Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

How Not to Save the Union

Thursday, 5th January 2012

There is a good deal of good sense in the magazine's main leader this week. By which I mean of course that a good deal of it is unconvincing and some of it dangerously so. That is, if David Cameron listens to the Spectator he risks assisting the very forces - Alex Salmond and the SNP - the magazine's editors (and the Prime Minister himself) wish to defeat.

Of course Alex Salmond is beatable and of course support for UN-member independence is a minority enthusiasm. This is one reason why a referendum seems to scare Scots less than it does politicians and pundits based in London. (Most of those pundits and politicians, incidentally, seem only to care about Scotland's constitutional question; the actual governance of the country is, at best, most often an afterthought.)

Be that as it may, the Spectator argues:

The battle for Scotland simply requires a little organisation, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ought to provide it. As Cameron knows, he cannot lead the charge — the campaign for Scotland’s future can hardly be fronted by an Englishman. But crucially, it ought to involve the Labour party, which still has a critical mass of intelligent Scottish MPs. If asked, they would advise Cameron to call a referendum at a time of his choosing and on a question of his choosing. Scots should be asked to say ‘yes’ to the union, and the campaign turned into a celebration of unity. There should be no third-option compromise, which could (if left to Salmond) be crafted into a consolation prize for the separatists.

There is sense here. Douglas Alexander and Alistair Darling will play a role. So too should Gordon Brown. But so must David Cameron. It would be ridiculous for Cameron to duck his responsibilities simply because he's an Englishman. His position demands he be at the front of the unionist campaign.

But, a word of advice: it would be useful if Cameron flattered Scotland. For once, just for once, it would be pleasing to see senior Unionist politicians make a case for the Union that is based on something more than the benefits - many of them real - Scotland has enjoyed from its partnership with England. That is all very well and good but it is not good enough. Perhaps Cameron and other senior Tories could tell Scots why they are wanted, even needed, as part of the United Kingdom. "We Want You" is a more edifying slogan than "You Need Us".

Instead, Tories and other Unionists tend to assume the case for the Union is axiomatic. It is not. Suggesting that Scots should compile a cost-benefit analysis and then consider their choices is a tactic that, perhaps paradoxically, works better for nationalists than for Unionists. When Unionists talk in these terms they implicitly argue that Scotland must be unusually ill-suited to independence and from there it is but a short leap to suggesting Scotland should be grateful for English largesse, be happy with everything it's got and cease chuntering for more powers when history suggests they're scarcely capable of using those they already enjoy.

Frankly, however, that's exactly how it sometimes seems as though a significant part of the Tory party actually does view Scotland. (This is too say nothing of the rabid online English nationalists who give their Cybernat counterparts a fair run for their money.)

Moreover, the Spectator then makes a strategic blunder that can only encourage Alex Salmond. Nothing could be more useful to the nationalist cause than a referendum imposed by London. David Cameron was right to talk about treating Scotland with "respect" (he might, mind you, on occasion remind Mr Salmond that respect is not a one-way street); nothing says "sod you" more effectively than London determining the referendum's timing and, just as importantly, the question to be asked.

The time for a Yes/No referendum came and went in 2007. That was the moment Unionist parties could have supported Salmond's referendum bill. Instead they killed it. (Salmond, remember, only led a minority ministry then.) The SNP victory last year changed the game irrevocably. Salmond has the mandate to determine the nature and timing of a referendum. Anything London does to deny or undermine that reality harms the Unionist cause. It is meddling and it is wrong and worse than that it is foolish. This is not a game that can be controlled by London. Not any more.

Furthermore, there is ample reason to suppose that a three-option referendum is, actually, what the people of Scotland desire. Interfering with that is, again, akin to treating Scotland as a child who can make any choice she likes so long as the range of options is determined by her parent. Of course, some Unionists will claim that a three-option referendum is "rigged" because it is most likely to produce a plurality in favour of some kind of devo-max arrangement. Maybe it is. But if this is "rigging" then one must say that Salmond has the greater mandate to "rig" the poll in ways that please him than David Cameron or any other Westminster politician has to "rig" it in ways most likely to produce an outcome they favour.

To put it another way: the Spectator's suggestion is akin - politically, rather than legally - to giving Brussels the right to choose the timing and wording of any UK referendum on anything related to the European Union. I doubt that would assist the pro-EU cause and I doubt, similarly, that the Spectator's notion will help the Unionist cause it believes in so fervently and, yes, so honourably.

In short, and with apologies to the editor, the Spectator's advice is as well-intentioned as it is ill-conceived.

