It has been over 24 hours since David Cameron made it clear that he would be advancing plans for “decisive†action on the independence referendum. He has since fleshed out his rhetoric with an offer to the SNP that it can hold a referendum in the next 18 months that the UK Government will pave a legal path right up to the country’s break up for. The SNP has, quite reasonably, rejected the notion entirely and remains unmoved from its plans to hold the referendum in the second half of this term. So that’s the two main protagonists out of the way in a new skirmish that isn’t entirely unexpected, but what say Labour and the Lib Dems? What input shall they have that could pull this situation their way? Well, precious little and not a jot so far as far as I can make out, save for Tom Harris who is lockstep behind Cameron (quelle surprise).
So what should Labour and the Lib Dems do about this surprise development? And who are we looking to for leadership, Miliband/Clegg or Lamont/Rennie? This is a big test for how devolved these parties’ strategies and decision making are and it is an opportunity for leaders on both sides of the border.
First of all, the time for fence sitting is over. This isn’t Calman, this isn’t bland attack pieces in the newspaper, this isn’t blocking a minority Government as was the case in 2007-2011. The game has begun and some parties still haven’t laced up their boots. It is of course difficult to predict what Labour will do as it is not at all clear what type of Scotland the party, and the party members, wish to live in in the medium to long term. Assuming that it is somewhere between the status quo and full fiscal autonomy, they should try to restrict the space that Alex Salmond has to operate in.
David Cameron’s proposal is either right or it is wrong, this is a decision for Scotland or it is a decision to be dictated by London and, for me, Labour and the Lib Dems should seek to argue both. David Cameron has served up the ideal opportunity for the Scottish leaders of unionist parties to loosen their ties with London a little bit more. Johann Lamont should stand shoulder to shoulder with Alex Salmond in denouncing Cameron’s intervention, even if she is doubtlessly secretly pleased that the UK Government has made a move and has some sort of strategy up its sleeve to stop the relentless Nationalist march. The way that she can assist, along with Willie Rennie through a Labour/LD alliance on this issue, is to effectively man mark the SNP and dilute their arguments by sharing them, differing only in the result that the hope to achieve whenever the referendum comes around.
Ed Miliband should provide lukewarm but convincing support of David Cameron’s proposal, stating his commitment to the UK and desire that Scotland remains a part of it while Johann Lamont can rail just as much as Salmond is doing currently from Edinburgh, pushing for that second question that Labour still needs to own and shape in order to get back into the driving seat of Scotland’s political journey. Labour can win support of those who wish to go early or go later on a vote, the SNP is restricted to the latter; Labour can win support for proponents of fiscal autonomy, the status quo, devo max, the SNP is increasingly restricted to independence. (This of course comes with the caveat that full fiscal autonomy and devolution max are de facto victories for all but the most fundamentalist of SNP members. It, again, all hinges on precisely what Labour actually wants from this plebiscite).
So that is Labour, and to an extent the Lib Dems should try the same, but Willie Rennie and Nick Clegg have more to lose. The Tories have shown that they do not need Scottish MPs in order to win a UK General Election and they won’t need any in 2015 to win a craved majority. So even if Scotland collectively bellows with anger at an early referendum being forced upon us, it’s no skin off David Cameron and all but one of the Conservative MPs’ noses as long as the result is a No. The Lib Dems however, if seen as the handmaidens of a dastardly ruse by the Bullingdon elite, will have to pay a very heavy price for a longer period than they already face. A quarter of the Lib Dems’ MPs are north of the border, the Tories only have one, so this is a bigger risk for Clegg than it is for Cameron and to what extent depends on the attitudes of Scots.
Alex Salmond has tried to use Scottish nonchalance to his advantage by gambling that the public doesn’t mind waiting until 2014, 2015 or 2016 to have the referendum that we provided “an overwhelming mandate†for (as opposed to just a standard mandate of course); David Cameron is trying to use that same apparent unbothered opinion of Scots to bounce the public into an early referendum with insignificant backlash, and he may yet pull it off. Labour and the Lib Dems have the opportunity to come through the middle and actually stir the public’s imagination by owning the constitutional settlement that most Scots seem to prefer, but if they haven’t done it yet then why would they do so now?
Time is running out for them and irrelevance beckons as events currently unfold, and particularly as Cameron and Salmond escalate their positions, taking the headlines with them.
The choice of silence is no longer an option for Labour and the Lib Dems. It’s time for a bit of Bring it On.
