George Osborne follows example of hero LBJ in calling Alex Salmond's bluff

Chancellor's decision to press for early referendum on Scottish independence reminiscent of bold move on inheritance tax

Britain's Chancellor George Osborne speaks at the Conservative spring forum in Cardiff
Gerorge Osborne is following in the footsteps of his hero Lyndon Baines Johnson as he attempts to call Alex Salmond's bluff. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

George Osborne regards his pledge in 2007 to scrap inheritance tax for properties worth less than £1m as one of his finest achievements. His bold move unsettled Gordon Brown and was the key factor in persuading the then prime minister to abandon plans to hold an early general election.

The government's decision to call Alex Salmond's bluff and devolve powers to the Scottish parliament, on a temporary basis, to hold a binding referendum on Scotland's constitutional future bears the imprint of Osborne. The chancellor, who briefed the cabinet on his plans on Monday, believes that great leaders embark on bold moves which remake the political landscape. That is the lesson he learnt from his favourite political work, Robert Caro's epic biography of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

But do Osborne's bold moves work? The chancellor doesn't like to be reminded that his inheritance tax pledge worked brilliantly on a tactical basis by spooking Brown. But strategically it left the Tories open to charges that they were only interested in helping the better off. That may or may not have cost the Tories the election. But Osborne's failure to secure a majority means his inheritance tax proposal is unlikely to be introduced in this parliament.

The Osborne move on Scotland looks clever politically. At a stroke he hopes to kill off Salmond's slowly slowly approach in which the SNP would wait as long as possible to hold a referendum. Even then the SNP would maintain its cautious approach by offering voters the chance of supporting "devo max" – greater devolution that just falls short of independence.

But the atmospherics leave much to be desired, according to the Liberal Democrats and Labour. As I reported this morning, there was surprise that Downing Street thought it was wise for Osborne to take the lead in briefing the cabinet at a meeting held at the site of the London Olympics. The chancellor chairs the cabinet sub-committee on Scotland. It is not unusual for a senior cabinet minister to chair such a group. But the Lib Dems and Labour believe it would have been wise to allow Michael Moore, the Scotland secretary, to lead the cabinet discussion. The Lib Dems have 11 Westminster seats in Scotland. The Tories have just one seat.

It may be unfair but the Conservatives remain an utterly toxic brand in Scotland after they governed north of the border between 1979-1997 with an overall UK mandate but without a mandate north of the border. Memories of the poll tax and Margaret Thatcher are still raw. The Tories can say – excuse the pun – until they are blue in the face that the poll tax was not imposed on Scotland first. The Scottish office pressed for its implementation. But the perception is that an unrepresentative government used Scotland as a laboratory.

This background means that the Tories have to tread with care in Scotland, as they are constantly reminded by their coalition partners. The gung-ho approach of the last 48 hours has therefore identified two weaknesses:

• Cameron and Osborne believe that only one UK politician is in their league. That would be the man they refer to as the Master, Tony Blair. This means they have under-estimated the deft touch of Salmond who was named Briton of the Year by the Times last year. Salmond is blessed with a superb brain, is a distinguished economist and has a silver tongue that lands devastating barbs on his opponents. That makes him a formidable opponent, as the late Donald Dewar found out when Salmond overshadowed the then Scottish secretary in the 1997 devolution referendum campaign.

• Cameron and Osborne appear to have little feel for politics beyond England. Cameron is a staunch Unionist. But his attempts to forge an alliance with the Ulster Unionists failed at the last election. The alliance turned out to be a gift to the Democratic Unionists. As leader of a party with just one seat in Scotland, Cameron will have a delicate job in any referendum campaign in Scotland.

Cameron's attachment to the Union shows his romantic side. Osborne, on the other hand, is no romantic. Could he have spotted the electoral benefits for the Tories if Scotland leaves the UK? The Tories would be in power for a generation if Labour lost its substantial chunk of Scottish seats at Westminster.