Finally: Scottish Tories should campaign for devo-max, not the status quo. This, however, is a matter for another time.

Filed under: Britain (738 more articles) , Cameron (227 more articles) , Scotland (500 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles) , Unionism (51 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 (25)

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

Post comment

Kittler

January 5th, 2012 8:00pm Report this comment

Independence versus dependence (for England also).
Cameron and conservative party to embrace dependency and oppose national sovereignty!!!!

Wilhelm 1

January 5th, 2012 8:09pm Report this comment

That's all very well, but more importantly

When are you going to get a proper haircut Alex ?

russell

January 5th, 2012 8:26pm Report this comment

duck and cover Alex, the massed ranks of "Angry of Tunbridge Wells" are going to tell you and Scotland where to stick it! The punditocracy will never allow for a sensible Conservative response to The Scottish Question�. We're just a bunch of whinging Jocks and it's much easier to think like this rather than take The Tartanisimo on at his own game.

Jayjay

January 5th, 2012 8:34pm Report this comment

Congratulations Wilhelm 1, you are the idiot of the day etc. Alex you have the guts to say how it is. I mean, the 'No to Independence Campaign' says it all really.

R.G. Bargie

January 5th, 2012 8:49pm Report this comment

So what you're after, Alex, is the positive case for the Union? Good luck with that:

wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12039

Wilhelm 1

January 5th, 2012 9:25pm Report this comment

Jayjay

You don't treat people like Alex seriously, you treat them with contempt, mock them and dismiss them, duh !!

I thought Jay you would know that ? apparently not.

Jock MacSporran

January 5th, 2012 9:40pm Report this comment

Oh please Mr Cameron - take the bait and call your English referendum on Scotland's future! I can't wait to see your face when the Scots show you where to shove it!

Alex Grant

January 5th, 2012 9:49pm Report this comment

So Mr Massie, you think 'for once' the Tories should treat Scotland with some respect and by inference pretend they want us for some positive reason? And you believe as a Scot that such an attitude is acceptable and we should support the Union?
Do you have any integrity?

ThigArLatha

January 5th, 2012 10:15pm Report this comment

Another good article.
The only hope for the Union (which I want to see ended) is in people arguing positively in Scotland etc.
The Labour approach will see the Union destroyed before 2020.
Here is your dilemma
If we are subsidy junkies under the Union then it can't really be that good for us.
If we are not and we can run our own affairs then why should we not want to do so rather than be a tiny minority in an English based UK?
We see the arguments for independence being advanced daily by Eurosceptics against the EU.
Ultimately the arguments about shared culture and feeling will trump all else.
I am Scottish, I don't feel British and we are growing. I wish my English friends and neighbours every success.

Johnmcdonaldish

January 5th, 2012 10:34pm Report this comment

Oh Alex
Why not see it from the other side. Why not see that that mass of Scots taking their country to independence are not enemies to be done down. Why not just accept the course of history and grasp the opportunity provided to England the change provides.

Alan McMillan

January 5th, 2012 10:41pm Report this comment

some trenchant comments here, will the Conservatives follow them?

Frankly

January 5th, 2012 11:34pm Report this comment

The idea of Devo Max being supported by Scottish Tories is indeed for another time, if ever, in view of the tiro Tory Scottish leader's implacable opposition to it.

The idea of England saying to Scotland 'We want you' rather than 'You need us' is also rather neat but equally fantastical. Does Mr Massie know England at all?

As for the anglo-state, it has seen its nemesis:

http://tinyurl.com/75yjvj6

terence patrick hewett

January 6th, 2012 12:56am Report this comment

And all the while outside the roar,
Of John Knoxs' Awful Scotland,
Pawing hungry at the door.

daniel maris

January 6th, 2012 1:41am Report this comment

We need to be clear on the constitutional situation. If Scotland votes to go its own way , does that mean there is a new state - Scotland - that has to apply for EU membership, UN Membership and all the rest - or does it mean there are TWO new states: Scotland and the rump UK.

It's an important question, and a tricky one I think, since the UK only came into being through the union with Scotland and then Ireland...

I would be interested to hear what the constitutional position is, because it does seem to me that if a union breaks up it can be said two new states emerge - that appeared to be the case with the Czech Republic and Slovakia for instance...but what was the position with Norway and Sweden? Was that different?

Kittler

January 6th, 2012 8:02am Report this comment

daniel maris, the Union was created by treaty between two sovereign states, Scotland and England. There were no sovereign Irish or Welsh states. They regrettably were appendages, sort of internal colonies. Without Scotland or England there is no Union and I would say two equal successor states.