UPDATE:
Scottish Labour have a very short news item on their website. They want the referendum “as quickly as possible” and want it to be “quick, clear and decisive”, wording that is remarkably similar to that of David Cameron’s on Andrew Marr yesterday, though they have ducked answering the question of whether they agree with Cameron’s bribe or not.
For me, it is a mistake for Scottish Labour to line up too closely and too cosily with the Tories on this and leave so much vacant space for the SNP to take the anti-London, anti-Tory, seemingly pro-Scotland line on its own. I reckon holding firm to an anti-SNP line has clouded Labour’s better judgement. The SNP did after all win its majority after devolved parties stated that if people wanted a referendum on SNP terms then Scots would have to vote for it. The perception across surely is this – Salmond won, he gets to make the rules.
However, the biggest problem for Labour is this (and this news story doesn’t help answer it at all)…:
What powers do Scottish Labour want Scotland to have going forward? It’s not enough to be the negative party saying No for the next 18 months.
#1 by Gregor on January 9, 2012 - 12:11 pm
If you want a quick update on Labour, then Malcolm Chisholm (ever the voice of reason) has tweeted:
MalcolmChishol1 Malcolm Chisholm Msp
Labour must speak out against Cameron’s mad meddling which will greatly increase support for independence
Meanwhile, I saw a tweet from Raymond Buchannan, claiming that Johann said:
BBCRaymondB Raymond Buchanan
. @johannforleader: “If these proposals help there to be a quick, clear and decisive referendum result we would welcome them”
Obviously Johann’s will be the party line, while I would suggest Malcolm’s will be the voice of the membership. Great start for her.
#2 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 12:23 pm
I’ve added an update as Lamont has given tacit support for Cameron’s move in a short news release on the party website, which is contrary to what Chisholm has tweeted, interestingly.
Labour needs a joined up policy and a joined up strategy pronto, but I really do wonder if it has run out of time.
#3 by Gregor on January 9, 2012 - 12:32 pm
Not really that interesting that Chisholm disagrees with the party leadership is it? Nothing new, certainly! I don’t think it’s too fair to say that Labour are divided or anything like that just for that reason.
Although I do think Johann has backed the wrong horse, personally. She could have gained some credibility by standing up to the Tories here.
#4 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 12:37 pm
Ha, good point. But I’d be surprised if Chisholm was alone in his thinking on this one.
#5 by Gregor on January 9, 2012 - 12:41 pm
Oh I agree entirely with you on that one. Will any of their MSPs/MPs come out and say so though?
#6 by Galen10 on January 9, 2012 - 12:27 pm
Labour and the LD’s are like rabbits caught in headlights; they have neither the vision nor the quality of leadership to formulate the kind of “down the middle” response you suggest.
Cameron’s move might be clever in the short term, but there are huge risks it could blow up in the faces of Unionists and hand the SNP (and many who don’t support the SNP who want devo-max, or could be persuaded of the merits of full independence) a stick to beat them with.
Alex and the SNP should simply restate their position that whatever Cameron does, they intend to hold a referendum in the second half of this parliament; that’s the platorm they sttod on and the mandate they received from the Scottish people.
It will surely be relatively easy for the SNP to come up with opposing legal arguments to whatever Westminster lawyers say, and to present Cameron’s cunning plan as an attempt to dictate to the Scottish people.
If Scottish Labour line up with the Tories and LD’s on this one, they are toast.
#7 by ReasonableNat on January 9, 2012 - 11:38 pm
“It will surely be relatively easy for the SNP to come up with opposing legal arguments to whatever Westminster lawyers say, and to present Cameron’s cunning plan as an attempt to dictate to the Scottish people.”
This is the important point for me.
This is a political (and moral) question, not a legal one, so having the legal right to hold the referendum, or not, is irrelevant. If the referendum is held, and it will be, then the result is all that matters, and our right to self-determination will override any internal UK legal bickering, end of.
#8 by JPJ2 on January 9, 2012 - 12:30 pm
I have just seen Lamont being interviewed on BBC News 24-her approach seems totally indistinguishable from Cameron’s.
Rather confirms my judgement of her as having been only the Deputy to Iain Gray as telling one all that one needed to know about her political talents.
#9 by Manny on January 9, 2012 - 12:38 pm
Labour and the Lib Dems know the people want more powers and therefore they have to say they support more powers for Scotland.
