Home > Alex Massie

Sunday 8 November 2009

David Cameron's Peculiar Unionism

Tuesday, 10th February 2009

David Cameron's op-ed in Scotland on Sunday this week was interesting. Not because of anything that Cameron said but because it appeared at all. It's another small indication that the country is preparing itself for a new Conservative government. To put it another way, I don't think SoS would have been very interested in an op-ed from Iain Duncan-Smith or Mixhael Howard. What would have been the point? What could they have said to the country that anyone wanted to hear? Not much.

So Cameron's proposals for how he would work with Holyrood are, while scarcely earth-shattering, useful to have put on the public record. Nonetheless, they are sensible, modest and designed to reassure. Cameron, I think, may actually understand devolution - and how it has changed the dynamics of the British political scene - rather more than Gordon Brown does. Certainly Cameron seems more prepared to work with, rather than against, the SNP ministry in Edinburgh. Then again, that's a marriage of some convenience given that they share a common enemy.

That being the case, why shouldn't Cameron endorse Alex Salmond's call for a referendum on independence. ConservativeHome's Jonathan Isaby asked Cameron about this on Monday. Here's Cameron's reply:

"If we win the election and if, by some miracle, we don't have 25 seats in Scotland and have slightly fewer, then I would be a Prime Minister who would want to govern in the interests of everyone in Scotland.
"I would recognise the shortage of mandate, if you like, in Scotland by getting straight up there and meeting the First Minister and saying, look, anyone who wants to try to work with me, I will work with them. I will make sure my ministers go to Holyrood and listen to committees there. Likewise, Scottish ministers should come to Westminster and engage with the committees here.
"I would do whatever it takes to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and to try to make sure, that over time, that we can strengthen that United Kingdom. I would be prepared to consider anything to enable us to do that."

The key phrase here is "shortage of mandate". It's pretty remarkable to hear such stuff from a Conservative leader, not least because it a) recognises the extent to which Scotland is now a semi-detached member of a less-United-than-it-used-to-be-Kingdom and b) suggests that Cameron has accepted what is essentially a nationalist reading of any potential Tory victory. That being so, how would a Cameron government seek to implement any proposals for, say, welfare reform? "Shortage of mandate: suggests that Cameron concedes, perhaps inadvertently, that there'd be a kind of moral veto against Cameron's plans, even for reserved matters. As I say, that's a classic nationalist line of reasoning and an abandonment of the old Tory lines about the overall integrity of the United Kingdom and so on and so on.

I don't doubt that Cameron is (instinctively) committed to the Union and is fully aware that he should resist English nationalist bleatings and recommendations to cut Scotland free (or, rather, abandon poor Caledonia to her fate). But suggesting that his writ might not run north of Berwick is a curious position for a Tory to adopt publicly even if it is also, in some ways, an admission that there's not much point in pretending that matters are how you'd like them to be and not as they are.

And what of the referendum question? Why not have it in 2010? The arguments for settling - for a while at least - the naitonal question are compelling. It won't happen, of course, largely because it's all terribly risky and a leap into that most terrifying of places - the unknown. Nor, for that matter, is it Annabel Goldie's style. Aunt Annabel would much rather promise every voter a pair of sensible shoes than take such a bold, daring leap.

Of course, the other course open to the Tories would be to go into coalition with the SNP after the 2011 Holyrood elections. Granted, that would cause many a heart attack in both parties but it's the natural anti-Labour alliance. At present the Tories are a kind of informal partner, helping the nationalists pass their budget and so on but forced to live off crumbs rather than have their own seat at the table. Would the SNP go for such an arrangement? Probably not, having experienced life as a minority ministry since 2007. But this, and other matters, are concerns for another day...