Osborne probably believes he has embarked on a win win strategy. He either wins by being remembered as the man who kept the UK together. Or he wins by being remembered as the man who kept the Tories in power for a generation.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments

112 comments, displaying oldest first

or to join the conversation

  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • changeisrequired

    10 January 2012 1:12PM

    Win win is about right

    Pie and Chips Salmond must have choked on his cornfakes yesterday morning lol.

    Lets get this over and done with, the concerns of 5 million should not encroach on those of 66 million. Perspective please!

  • DialMforMurdo

    10 January 2012 1:25PM

    The future Baron Tipperary's intervention in the Scottish Independence debate is utterly futile. Scottish Independence is inevitable, particularly when two multi millionaire members of the aristocracy deign to tell Scotland when we can have a referendum and what questions they will permit. Our two countries are on very different political paths, Scotland has woken up to a new found optimism in the ability to run our own affairs. England is weighed down by a cabinet of the have mores dictating to the people as if they still belonged to the peasant class. It is in the interests of both countries the preparation to transition starts as soon as possible.

    http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2012/01/cameron-tries-softly-softly-approach.html

  • CongestionCharge

    10 January 2012 1:28PM

    Osborne probably believes he has embarked on a win win strategy. He either wins by being remembered as the man who kept the UK together. Or he wins by being remembered as the man who kept the Tories in power for a generation.

    This decision is inspired, as was the one to go into coalition. You hopefully get what you want and someone else carries the can if things don't work out as planned. And don't forget it not only wrongfoots the SNP, it also means Labour will have to get its useless Scottish Party into shape to campaign for the Union, as Scottish Labour MP's will be fighting for their future in Westminster.

  • grabsplatter

    10 January 2012 1:31PM

    It may be unfair but the Conservatives remain an utterly toxic brand in Scotland after they governed north of the border between 1979-1997 with an overall UK mandate but without a mandate north of the border.

    Our electoral system seems to be a bit too complicated for you. If you don't understand how it works, why are you writing about politics? Although, doubtless, many people would agree with what you wrote.

  • Sibboleth

    10 January 2012 1:32PM

    'The Tories would be in power for a generation if Labour lost its substantial chunk of Scottish seats at Westminster.'

    Not this nonsense again. Labour won a majority of English seats in 2005, 2001, 1997, 1966 and 1945, and a plurality of them in October 1974. It is bad enough to see the 'Labour is dependent on Scotland' argument being put forward by idiots in comments threads and on forums, but to see it in something written by someone who ought to know better (given his job)...

    ...

    ...

    ...

  • theycantallbetaken

    10 January 2012 1:35PM

    it's an often repeated load of old bollocks to say that Labour can't win a general election without Scotland. All 3 of Tony Blairs election victories would have had the same outcome without Scottish seats - albeit with reduced majorities.

    changeisrequired - it's pretty straightforward really - the 56 million need not concern themselves with this. It's nothing to do with them. People wouldn't expect the Germans to get a say in a UK referendum on leaving the EU, so I don't see why anyone other than the residents of Scotland should have a say in Scotland's referendum on leaving the UK.

    Given attitudes to the EU in the south I would have thought that the English people in particular would be more understanding of why a nation might dislike getting ruled by a distant parliament by leaders who share very little of their values.

  • crilie

    10 January 2012 1:37PM

    Culloden! By jove! We WILL destroy those disloyal Scottish savages, wot! By gad! They need a firm hand administered by their betters to keep them in their grotty little place! By gad what an inspired decision by our worthy leadership. How this shows that only QUALITY should govern.

  • Hireton

    10 January 2012 1:38PM

    A complete misreading of the situation. This move by Osborne gives the SNP Government another option without removing the advisory referendum at a time of is choosing. It smacks of English Tory interference and also displays the divisions in the Unionist ranks. Overall, game and first set to Salmond.