However both have thrown scorn on the idea of the second question (often saying that no one knows what devo max even is), the lib dems have fallen silent on the full implementation of all the Calman proposals (Labour haven’t pushed for this either, both seem happy with the Scotland Bill as is) and neither have supported any of the Scottish Governments calls for more powers (crown estate, corporation tax etc).
So I think it’s highly unlikely either will take up support of the second question because if they were honest, neither of them want more powers for Scotland. Which could be a bit of an own goal for them since it would increase their support in Scotland and might be the one thing that could save the union (if you were so inclined).
#10 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 9, 2012 - 12:56 pm
To be fair to Johann, she has made it clear where Scottish Labour stand – shoulder to shoulder with the Bullingdon Boys.
Strange days indeed.
#11 by gavin on January 9, 2012 - 1:18 pm
I agree that none of the Scottish leaders of the Brit opposition seem to want any more powers for Scotland. I think this is against their own interests , but its getting too close to a referendum for them to change mentality. However, this attitude could lose some support of their own membership who would like Scotland to run more of its own fiscal affairs and see this referendum as a one-off to gain powers.
#12 by Galen10 on January 9, 2012 - 2:07 pm
Your update section encapsulates the problem for those Labour and LD supporters who support more devolution or FFA, and yet oppose independence; at present they have nowhere to go.
Being seen to be on the same side as died in the wool Unionists, with no alternative narrative to either the status quo or independence will be disasterous for both of them (OK, OK… the rump LD’s are so insignificant they needn’t trouble us too much).
If Lamont had any judgement or guts, she’d be pitching the Labour position as devo-max, warning Cameron off and daring the SNP to hold a vote on the basis of dovo-max vs. independence; she won’t of course, because her masters won’t let her, and she’s too much of a stooge of the Westminster cadres.
I have the sense that her support for Cameron’s position will go down in history as Scottish Labour’s suicide note. People in Scotland who still support Labour or the LD’s, but who want FFA or devo-max, should make their opinions known or simply vote with their feet.
#13 by BaffieBox on January 9, 2012 - 2:16 pm
Of equal concern for Labour/Liberal Democrats IMO is that they do not seem to have been consulted whatsoever on this intervention. The Labour silence yesterday and this morning suggests they were caught out by the announcement and only at lunchtime did they get an official line decided, and various members were able to drip feed it to the public. Up until now, I found it inconceivable that the Tories could move without bringing Labour on board but it looks to me like they have, and Labour seem willing to take the hit. Quite incredible. Willie Rennie is sticking to his line that the legality issue should be resolved by Westminster, but no mention of the sunset-clause, suggesting he too is out of the loop.
How do Labour and the Liberal Democrats keep their members happy going forward? It was to be expected, but Malcolm Chisholm and Henry McLeish have broken ranks very quickly so I expect there to be more who are unhappy at being outside of their own Unionist camp. Not only are the Tories manipulating timing, the DevoMax option that had considerable support within Labour and the Home Rule LibDems looks like it has been buried.
Utter shambles.
#14 by Britnot on January 9, 2012 - 2:21 pm
Cameron should stick to looking after the interests of the South East of England and leave the Scottish people to decide on their own future. I think that it speaks volumes about the paucity of the Unionist argument that I have seen no cogent comments in favour of the status quo, other than the usual scare stories.
As a proud Welshman I am happy to follow where a free Scotland goes, than to remain with an increasingly moribund, broken and divided UK! Go for it Scotland the Brave!
#15 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 9, 2012 - 2:25 pm
It seems to have escaped comment so far, there is now a Cabinet committee on Scotland chaired by Osborne rather than Moore. The Libdems have been completely sidelined, and Osborne is now the de facto Secretary of State for (against?) Scotland.
also, what status quo are the Libs and Labour in favour of? the current position, the post-Scotland Act position, something more enhanced than that, or what?
I’m not sure Labour have thought this through properly. they could have gone FFA and been triumphant in a referendum. instead, they nail themselves to Osborne’s mast. Very odd.
#16 by John on January 9, 2012 - 2:31 pm
Home Rule “buried”? Really?!
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/news/2011/11/sir-menzies-campbell-announced-chair-home-rule-commission
#17 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 9, 2012 - 3:46 pm
So – will the outcome of this be an option in a London-driven referendum?