Filed under: Cameron (50 more articles) , Scotland (191 more articles) , SNP (48 more articles) , Tories (80 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (14)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Francis

February 10th, 2009 12:58am Report this comment

"should resist English nationalist bleatings"
Harrumph
How about resisting Scottish nationalist bleatings and abolishing the tin-pot parliament?
There are massive swathes of the country that have never voted Labour yet have had to endure their tyranny. Labour have never won seats outside cities but is this constantly commented on?

gadgie

February 10th, 2009 8:43am Report this comment

Brown is determined to strangle any democratic manifestation of Englishness and replace England with Britain.England prevails.Cameron is not as tough as the big lad from kirkaldy although I think Cameron hates England as much as Gordon. English New Labour MP's faced with a wipe out in England have only England to save them. If they play the England card they just might hang on to a few seats.

Wilhelm

February 10th, 2009 8:43am Report this comment

Scotland doesnt need the union but the liebour party needs Scotland to get power in England.

I think England has the brains to become an independent country, they can pull it off, without the Scots.

David

February 10th, 2009 8:55am Report this comment

Yes, but those 'massive swathes' are inhabited by fewer people - however, regional governments would give them more autonomy over their affairs.

talorthane

February 10th, 2009 10:32am Report this comment

"Of course, the other course open to the Tories would be to go into coalition with the SNP after the 2011 Holyrood elections."

That may possibly seem like a reliable partnership at the present time.

However, should the Tories win the next GE then the political dynamics will change drastically.

With Brown gone, Brown's allies gone, and an undetermined period of time in the wilderness for Labour, it could be that a chasm will open up between Scottish Labour and the UK party. Possibly even a split.

Hopwever, Labour may find that they can do nothing else than assist the SNP in promoting the Scottish interest in the face of their longer term foe now in control of Westminster.

Scottish Labour may even feel that their supports now advocate an exploration, at least, of the matter of independence.

strongbow

February 10th, 2009 11:14am Report this comment

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/equality/cep-who-speaks-up-for-england-cameron%E2%80%99s-promised-%E2%80%98fix%E2%80%99-on-devolution-ignores-his-own-constituents-479240.htm

CEP: Who speaks up for England? Cameron’s promised ‘fix’ on devolution ignores his own constituents
campaign for an english parliament press release logo new Tuesday, 10, Feb 2009 12:00

The Conservative leader, writing in ‘Scotland on Sunday’ (Jan.8th), has pledged that as prime minister he will end the cross-border war between the UK and Scottish Governments, He insists he will introduce a new "maturity and respect" for Scotland. He criticised the Labour government for allowing its hostility towards the SNP to frustrate cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh. "If we win the next election at Westminster, we would govern with a maturity and a respect for the Scottish people. I would be a prime minister that would work constructively with any administration at Holyrood for the good of Scotland.’

Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has responded by stating that the Conservative leader needs to start giving equal consideration to his own country as well. ‘It’s time he introduced a new maturity and respect for England into his party’s policies. England is the only country in the West without national governance; England have none of the immense benefits Scotland and Wales are getting out of devolution, yet it’s them who are paying for it all through their taxes; and Cameron is perfectly well acquainted with the political absurdity and injustice of the West Lothian Question. His policy of English votes for English matters is a complete fudge and well he knows it. It amounts to no more than an insult to England’.

‘There is that one great question now hanging all over UK politics: Who speaks for England?’ said Mrs Cullen. ‘I would remind David Cameron that he represents English people in an English constituency; and it is the English people who are both his and his party’s core constituents. The only Tory MP left in Scotland David Mundell (Dumfriesshire) may have declared only last week that future Conservative government will put the interests of Scotland first and foremost. To date Mr Cameron hasn’t repudiated that statement. As I have said, he would do well to look to his core constituents.’

Contacts:

Scilla Cullen: Tel: 01433.833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk

Michael Knowles (CEP media unit) Tel. 01260 271139 michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

William

February 10th, 2009 12:42pm Report this comment

Who speaks for England? Er, Westminster? Or are the 529 English MP's not enough? We need an English Parliament so that, erm, we can have lots of, er, English MP's. Er, right on.

The CEP has to be the dumbest collections of animals ever to disgrace God's Earth, you have to say.