  • grabsplatter

    10 January 2012 1:39PM

    <blockquoteOsborne probably believes he has embarked on a win win strategy. He either wins by being remembered as the man who kept the UK together. Or he wins by being remembered as the man who kept the Tories in power for a generation.>

    For the love of God, this simply isn't true. Every Labour government we've ever had would still have enjoyed a majority if the Labour MPs elected north of the border had not been there. We went through this about a thousand times yesterday. You are supposed to be political writers. Why is it so hard to stick with facts? It's not like this is knowledge shared between only a handfull of people. Seriously.

    Let's try it another way. Look up how large the Blair majorities were. Then subtract the number of Labour MPs in those majorities that were elected in Scotland. Notice the way that Blair would still have had large majorities. Christ, it's really not hard.

    Please, you're supposed to write informed articles. The myths and lies should be BTL.

    If your editor would like to explain how this myth managed to get published as fact, when it's so very, very easy to disprove, and has no base whatsoever in fact, I'd love to know.

  • grabsplatter

    10 January 2012 1:42PM

    Hmm, formatting didn't work on that last attempt. I'll try again. Hopefully, this time it might be a bit clearer.

    Osborne probably believes he has embarked on a win win strategy. He either wins by being remembered as the man who kept the UK together. Or he wins by being remembered as the man who kept the Tories in power for a generation

    For the love of God, this simply isn't true. Every Labour government we've ever had would still have enjoyed a majority if the Labour MPs elected north of the border had not been there. We went through this about a thousand times yesterday. You are supposed to be political writers. Why is it so hard to stick with facts? It's not like this is knowledge shared between only a handfull of people. Seriously.

    Let's try it another way. Look up how large the Blair majorities were. Then subtract the number of Labour MPs in those majorities that were elected in Scotland. Notice the way that Blair would still have had large majorities. Christ, it's really not hard.

    Please, you're supposed to write informed articles. The myths and lies should be BTL.

    If your editor would like to explain how this myth managed to get published as fact, when it's so very, very easy to disprove, and has no base whatsoever in fact, I'd love to know.

  • sneekyboy

    10 January 2012 1:49PM

    It may be unfair (HA HA HA) but the Conservatives remain an utterly toxic brand in Scotland after they governed north of the border between 1979-1997 with an overall UK mandate but without a mandate north of the border. Memories of the poll tax and Margaret Thatcher are still raw. The Tories can say – excuse the pun – until they are blue in the face that the poll tax was not imposed on Scotland first. The Scottish office pressed for its implementation. But the perception is that an unrepresentative government used Scotland as a laboratory.

    The Scottish Office... as in the Westminster government.

    Do keep up!

  • sneekyboy

    10 January 2012 1:54PM

    The "right" to hold a referendum may reside with Westminster under Westminsters own rules but the right to self determination of governance is a basic human right that cannot be legalised against.

    As such, any action to impede or deny the people of Scotland a right to vote would be in contradiction to the obligations to uphold self determination as signed and agreed by the UK as part of the UN Charter.

    Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) both read:

    "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

    The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

    The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone.

    United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors that give rise to possession of right to self-determination:

    * a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory
    * a distinct culture
    * a will and capability to regain self-governance

    Scotland is a distinct country with our own traditions, national dress, borders, health service, legal establishment, education system, flag and a history of nationhood tht was not discarded by the Act of Unions in 1706 and 1707.

    These were international treaties and once signed the UK government came into existence and the Scottish and English Parliaments were suspended. Please note that they were not disbanded, merely suspended. The countries still exist and upon creation of Devolution the Scottish Parliament at least was reconvened.

    So we can demonstrate before any referendum is held that we have a history of independence in our own identifiable territory, that our culture is unique and in fact unique enough to be recognised around the world instantly, and that through the Scottish Parliament we have the capability to regain self governance.

    At the end of the day it will be the will of the Scottish Electorate that will decide the outcome for Scotland. If a majority of the votes cast are for Independence then the people have demonstrated the will to regain self governance.

