Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Can Cameron Deliver on His Promise to Scotland?

Friday, 17th February 2012

Well, Pete, I'm not so sure that David Cameron done brilliant in Edinburgh yesterday. To put it mildly, he has complicated an already complex situation. How does the Prime Minister think Scotland should be governed? How much Home Rule does he think is enough Home Rule? What "further powers" does he mean? Neither his speech nor his answers to questions give us any real idea at all. As I said yesterday, at least we have a reasonable - if still imperfect - idea of what Alex Salmond means by independence. Cameron's preferences? An utter mystery.

Moreover, if, as he plainly concedes there is a reasonable case for "further powers" then why must we wait until 2015 to discover what they may be or have a proper debate about the next phase of Home Rule's evolution? The Prime Minister argues there's no need to wait until 2014 to have an independence referendum but, on yesterday's evidence, thinks there's no rush to spell out what he means by "further powers". Viewed from here, you could be forgiven for suspecting that the "offer" is so conditional and so flimsy that it can't be taken seriously. At least not until the Prime Minister offers more detail.

It seems the view from London is a little different. My old friend Iain Martin, for instance, thinks Cameron has put Salmond on the back foot. Perhaps he has but he has also moved, or begun to move, towards a new kind of Unionism that accepts a large part of the nationalist argument about Scotland's constitutional future. As readers know, I think that sensible but it was still a surprise to see Mr Cameron move in this direction. According to Iain, however:

The First Minister twisted Cameron’s remarks so that the Prime Minister was supposedly offering more powers but refusing to be specific. You’ve offered more powers, said Salmond to Cameron, what are they? He hadn’t, so the question is bluster, but judging by some of the coverage it looks like moderately successful bluster.

Actually, the Prime Minister did open the door to further devolution. How else is one supposed to understand his statement that, if Scotland votes No, "this doesn't have to be the end f the road... And yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved"? Unless Mr Cameron desires to be his generation's Alec Douglas-Home that means there will be more powers devolved (always presuming Mr Cameron remains in a position to deliver on his word).

Iain suggests that Salmond has been "forced to accept a single question referendum" and that this is a strategic setback for the First Minister. Perhaps. But maybe the single question is actually now Independence or Real Home Rule? If that's a strategic setback for the nationalists then they can live with plenty more defeats of this sort! If Cameron fails to offer some detailed proposals of his own then the referendum may be a choice between a firm SNP promise and a candyfloss offer from the Prime Minister. And though I agree with Joyce McMillan that the nationalists should neither underestimate Cameron nor the emotional resonance of his emotion-larded case for Unionism, those voters (perhaps, admittedly, a small minority) minded to vote on the merits of the proposals offered to them may prove more impressed by the certain uncertainty of Salmond's vision than the uncertain uncertainty of Cameron's.

But I agree with Iain on this: if Cameron's offer means anything then it means a fully federal United Kingdom is much more likely - with all the complications it brings - today than it was the day before yesterday. Which, again, is why I say that Cameron's Grassmarket speech has complicated, not clarified the situation. Cameron has raised expectations: is he ready, willing or able to meet them?

Filed under: Britain (738 more articles) , Devolution (22 more articles) , Salmond (83 more articles) , Scotland (500 more articles) , Scottish independence (48 more articles) , SNP (219 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 (12)

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

Post comment

Stewart Lochhead

February 17th, 2012 11:52am Report this comment

"this doesn't have to be the end of the road... And yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved"
Sorry Alex, that's not a promise.

Nick

February 17th, 2012 12:52pm Report this comment

"What "further powers" does he mean?"

Why do you assume Cameron has to define the parameters of devo-max when Salmond hasn't even stated what he would want from devo-max.

Rhoda Klapp

February 17th, 2012 2:19pm Report this comment

He did not make a breakable promise.

When he has made what seemed like promises in the past, he has always had a story explaining how he had not broken them, when in fact he certainly did not deliver.

He cannot be trusted. As I say of my brother-in-law, he is the most reliable man I know. He will ALWAYS let you down.

R.G. Bargie

February 17th, 2012 5:26pm Report this comment

"Why do you assume Cameron has to define the parameters of devo-max when Salmond hasn't even stated what he would want from devo-max."

Salmond doesn't want devo max at all. He wants independence. I'm surprised you don't know that, he mentions it quite often.

Gavin Bain

February 17th, 2012 5:41pm Report this comment

Now no-one is presenting status quo as an option, choice is between Independance and whatever it is that Cameron has put on the table, all mysteriously gift wrapped. No peeking now, you have to wait until Christmas 2015

Shonachan cochrane

February 17th, 2012 5:41pm Report this comment

What makes you think there is a promise hidden in here somewhere?
The statement merely says that if you all vote NO, I will CONSIDER giving more powers. It is equally possible, and probably far more likely, that he will turn round and say, having CONSIDERED how many more powers to give you, I have decided it wasn't really that good an idea, so tough.

The other thing to bring into the equation is that Alex Salmond CAN deliver of his promiseof the referendum. He will still be in power, and able with a majority to get any votes he wants in Edinburgh.

By the time of CONSIDERING whether to give us anything extra, will David Cameron still be in power. He is talking about considering this during the next parliament at the earliest. I am guessing he still thinks he will be in charge but as he does not give a timescale, his consideration could be in 50 years time.

ButcombeMan

February 17th, 2012 6:02pm Report this comment

R G Bargie
"Salmond doesn't want devo max at all. He wants independence. I'm surprised you don't know that, he mentions it quite often".

He may want independence but he is a realist and rather suspects he cannot get that on a simple yes/no vote (which is the only vote that makes sense). So his tactics are to keep another ball in the air.

Actually Salmond is a waste of space for the people of Scotland, he is investing enormous quantities of political and financial effort in whatever it is he wants.

None of this effort deals with Scotland's real problems.

Cameron is quite right not to spell out any increased devolution that might happen until after the yes/no independence vote.

More devolution is a matter for the Westminster Parliament, not the Scottish one. It would affect all the UK's subjects.

DougtheDug

February 17th, 2012 7:18pm Report this comment

What Cameron said was this:
"And let me say something else about devolution. That (Calman) doesn't have to be the end of the road. When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved."

If that's not dangling something akin to devo-max as a prize in front of the Scottish electorate if they vote no to independence then I don't know what is.

He has made the no campaign a campaign which is now based on the slogan, "Vote no for more devolution".

If he's going to make more devolved powers for Scotland the carrot for a no vote then he's now got to tell the voters what they will be voting for in terms of legislative, financial and executive powers.

That's his big problem. Not one party has any detailed idea of devolution beyond the powers given in Calman, even in broad brush terms, and he's going to be called up on it for the rest of the devolution campaign.

Bob

February 17th, 2012 7:52pm Report this comment

Actually Cameron is a waste of space for the people of England, he is investing enormous quantities of political and financial effort in whatever it is he wants.

None of this effort deals with England's real problems.

Davey LS

February 17th, 2012 8:46pm Report this comment

You would think by the media coverage that the devolution vote is taking place next week. Surely a lot can and will change over the next two years and what we are seeing are the early skirmishes of a long campaign, perhaps we are all getting a bit carried away with this in a quite Newsweek.