Didn’t think so……
#18 by BaffieBox on January 9, 2012 - 3:21 pm
Ok. If Liberal Democrat policy is Home Rule, why do they need a commission? Where is the Liberal Democrat, Home Rule voice in this constitutional debate? A Ming commission? Gimme strength. While we remember the biggest constitutional debate the UK has had since bread was sliced is about to start, feel free to convince me the Liberal Democrats havent buried they commitment to Home Rule.
This Liberal Democrat/Tory government are offering no more than a status-quo/independence showdown and Home Rule isnt even on the radar.
#19 by Tris on January 9, 2012 - 3:32 pm
Well, the Liberals have already become Tories; it appears that Labour has joined them.
Good, good.
#20 by John on January 9, 2012 - 3:40 pm
Type your comment here
Oh really? And yet when Mike Moore repeats his Party’s view that he neither is, nor was, a Unionist but a Federalist – he gets pelters from a truly Unionist press.
There is a middle ground you know – Clegg was right on this – the extremes are the status quo at one end and full indy at the other.
#21 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 9, 2012 - 3:50 pm
So – when can we expect the Liberals to explain what Home Rule means? when can we expect to be able to vote on it?
#22 by Manny on January 10, 2012 - 4:37 pm
Well we know what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean FFA or Devo Max because Moore has said he’s against that option going on a referendum; it doesn’t mean control of Corporation tax because he say’s that is better controlled by Westminster and it doesn’t mean control of the Crown Estate because he’s said that shouldn’t be devolved either.
#23 by BaffieBox on January 9, 2012 - 3:59 pm
Hey, I sympathise with the rough ride from the press. 😉
However, I repeat, there is no tangible presence on policy from the Lib Dems during this constitutional debate. I ask again: why the need for a commission if the established policy is Home Rule? Where is the influence in the current constitutional debate… it’s completely passing the Liberal Democrats by, commission or no commission.
And I agree, there is a middle ground and it’s been offered by the SNP but no mainstream party has taken hold of it and worked out how to get it in. It’s bad enough Labour passed the opportunity up, but at least they prefer the status quo (officially at least). What is the Liberal Democrat excuse…? Their official policy is the middle ground but are actually arguing for the status quo.
Utter madness. Here is a rip opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to steal that middle ground, make it their own and hopefully recover the tanking they are taking in the polls. In the end, they promote Tory/Labour policy. I find it hard to have sympathy for them.
Willie Rennie was quite clearly out of the loop on this intervention and quite clearly disagrees with the sunset-clause. Only he and his colleagues can answer what relevance they think they have in this debate or what they can offer.
#24 by commenter on January 10, 2012 - 3:11 pm
You are wrong on the ‘extremes’.
One extreme would be a North-Korean ‘style’ Juche regime, and the other would be abolition of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Office et al.
#25 by John on January 9, 2012 - 3:59 pm
Type your comment here
Some pretty heavy duty political analysis there…
Does the same assumption about coalition=subjection work for 1999-2007? Would you have looked at it that way if Tavish had not ruled out a coalition in 2007? Or is it just when opponents form a coalition that they sell-out?
#26 by Tris on January 9, 2012 - 9:45 pm
It wasn’t supposed to be an in depth analysis of the current political situation in the UK. I’m sorry if it disappointed.
I’m in favour of coalitions. I thought that the Liberal/Labour one did a passable job of government, and better than labour would have done on it’s own. The best policies came from the Liberals. I’m also cognisant of the fact that in the current English coalition the Liberals have saved the poor, the sick and the old from the very worst of the policies of a Conservative government that would have them on the streets for the want of housing benefits, and freezing to death from lack of winter heating bonus, etc, etc.
What I was saying was that the Liberals have ditched most of their important policies to become part of a government which believes in tripling tuition fees, maintaining nuclear weaponry, appears to have abandoned home rule, has done nothing about Cameron’s attack on the EU and subsequent UK isolation (all for the benefit of the City) and campaigned fiercely for AV (remember what Nick said about that before Cameron told him it was all he was getting and the ministerial Mondeo called!)
It seems to me that before you go into coalition you must have at least some things in common.
Heavy duty political analysis it is not. I leave that to the intellectuals.
#27 by itsyourself on January 9, 2012 - 4:22 pm
Astonishing day all round. Quite mystified as to why now and who was so monumentally stupid as to think this was a good idea for the unionist cause. I remember the old Yes Minister sketch after Hacker becomes PM he is advised to consider “Masterly inactivity” I want to be firm he says. Fine says Humphrey “Firm masterly inactivity”, wise words.