  • DonKastre

    10 January 2012 1:55PM

    The more this government appears to be interferring, the more likely a 'yes' to independence is the outcome. But then, Alex Salmond knows that the longer that we have a tory government in Westminster, the more unpopular they (the tory government that is) will become north of the boarder.

    When the vote comes, I suspect that that it will be a 'no' to independence, but it will be a lot closer that the opinion polls are currently showing.

  • oneoneroot2

    10 January 2012 2:01PM

    Looks like Salmond may have been dealt a running flush in this game of political poker. Ace of Cameron, King of Osborne, Queen of Clegg, Knave of Alexander and the Nonentity of Milliband. I'll see your oil and raise you the whisky.....

  • JoeP

    10 January 2012 2:07PM

    I laugh at the non SNP politicians who say with a straight face, all Salmond wants is to have time to convince the Scottish public that independence will be good for them.

    Well there's turn up for the books, none of those opposed to independence would be so underhanded, all they want is the Scots people to be asked to make a decision before they get the full story for and against. An uninformed electorate is so much easier to manipulate.

    I was against independence till recently, but Alex has done a good job making me realise they'd be better off without the bunch of shysters who rule and are in opposition in the rest of the UK.

  • JackMcJock

    10 January 2012 3:27PM

    The Tories would be in power for a generation if Labour lost its substantial chunk of Scottish seats at Westminster.

    This, as already noted, is a myth. The true statistics can be found here:

    http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=13513

  • apearman

    10 January 2012 3:43PM

    I do think that those international companies Cameron has said are showing concern about Scottish independence are the oil companies; BP and its colleagues
    I would imagine that if independence is gained then the part of the seas around the coastline of Scotland will come under that nation's jurisdiction. The oil companies would then be concerned that they will not receive the same favourable treatment as under Westminster. Then there is the problem of Aberdeen - would the oil companies want to move down the coast to Newcastle and endure the costs that would entail.
    Cameron is running true to form, pretending concern for the people of Scotland but really concerned about the financial costs. In truth, the people of Scotland are just as expendable - collateral damage - as are the poor and working class of the rest of the UK; they don't vote Conservative and he doesn't need them.

  • grabsplatter

    10 January 2012 3:59PM

    2Springers
    10 January 2012 2:13PM

    Response to grabsplatter, 10 January 2012 1:39PM


    Can we hold AR responsible for factual inaccurancies from journalists that write in the Guardian.The buck must stop with him at the standard of journalism he allows.

    I've no idea who edits each article, but I doubt that AR edits every word in this paper. My problem is with whoever edited this article. Going for AR's head sounds like your axe to grind, not mine.

  • changeisrequired

    10 January 2012 4:34PM

    You are wrong. Whilst I agree with you that it is up to the Scottish people to decide whether they are in or out, devo max concerns us greatly. Do you honestly think that 5 million can dictate to the 56 million, I thin not, in order for devo max to go anywhere Scotland needs the consent of the rest of the UK and the UK government.

    Scotland’s departure would affect us and therefore we have a say in the holding of the referendum and when but not in the vote itself. Moreover in legal terms the result of a plebiscite arranged by London would be legally binding. Its time you understood that until your countryman have voted for independence and the process has been complete Hollyrood is junior to Westminster.

  • ChrisGrieve

    10 January 2012 4:58PM

    Sibboleth

    The problem is that Labour( and it was still New Labour under Blair) lost the popular vote in England in 2005, despite having a large overall majority UK wide.

    If Scotland goes, what are Labour's chances of winning in England ? Very slim, on any analysis.

  • NYorkie

    10 January 2012 5:12PM

    he wins by being remembered as the man who kept the Tories in power for a generation.

    Not so sure about that. One implication of Scottish Independence would be the reform of Westminster, its most unlikely that the way we are governed and the purpose of our government would remain the same.
    No one can predict the outcome of such a momentous change and who would be the winners and losers

    The reform of Westminster is the primary reason why as an Englishman ( Northener) living in Scotland, I would vote for Scottish Independence.