Rhoda Klapp

January 6th, 2012 9:32am Report this comment

Not sure anybody can offer devo max without offering the same things to England. Wouldn't the English get a vote on that, or must their political future be decided by others? In fact, the role of the english in all this is not as bystanders. Somebody in favour of the union should be selling the idea to all of us, north and south of the border.

And, incidentally, fie on all who portray this debate as one of mere money passing this way or that. It matters little to me whether a little more is spent on this or that citizen. It is mostly just the way you count it anyway, rather than some real injustice taking place. We should be assessing the union in terms of ongoing political desirability, not whose beancounter gets the answer he wants.

Kittler

January 6th, 2012 9:45am Report this comment

We have working examples of devo max in the Channel islands and Isle of Man. These are communities of less than 100,000 that are autonomous, the only thing the Manx government does not do is fight wars. Desirable places to live, difficult to obtain residency in these separatist enclaves.

Rhoda Klapp

January 6th, 2012 10:05am Report this comment

Kittler, are you saying that Scotland would manage itself, accept defence and foreign policy, and not send any MPs to Westminster?

What is your plan for devo max? Does it not in fact have implications for the english? I would have thought it did.

Kittler

January 6th, 2012 10:16am Report this comment

Rhoda, sending MP's to Westminster is unlikely to influence defense or foreign policy but agreeing and sending money for that purpose perhaps would.

Rhoda Klapp

January 6th, 2012 11:45am Report this comment

Kittler, seriously, not trying a gotcha, how do you envisage it all working?

Leighton

January 6th, 2012 4:24pm Report this comment

The Tories campaigning for Devo Max?!? The obvious problem with this is as it stands it’s simply not credible, yes the idea is popular but the party also needs to believe in the idea just look at what happened to Labour with its last minute backing of no tuition fees and council tax freezes. If Murdo had won the leadership contest and his new party had been formed then yes that new party could have remainned credible while being pro Devo max, in fact they could have posed a serious problem for the SNP with new centre right party with a relaxed attitude to the constitution chipping away at many of those on the right of the SNP. As is for Ruth Davidson to come out and back Devo Max now would leave her a laughing stock!

As for Devo Max I doubt it’ll be a question in the referendum, none of the parties will back it. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems will do it as the know it’s the SNP’s back up prize and well over the last 5 years the whole point of Labour in Scotland is to oppose the SNP. As outlined above the Tories can’t because they don’t believe in the idea. The SNP won’t as the majority of them don’t believe in it either and for AS to back it would be a kin to a betrayal greater than Blair’s abandonment of clause 4.

David Mc Neil

January 6th, 2012 7:44pm Report this comment

The union is over just accept it,Scotland will run its own affairs ,the sooner the better.!!!

RJBH

January 7th, 2012 9:55pm Report this comment

Look all the Scots get.. is 2 panda bears, half the army, 1/3 of the land 90% of the oil and 100% of the whisky..surely the englanders cant be envious...Lets try a new attitude..like.. Please stay because without you.. we..(the inglish) are fecked.

N J Mayes

January 9th, 2012 12:31pm Report this comment

"To put it another way: the Spectator's suggestion is akin - politically, rather than legally - to giving Brussels the right to choose the timing and wording of any UK referendum on anything related to the European Union." Absolutely correct. I can't think of anything more self-defeating. My inclination at the moment is to vote for devo max, but if Cameron stitches it up to leave that off the ballot, I'll choose full independence. I expect a lot of Scots will feel the same as I do.

john lloyd

January 9th, 2012 5:21pm Report this comment

Turning Alex's argument on its head is that a binding referendum can only happen if legislated at Westminster (please not 'London'; that's cheap). A Salmond referendum is only advisory and would only further damage the Scottish economy by increasing investors' nervousness about the future.

Just a glance at Belgium with its internecine war between the Flemish and the Walloons should make anyone realise that Cameron's proposal is 'lancing the boil' - whatever the result.

Just remember how it worked with AV.

Devo Max is not a suitable question for a referendum as it is vague and insubstantial. Such changes should be formally negotiated - brick by brick - by the Holyrood and Westminster legislatures.

From my limited understanding of EU law, a scission would leave the rump UK as a member with Scotland having to apply to join. Given the current debt issues this may not be as easy as Salmond claims to believe.

Though English, I respect Scotland's right to sever the Union, although I hope they choose not to.

Alex,apart from pipe-skirling rants, who in the SNP has put forward any economic argument for why secession is economically beneficial for Scotland.

Post comment