scotland to be protected from the occasional English Conservative government - consisting of ideas and personnel more alien to Scottish political culture than London Tories are capable of understanding.
Grant them this and the remaining case for independence will be purely nationalistic. This sort of nationalism is an emotion, not an idea and will never command a majority in Scotland. The Enlightenment remains an important part of the Scottish make up, and with this comes a lively contempt for anyone who would try to manipulate the people with any irrational mood music.
That leaves the puzzle of why Cameron is so mis-handling the issue. It is, obviously, because he is an English nationalist himself. An undeclared English Nationalist Party sits on the hard right backbenches of the Conservative Party. Cameron conceded the isolation of Tory MEPs as the price to become leader of his party in the first place. He succumbed to their influence again with the farce of the recent EuroZone 'veto', and is now failing on a third policy area under their sway.
The irony of this is that between these two nationalists it is Salmond, the man who publicly bears the mark of this most unattractive style of politics, who is the less deceived.
9 January 2012 5:59PM
Further devolution is OK as long as the English don't end up paying for the Scots to have free things which we don't get.
That really annoying woman Nicola Sturgeon is going to get right up our noises if we keep seeing her on the BBC.
9 January 2012 5:59PM
The Unionists know they've been boxed in by one of the best politicians and the most well-organised party in the country (at least the brighter ones realise that). They can't abolish the Scottish Parliament, independence is by definition out, and reform would detract from the message of 'hold the line'.
It's going to be interesting to see how far the Unionist parties will collaborate (if at all). I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Labourites from Glasgow have to play nice with tweedy Tories from Perthshire. While Cameron is making a gamble, no mistake about that, Salmond is also making a gamble that the intense dislike the Unionist parties have for each other will prevent a co-ordinated defence of the union. Divide and conquer: except the Unionists have gone to the trouble of dividing themselves before they've even started.
9 January 2012 6:00PM
union of crowns
independent of government
westminster rich eton boys
too much corruption in Wedstminster
SNP Salmond think for the peoplle
Blair thought about money now he is a muulti millionaire
freedom for Scotland and also England away from duplicity untrust people that pretend to be politicians
9 January 2012 6:01PM
A great idea. A form of Federal Republic is not only the smart solution but the one that majority of voters, even those in England, could get behind.
Certainly, the Tories are angling to avoid that particular referendum by putting forth this bullshit black&white variant of the devolution question. Perhaps in part because they fear that, once a precedent has been set, other areas - even those within England - may move for a similar kind of statehood autonomy. The Tories probably realise that, whereas now they hold sway over the whole of England, under a balkanized England, they could probably only hope to dominate 1-2 British states out of at least 5 (depending on whether you had a single southern state, or a SW and SE).
9 January 2012 6:01PM
That's an extremely incomplete and misleading impression of what the survey actually said. See here for a fuller analysis:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12868
9 January 2012 6:02PM
You do realise that under Gordon Brown we had a prime minister who had signed the Scottish Claim of Right and simultaneously refused to ever even admit England existed! It was always Scotland up there and Britain down here.
I'd be interested if anyone can find any reference to Gordon Brown ever saying the word England outside of a sporting context?
9 January 2012 6:02PM
If one partner in a treaty (in this case the Act of Union) wants to bring it to an end they are able to do so. Clearly both partners can make a decision ( via referenda) at the same time but in each case it would be to secede from the union. England is clearly free to organize its own referendum if it wants to leave the Union but as far as I'm aware no existing political party is currently proposing this. This leaves you plenty of scope to start you own.
9 January 2012 6:02PM
What with the sizable Scottish Labour MP contingent, and negligable Scottish Conservative force, full political independence may well be very bad news for Labour electorally.
No one has mentioned this. Am i missing something?
9 January 2012 6:02PM
Cameron has made a big mistake here, I suspect, (unless you believe that the Tories want devolution to secure power in Engalnd). There's nothing more likely to fan the flames of independence than a Tory govermnent attempting to force its views on Scotland.
And lets face it, Salmond is whatever your views on his policies, an immeasurably cleverer and cunning tactician than Cameron.
9 January 2012 6:02PM
Source for the Bannockburn date, please?
9 January 2012 6:03PM
Good.
Yes we do. Labour has by far the most Scottish seats in Westminster - which happens to be the parliament which has the legal power to have a referendum.
No shit, Sherlock. But I'd rather deal with that than watch my country (Britain) broken into pieces because everybody outside the Scottish region is tiptoe-ing around the issue.
9 January 2012 6:04PM
That's true, and it's very unfair of me to link that to the much more recent sectarian problems. I think I have to accept that Scotland has to work its way through those problems, in the same brave way that Northern Ireland has.
9 January 2012 6:04PM
Does Cameron fear losing that much that he won't allow devo max? Surely it would be better than full independence?
If Cameron keeps interfering in the Scotland's own affairs, he will face repercussions from the people and rightly so.
9 January 2012 6:04PM
See previous post on devo max with regard to paying for it.
You think Nicola Sturgeon is annoying? You have no idea of what most Scots think of Dave, Nick and Gideon
9 January 2012 6:04PM
As an Englishman with a Scottish mother who spent my university years in Scotland and who has many Scottish friends, I often notice how many people I meet with similar links to both countries. Although most people can tell you whether they are Scottish or English, and although some Scots/English people have no connection to the other country, there are still millions who do have links of that kind. The interweaving of the countries is extremely strong and extremely deep.
I think that the links will only continue to get stronger. This is probably a last hurrah of the independence movement - now or never. I hope never, for the reasons above.
It also makes it hard to decide who gets to vote - and a wide net will probably sink Salmond's chances irretrievably, as those with links are likely to want to keep the union.
9 January 2012 6:04PM
I called you on this nonsense yesterday - that's a meaningless question, since RBS was not a Scottish bank at the time it went tits-up.
I appreciate that you've made your mind up and you've got an ideology to push, but it would be much better for everybody if you refrained from repeating stupid statements ad infinitum.
9 January 2012 6:05PM
Your knowledge of history is almost as poor as your knowledge of Scottish politics.
9 January 2012 6:05PM
Don't you think people have tried? The phrase 'too good to check' comes to mind.