    Our political leaders and institutions have failed us lack of vision, lack of purpose at best apparatchics tinkering with the system to make it work. The break up of the Union could be an opportunity.

  • Saint1976

    10 January 2012 5:51PM

    There's a reason that Salmond doesn't want independence now (and even devo max is a real risk) and that's the money. If Scotland suddenly has fiscal independence while being tied monetarily to the pound printed and maintained by the Bank of England who are also setting interest rates he's in trouble. That's basically what's happened in the Eurozone.

    Equally if he tries to create a Scottish pound then the value plummets instantly which has a short term trade benefit but the people of Scotland (most of who will have their money in English banks) will suffer badly. Not that this is realistic as no one is discussing the mechanisms for a new currency that will take years to implement.

    The Eurozone crisis shows you cannot have monetary union without fiscal union otherwise the naturally weaker economies suffer. Those advocating Scottish independence need to be careful what they wish for.

  • Johanes

    10 January 2012 5:56PM

    Changeisrequired "The concerns of 5 million should not encroach on those of 66 million"

    Do you realise that you've just made Salmond's case? He should use this as his campaign slogan. Thanks, mate!

  • aberdeencynic

    10 January 2012 6:14PM

    "...calling Alex Salmond's bluff"?

    What exactly is this bluff? Every time the referendum was mentioned during the election campaign the SNP stated it would be held during the 2nd half of the parliamentary term.

  • Spoutwell

    10 January 2012 6:23PM

    Look how gung-ho imperialism ended up in nrn Ireland.
    Shoot-to-kill (including unarmed civilians), detention without trial, gerrymandering, along with the imperialist propaganda of gutterpress and broadsheet media has resulted in Sinn Fein governing alongside the DUP.
    How many pro-independence votes has the latest round of anti-Scottish imperialism won for the SNP?

  • theycantallbetaken

    10 January 2012 6:31PM

    What you say is true to a degree. Devo max or independence need the consent of the UK parliament, just like devolution before it did. You can call that getting the consent of the rest of the UK if you like. But however you dress it up, the 56 million do not get to decide what happens to Scotland. If independence for Scotland is the result of the referendum then the 5 million have, de facto, dictated to the 56 million that the UK is finished. Getting it all through parliament will be tortuous whatever happens!

    My countrymen understand fine that Holyrood is junior to Westminster. That's kind of the point of the whole thing. It is actually a good demonstration of the reasons why people want independence. Scotland's government can not hold the vote it said it would, when it said it would hold it when it was on the way to a landslide victory in the Scottish election.

    The scottish people understood Salmonds plans and voted for him in their droves. Cameron is pandering to his core voters, just like he did with the Euro veto. The result of which takes him further away from the Scottish electorate.

  • scotleag

    10 January 2012 6:34PM

    That makes him a formidable opponent, as the late Donald Dewar found out when Salmond overshadowed the then Scottish secretary in the 1997 devolution referendum campaign

    Nonsense. Salmond and the SNP were opposed to holding a referendum and only came on board at the last minute when they realised they'd look stupid standing on the sidelines.

    In the only election when Dewar and Salmond went head-to-head as leaders of their parties Dewar's Scottish Labour took 56 seats to Salmond and the SNP's 35. Labour was ahead by 10% in the constituency section and 6.5% on the list. Salmond 'overshadowed' Dewar so much that within a year he had resigned his seat in Edinburgh and headed straight back to Westminster where this great patriot then stayed for the next seven years.

  • Zapartoo

    10 January 2012 6:57PM

    The UK Government should now publish plans to repatriate all the UK public sector jobs in Scotland to Liverpool and the North of England within one year of.