#28 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 9, 2012 - 4:47 pm
Salmond very quiet today, clearly observing Napoleon’s maxim – “never interfere with your enemy while he’s making a mistake”…….
#29 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 5:00 pm
Indeed, the BBC’s James Cook is reporting (on Twitter) that DC is u-turning on the 18 month limit.
#30 by Craig Gallagher on January 9, 2012 - 6:08 pm
I can’t be the only one who has watched Scottish politics over the last six or so years and thought that every time Alex Salmond lays a trap, his opponents blindly stumble into it.
Minority government allowed him to insist that his opponents were simply anti-SNP, and therefore too self-interested to work for Scotland.
His positivity strategy allowed him to paint his opponents as relentlessly negative, something they gleefully obliged to by becoming even more negative.
Now with devo-max, we have seen him open a chasm into which either Labour or the Liberals might have poured themselves into and seized the constitutional initiative, but as per Eck’s prediction they summarily rejected it and lined up squarely with the Tories, leaving the SNP in full control of the middle ground.
It’s no wonder the SNP juggernaut is so euphoric. Everything Salmond touch turns to gold (or perhaps Tory royal blue) and his unswerving ability to predict the political fallout months later from statements made matter-of-factly, and completely to his opponents’ surprise, is spellbinding. I fully believe he’s about to emasculate the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as he has Jack McConnell, Tavish Scott and Iain Gray before him. Cameron’s inevitable retreat will really be a stunning victory for an already awesome political giant.
#31 by Allan on January 9, 2012 - 7:29 pm
Er… no you are not Craig, as per my comment on another, multi author blog.
#32 by Craig Gallagher on January 9, 2012 - 9:45 pm
Great. I dunno what comment/blog you’re referring to (my guess would be Labour Hame?) but thanks all the same for confirming that “I can’t be the only one…” which was by no means an attempt to suggest that I was the only one. In fact, it was an expression of confidence that I WASN’T the only one.
#33 by Allan on January 10, 2012 - 7:17 pm
Ah… an itallic’s failure there… i would have got that!!!
Um, actually Dale & Co. Im not sure I’m allowed on to Labour Hame with my straight talking views… 🙂
#34 by Braveheart on January 9, 2012 - 6:21 pm
To address the headline:
what happened to “bring it on” was that Wendy Alexander offered the SNP a window of opportunity on holding their referendum, and the SNP ran away…..just as they are doing with DCs offer to “bring it on”.
BTW, Nicola confirmed o BBC radio today that she favours a single in/out question. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16463961
#35 by Craig Gallagher on January 9, 2012 - 7:06 pm
Actually, I think you’ll find that the leadership in London shut Wendy down, to the point that Labour would have rejected any draft referendum bill brought before the Scottish Parliament, regardless of Wendy’s fine sentiments.
As to Nicola Sturgeon, at no point in any of this have the SNP ever not favoured a straight “in/out” question. The entire point of devo max was that it could be included if somebody else brought it forward as a legitimate idea.
#36 by Braveheart on January 10, 2012 - 6:57 pm
Actually I think you’ll find, here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn_gxbgGREs
…..is that Wendy offered Alex Salmond Labour’s support for a referendum and Alex Salmond refused it. He could have accepted it but he said he was going to have his referendum, on plan, in 2010….
So all that stuff about “…we couldn’t get our referendum bill through Hlyrood because the other parties wouldn’t let us” is a bunch of…..
So, as I said, what happened to “bring it on†was that Wendy Alexander offered the SNP a window of opportunity on holding their referendum, and the SNP ran away…..just as they are doing with DCs offer to “bring it onâ€.
#37 by Allan on January 9, 2012 - 7:31 pm
In the same way that UK Prime Ministers used to run away from calling elections… untill the polling was in their favour.
#38 by Barbarian on January 9, 2012 - 7:10 pm
Surprised as well about the inaction from Labour and the Lib Dems. I can understand the Lib Dems reluctance, but Milliband should have at least made some sort of definitive statement. At the very least you would expect some sort of support for increased powers (as a few have noted above).
Think there are a few people still suffering for the effects of the holiday season.
#39 by Freoboy on January 9, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Labour and the Lib Dems are presumably refusing to go down the devo max route on the grounds that they want to polarise the issue between independence and the status quo. Unfortunately they are falling into the trap of appearing irrelevant because they are not offering the middle ground position that many argue is the most popular.
