Making a speech in Scotland at the weekend, I met scores of people who want their country to remain in the Union, but do not know what to do about it. They complain that they have no leadership. Unionism is probably still, by some way, the majority view, but it is decades since it was properly articulated. Once upon a time, it depended upon Protestantism (even after the 1945 election, Tories held most of the seats in Glasgow for this reason) and Scotland’s role in the Empire. The case has not been updated, though it could and should be. (What, after all, is modern about petty nationalism, and creating new borders?) And so Alex Salmond, by far the most able Scottish politician, has been allowed to frame the argument. Now he is being permitted to set the timetable as well, choosing a referendum at his preferred moment, with his preferred wording. The coalition has already, unnecessarily, conceded this. But why should a decision which affects the whole kingdom be shaped solely by the man who wants to break it up? And what constitutional status would a Salmond-framed ‘yes’ vote have for the future of the United Kingdom? Wouldn’t it be better for David Cameron to anticipate Mr Salmond and offer the Scots his own referendum, under full British referendum impartiality rules, rather than waiting for the SNP to plan the next four or five years to win it? The Prime Minister should also remind everyone that this is a matter on which, eventually, all British people should have their say. Members of all parties who favour the Union should now work out where they can make common cause.
There are probably large numbers of English politicians in all the main parties who have no position at all on the subject.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in