    Industries should warn their staff that they intend to close and move to England or Ireland rather than pay Salmonds inflated socialist taxes

  • Sibboleth

    10 January 2012 7:02PM

    Nonsense; Labour only trailed in England by a tiny margin (less than 1%) and given that Labour constituencies tend have low turnouts than Conservative ones, it is safe to assume that Labour would have won more seats than the Tories in England in 2005 no matter the boundaries. And, rather obviously, no amount of slippery counterfactual dreaming can dismiss away the awkward and no doubt highly irritating fact that Labour won the most votes in England in 2001 and 1997. Conclusion: Labour does not 'need' Scotland to win elections, even if its presence in the Union makes it easier. The same is true of Wales.

  • RedMangos

    10 January 2012 7:12PM

    "Chancellor's decision to press for early referendum on Scottish independence reminiscent of bold move on inheritance tax"

    The move on inheritance tax was almost cautionary, hardly bold. It was in an age when even people on average incomes in were seriously looking at buying holiday homes overseas.

    I agree though it massive impact.

    The good news is those drunken days are over, forever.

    I have to say the 'offer' of the referendum is very bold. Althought I doubt it was his decision alone.

  • AnneDon

    10 January 2012 7:13PM

    As fascinating as your insight into George Osbourne's psyche is, it reveals him as a karaoke politician. He can hear the appreciation in his head, but no-one else can see the audience applauding him. . .

  • Amocalypse

    10 January 2012 7:14PM

    George Osborne's pompous face on my Scottish regional news? It's more likely than you think.

  • VSLVSL

    10 January 2012 7:20PM

    It's all going badly wrong for the Tories isn't it?

    Bold moves, LBJ, bluff's being called by Cameron, Osborne telling us the economy will falter if we don't all jump now.

    I'm reminded more of the Light Brigade than anything else.

    Cameron's off to a bad start this year and he's daily being outfoxed by Salmond, the economy's tanking, and the olympics will be a thorn in his side.

    I'll get the popcorn - you bring the beer.

  • geoeeee

    10 January 2012 8:05PM

    If they're modelling themselves on LBJ then I guess we've got another Vietnam war to look forward to.

  • JoyceDavenport

    10 January 2012 8:10PM

    I am not a nationalist by instinct, but...we have one Tory MP and have been ruled by them for far too many years without a mandate from the Scottish electorate. The Liberals have shown they cannot be trusted and will sell their souls to the devil, aka the Tories, for a donut. Time to admit the relationship isn't working and move on, bring on the referendum. Cameron and co have made a bad tactical error with this move, non Scots simply do not understand the depth of disdain (I am being polite here) with which the Tories are are held in Scotland. Jaws will drop when they see the size of the landslide in favour of independence.

  • geof24

    10 January 2012 8:14PM

    Do the math and it could be more than a generation of power for the Tories without the troublesome Celts north of the border.

  • duthealla

    10 January 2012 8:16PM

    Oh dear,but tens of thousands of English people live in Scotland- great place to get a free education for the kids.One hears that many are heading over here to Ireland,still a cheaper option,if not as good as Scotland.They are more than welcome,long as Baron Osborn's mates are not among them!

  • Ken900

    10 January 2012 8:16PM

    Scottish Oil is taxed at 61% increased 11% (£2Billion) by Osbourne in the last budget. Gas is taxed at 32% increased by Osbourne. Total Oil and Gas tax revenues from Scotland this year. £13.5Billion.

    More Pandas in Scotland than Tory MP's.... Thatcher made sure of that.

or to join the conversation

Find your MP

Bestsellers from the Guardian shop

Guardian Bookshop

This week's bestsellers

  1. 1.  Send Up the Clowns

    by Simon Hoggart £8.99

  2. 2.  Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere

    by Paul Mason £14.99

  3. 3.  Pity the Billionaire

    by Thomas Frank £14.99

  4. 4.  Britain's Empire

    by Richard Gott £25.00

  5. 5.  Mafia State

    by Luke Harding £20.00

Wintour and Watt blog weekly archives

Jan 2012
M T W T F S S
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5

Find the latest jobs in your sector:

Browse all jobs