In these sorts of debates its frequently the middle ground that is squeezed and the SNP is simply putting more pressure on it by constantly offering it as an alternative. The more that offer is spurned, the more Scots will conclude they might as well choose one of the ‘extremes’ as there is no-one championing the middle – and I think more will opt for the Scottish option as opposed to the London Tory one.
Today’s events are simply falling into line with this pattern. In political terms this isn’t rocket science but it seems to be a lesson lost on many.
#40 by ReasonableNat on January 9, 2012 - 11:52 pm
Absolutely a strategic masterpiece. It is not only as you describe – the SNP are actually managing to make it look as though the unionist parties are deliberately obstructing our right to choose devo-max. If the SNP have to finally pull the plug on the the second question they’ll be able to say that they honestly tried their best to give us this choice…
#41 by Allan on January 9, 2012 - 7:45 pm
The only thing wrong with Jeff’s post was that there was way too much common sense, something that the Scottish representitives of the UK parties are severely lacking. I reckon that this will turn out to be a spectacular own goal from Cameron. His deliberate politiking will go down like a lead balloon with a populace that have not forgiven the Conservitives for Thatcher.
What will be interesting will be the view of Lamont’s statement and eventual position. For a party that, on the one hand prides itself on being pro devolution and being heavily involved at the advent of the Scottish Parliament, and on the other actively put obsticles in the way of the setting up of a Scottish Assembly in 1978/79. One would think that Scottish Labour’s position would be further transfer of powers to Holyrood. But like I said earlier, that smacks too much like common sense for the current Scottish Labour Party.
#42 by Topher Dawson on January 9, 2012 - 9:25 pm
I respectfully remind readers here that William Hill is offering decimal odds of 10 (traditional odds of 9 to 1) to anyone like me who thinks Scotland will be independent by 2020. This price cannot last; take it while you can.
#43 by Alex Buchan on January 10, 2012 - 12:22 am
I don’t know why people are so surprised by Labour and the LibDems. They see the SNP as an existential threat. They’ve convinced themselves that Alex Salmond did never really want to have a referendum because he knew he couldn’t win it. They genuinely see his suggestion of the inclusion of Devo Max as further evidence of his reluctant to have a straightforward YES/NO referendum. They therefore think they smell blood and with it their chance to reverse their fortunes in Scotland. An article in the Independent on Nov 11th trailed all of what’s happened yesterday and today, as did a BBC report on Dec 23rd. In the Indy article it said that government ministers were going round Labour MPs to sound them out as to whether they would go along with this. So the LibDems and Labour were roped in before Cameron went public. Basically they think that if they can corner Alex Salmond into having a legally watertight YES/NO vote, then they feel confident that they then win that referendum and set the SNP back for a generation hopefully for good (at least until there’s no oil left to speak of). They plan to follow up a referendum win with very restrictive rules against further referendums, and will claim that this one has shown that they are destabilising and proved that there isn’t after all that much support for separation. They’re not as stupid as we think they are, they wouldn’t be doing this unless they were pretty confident they will win the referendum and to be confident they have probably already worked out a strategy, including informal contacts with the press, on how they are going to run the NO campaign. It doesn’t surprise me that someone has commented that D C is backtracking on the 18 months’ time limit. The timing is not the most important thing for the Tories its luring the SNP into accepting the kind of blunt “Independence YES/NO? type referendum that’s important. So to try to make the SNP seem unreasonable they will bend over backwards with ever-so-reasonable offers of immunity from legal challenge, have it whenever you want type rhetoric; anything to make the SNP seem to be unreasonable and extremists. All three unionist parties are signed up to this strategy, Lammont unease is more to do with note wanting to look to eager to be following this line.
#44 by Barbarian on January 10, 2012 - 9:27 am
Moore is supposedly going to set out the legal framework for a referendum today.
I’ll bet that Westminster will legislate that there is a required minimum level of support from the total electorate, rather than from those who actually vote. In other words, more than 50% of eligible voters must vote “Yes”.
So, assuming that 65% of voters would say “Yes”, then it would require a turnout of over 80%, something I think is unheard of. (Hopefully my early morning arithmetic is not too far our!)
It is the only way they can legitimately (in the eyes of the law at least) upset the SNP. Cameron will want to be seen as playing “fair”.
I agree with Alex, in that the unionist parties are working together on this. They can’t mount a successful attack directly at Salmond, so they are going for the legal approach, with most of the media in hand.