Stephen Gash

February 10th, 2009 1:37pm Report this comment

Cameron quote: "I would do whatever it takes to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and to try to make sure, that over time, that we can strengthen that United Kingdom. I would be prepared to consider anything to enable us to do that."

That would be pushing through the regional carve-up of England then. Cameron couldn't even be bothered to vote on Regional Grand Committees.
He is probably the most Anglophobic leader of all the mainstream parties, and that is going some, when one looks at the other parties' leaders, both past and present. The more he opens his mouth the more he gives ammunition to English nationalists.
By the way, angry people don't bleat.

Stephen Gash

February 10th, 2009 2:28pm Report this comment

William said "The CEP has to be the dumbest collections of animals ever to disgrace God's Earth, you have to say."

So you lost the argument then William, if that is the best you can do.

Scottish MPs have been made redundant in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. An English Parliament would make all Westmisnter MPs redundant everywhere, which is the only reason they oppose one.

The CEP has proposed how an English Parliament would work. Every several propoasal demands a much reduced UK Parliament so we couls actually end up with fewer politicians.

Al

February 10th, 2009 2:50pm Report this comment

William, 12:42pm

Surely you're not that much of an ignoramus with little to offer but abuse?

You may have noticed that the parliament at Westminster is a parliament of the United Kingdom and that MPs elected in England represent United Kingdom (not English) constituencies.

Also, devolution has changed things more than a little. Scotland has a spokesman in First Minister Alex Salmond. Would you care to name his English equivalent? Who speaks for England at Westminster? (Hint: Gordon Brown speaks for Great Britain, or the UK).

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (which has Scottish roots) informs us:

"Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has perpetuated its name, however, England no longer officially exists as a country and enjoys no separate political status within the United Kingdom."

The Campaign for an English Parliament are opposed to the abolition of England by means of balkanisation into nine regions.

Read and learn.

Gareth Young

February 10th, 2009 2:55pm Report this comment

"Or are the 529 English MP's not enough?"

They would be if they were elected on an English mandate, and could form an English government. But they're not, and they can't.

People that don't understand the distinction between "English MPs" and UK MPs that happen to be elected in England are pitiful. It's not about voting privileges in the HoC, it's a question of sovereignty.

Patrick Harris

February 10th, 2009 3:31pm Report this comment

Wiliam.
The expansion of Heathrow, which incorporates a third runway necessitates the bulldozing of some 700 houses three schools and numerous other amenities.
The majority of English elected MPs voted against, so, with the help of numerous Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish elected MPs the government won the day by a margin of 27 votes, If the issue had been decided by English elected MPs the proposal would have fallen by 20 votes. It's simple - an English Parliament with English elected MPs working in the interests of the English electorate, just as, in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, their representatives do what's best for them.

Terry

February 10th, 2009 5:48pm Report this comment

"Or are the 529 English MP's not enough?"

Well it seemed to work when it came to Heathrow's third runway, nuclear power plants, foundation hospitals, top up fees for English students and Sunday trading.

...oh wait, no it didn't!

Could it be that someone is so dumb that they don't understand the fact MPs are whipped on party, and not national, lines?; or that MPs don't even get to vote when it comes to ministers (from outside England) using executive powers?

Surely not, but there's bound to someone out there dumb enough not to know, eh William?

Jack

February 10th, 2009 6:39pm Report this comment

"Of course, the other course open to the Tories would be to go into coalition with the SNP after the 2011 Holyrood elections."

Well,they are going to have to find some way of co-existing and so is the SNP. I might be completely wrong but I have always suspected the SNP will not, in the event, go for complete independence. They might just be rather happy for a referendum to be lost. Just.

Then they can have the luxury of continuing to bleat, receive subsidies from England and , if Cameron wins, then have a compliant British PM to manipulate.
Barnett Rules twice over!

England will just get even more embittered of course and the UK will break up in the end and it will be, by that time, the English who call an end to it but I doubt Cameron is flexible enough to realise that.

Post comment