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:
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.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.
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.
Comments