#45 by Doug Daniel on January 10, 2012 - 2:05 pm
There’s no way they could impose such a thing after the 40% debacle in 1979. However, if they did indeed try that, there is a simple solution for the SNP: turn the referendum into a referendum on the union. So, to stay in the union requires 50% of the population to vote “Yes” to the union, otherwise we become independent.
They’d soon change their tune…
#46 by Alasdair Stirling on January 10, 2012 - 9:36 am
Notwithstanding the current majority, the Scottish parliament’s electoral system is heavily biased against a single party majority. For this reason, the SNP had to ensure that the referendum is held during the term of this parliament and that its outcome is legally binding on both the UK government and (more importantly) future Scottish parliaments. If a Unionist litigant were to interdict the referendum such that it could not be held before the next Scottish election; or if a future Unionist majority in the next parliament could cast a referendum result as a mere consultation requiring a further vote (which of course they would block), then nothing would come of the current referendum opportunity. For this reason, the SNP had to ensure that the UK government didn’t simply sit on its hands; it was always imperative to the SNP’s chances of success that Westminster acted to make the referendum legal and binding.
The other matter that the SNP had to reconcile was the option of further devolution (i.e. ‘Devo-Max’), but had to ensure that it was the Unionist parties that ruled it out. The SNP had to prevent a repeat of Alex Douglas-Hume’s offer (during the Scottish Assembly referendum campaign in 1978/79) of a better type of devolution in the future if the Scots voted ‘NO’ to the proposal on offer. If Devo-Max remained on the table (or if the SNP themselves ruled it out) the Unionist parties could target the ‘don’t knows’ with a ‘vote NO now, more powers later’ offer – which opinion polls suggest would be very attractive to many voters. In short, to have any chance of winning the referendum, the SNP have to ensure that the ‘don’t know’ voters are open to persuasion.
Far from seizing the initiative from the SNP, the Coalition government have simply played into the SNP’s hands. Cameron has ensured that the referendum will be binding on both the UK government and (most importantly) future Scottish parliaments; and having ruled Devo-Max, the Unionists have effectively boxed themselves into campaigning for the Calman status-quo.
#47 by Jeff on January 10, 2012 - 10:26 am
I think you’re spot on there Alasdair, great comment.
I suppose Cameron couldn’t not provide the power though given the May 2011 result so that only leaves the strength of their arguments in favour of the UK really, as it should be.
#48 by Alex Buchan on January 10, 2012 - 11:32 am
A better scenario would be for the SNP to have nothing to do with the UK government’s proposals and for the UK government to proceed with the referendum themselves and for the SNP to refuse to engage in this referendum. Scotland is still not ready to vote for independence, but events are more likely to conspire to make Scots vote that way, but further evidence of the bankruptcy of unionism is needed. Your scenario forcloses too quickly. The SNP needs to stick to their position of holding their own referendum.
#49 by Leighton on January 10, 2012 - 10:17 am
Rather painful viewing for supporters of Scottish Labour I suspect but heres Johann’s appearance on Channel 4 news last night http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9mwja3bua3A#!
#50 by Peter Thomson on January 10, 2012 - 11:54 am
Alasdair has it in a nutshell.
The rules of the game are – If Westminster wants a FFA / Devomax option they have to define it and produce a White Paper prior to the referendum defining what is on offer.
Legally we are talking about ending a treaty defined in international law, a treaty draw up between the parliaments of England and Scotland. It has nothing to do with the non-existent UK constitution.
If the people of Scotland wish a referendum on the issue of independence, they are entitled to hold one under the same UN Charter that covered Kosovo’s split from Serbia, the Helsinki accord and the Treaty of Vienna. Further these charter’s all protect the people of the seceding nation from external pressure or control by the political power they are seeking to leave.
In international law it can already be argued Cameron and Westminster are acting illegally in their attempt to ‘run’ this referendum on Scotland’s future. This reality has been tacitly conceded by Cameron and Westminster and they are now left trying to muddy the waters.
All the SNP need do is to sit on their hands, continue to create prosperity and a sense of equality in Scotland along social democratic lines and take the contrasting styles to the people of Scotland. The referendum question is rapidly becoming one of:
Do you want to have a social democracy in Scotland then vote ‘Yes’ to independence.
Do you want to continue with unbridled and unfettered neo-liberal capitalism and an increasing gap between the richest and poorest vote ‘No’.