Bill Jamieson: David Cameron’s referendum headache
David Cameron: Shouldn't resort to namecalling. Picture: PA
Pushing for an early devolution vote to satisfy ‘investor uncertainty’ may rebound on the PM
IN THE space of three days we have been catapulted from soporific post-festive torpor to an almighty rammy between London and Edinburgh. This is not over the pros and cons of independence as such but on the procedures and protocols for a referendum. What made us think for a moment that even the pathway to this vote would be other than a legal and constitutional minefield?
Prime Minister David Cameron declared at the weekend that the independence referendum should be brought forward to minimise business and investor uncertainty, and that it should be a straight “Yes/No” question on the ballot: no second “Salmond safety net” option for “Maximum Devolution”.
Alex Salmond has countered that the UK government has no right to dictate the terms of the referendum or the timing, given the support for the SNP in the Holyrood election last year, which delivered it a stunning overall majority. He has defiantly named, if not the exact date for the referendum, at least the season (autumn 2014) and says the “devo-max” option should be put out for wider discussion. Such matters should be for Scotland to decide, not the subject of dictation by a London-based Tory politician – etc, etc.
The indefatigable Jim Sillars has pointed out the legal position under the 1998 Scotland Act with which Mr Salmond seems unfamiliar. Some believe Cameron has put Salmond on the back foot and forced him to concede a commitment to talks to avoid the nuclear option of resort to the Supreme Court. However, the prevailing view is that it is Salmond who is setting the pace and who continues to run rings round a confused and leaderless unionist opposition.
Just before we settle into the trenches for this war of constitutional attrition, there is, I suspect, a broad group of Scots who do not fall comfortably into either of these positions. Cameron and Salmond are not the only fruits. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the option which could well command a powerful endorsement in any referendum may not be presented at all: an effective disenfranchisement which could undermine the referendum vote as envisaged.
First, on the question of timing, it is strange to hear from a Conservative prime minister such anxiety to rush at constitutional change, especially one that may break up the Union. There are three strong reasons for not rushing.
First, there is as yet no clear definition of what “independence” is. Second, there is no clear definition of what “maximum devolution” is. And third, given the current arguments over the Scotland Bill, there is no clear definition of what the status quo is.
Unless and until we are more fully clear as to what it is that we are voting for, what is and is not involved, what may or may not profoundly affect our economy, whether we will have a greater deficit or a smaller one, a crushing debt burden or a bearable one and not least, which currency we will be in, Scotland has every good cause not to rush at this, for fear that we may end up with the constitutional equivalent of the Edinburgh trams.
David Cameron, the Chancellor George Osborne and Scottish Secretary Michael Moore have made much in their calls for an early referendum of concerns over “business investment and uncertainty”.
Now I follow business opinion fairly closely. And I detect little concern over this issue at present. That may change dramatically if a “Yes” vote results in a commitment to join the euro. But for now, the overwhelming worry across Scottish business is how to survive the downturn and to batten down the hatches rather than a vote three years out.
Osborne has referred to the effect of uncertainty on overseas investors. But here too, since no specific cases are cited, it is hard to gauge how deep or widespread this is.
In her column here this week, Joan McAlpine, the fast-rising Eva Peron of the SNP, wrote of the tide flowing inexorably towards independence (it surely can’t be long before she has her own declamatory balcony and forest of microphones overlooking the Royal Mile, soon to be renamed Victory Avenue of 5 May). She quoted Victor Hugo, he of Les Miserables: “You can resist an invading army, but not an idea whose time has come.” And she cited research showing that it only takes 10 per cent of the people in a society to be convinced of an idea for it to spread and turn around the majority.
Fortunately for the 90 per cent, we have a democratic system requiring majority support to protect us from government by fanatical clique and transitory spasm. The image of inexorable tide also glosses over the different forms and shapes of political outcome. Along that long front – between full integration, through devolution, through “devo-max” to independence, there are many stops: a house of many mansions.
The unionists fear that the inclusion of a “dev-max” option on the ballot paper is a ruse by Alex Salmond to construct a safety net should he fail to win a majority for independence. But it is at least as much of a safety net for those who wish to remain within the Union.
Indeed, the danger of a unionist insistence on a straight vote on independence may be to force many hitherto undecided Scots offended by such intervention to vote for independence.
This would deliver to Mr Cameron the very opposite of the outcome he seeks.
Under the option of “devo-max” Scotland would enjoy substantial new powers but stop short of the “full Monty” of a separate army, security policy, foreign embassies, border controls and a separate currency and central bank. Scotland would stand in relation to the rest of the UK rather like the Channel Islands. And this would seem to be the option of preference for many.
Professor John Curtice, writing on the results of his detailed poll research last summer, noted: “While Scots still appear to be reluctant to embrace independence, they do appear to think that Holyrood is the place where most important domestic decisions should be made.
“Slightly less than a third believe the Scottish Parliament should be making the key decisions for Scotland about defence and foreign affairs. But about three-fifths think decisions about taxes and welfare benefits, both of which are still largely reserved to Westminster, should be made by Holyrood. ”
If “dev-max” is thus the preferred option, why should it not be on the ballot paper – rather than forcing voters to choose between one extreme and another? For a party philosophically opposed to extremes, Mr Cameron might consider that in this house of constitutional futures, there are indeed many mansions.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- The Rumour Mill: Tuesday’s football news and gossip
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: 12 C to 20 C
Wind Speed: 10 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 12 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 9 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 18 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
wl
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 11:04 PMThe UK government was not bothered by a referendum (or lack of it) in 1919-1921 when Ireland got its independence. So there is no reason why the UK government should now be bothered by a referendum in Scotland; that is purely a Scottish affair.
Tartancult
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 09:55 PMPushing for an early devolution vote to satisfy ‘investor uncertainty’ may rebound on the PM..................................................Pushing for an early devolution vote to satisfy ‘investor uncertainty’ may NOT rebound on the PM.............................Just hedging my bets here.
George Coutts
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 05:29 PMThe real headache for Westminster is wher goes the Nuke Subs Missiles and No Oil or Gas for south of the border. No deals just lump it and build Reactors to take up the slack. Scotland will not tolerate Nucliar so boy´s it´s MIGRANE TIME and where to dump all that Missery. We´le Keep Ours and You Keep Yours....No other deal avaliable!!!
Newferryman
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 05:23 PMExcellent article by Bill Jamieson. I completely agree with everything he is saying here. This has to be a first for me and the hootsman. The dice is about to be cast. Opinion on either independence or status quo being the only options stamped on the dice gives no manouvering for any of the parties. If favour suddenly swings towards independence what then for the unionist parties. They loose all on the roll. What do the SNP loose. A bit of face but they will live to fight another day.
Simonsaid
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 04:47 PMA PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS – CAMERON HAS JUST ASKED – WHAT HAVE I DONE TO MAKE YOU CRY ALEX? IT’S TEARS OF FRUSTRATION DAVE RELIES ALEX – YOU GAVE-IN TO EVERYTHING I WANT AND I CANNY THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE GET WHINGE ABOOT
Simonsaid
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 03:52 PMAlex Salmond seems unfamiliar with the legal position under the Scotland Act – well that is no surprise as that is only one many things he is not familiar with but doesn’t stop him running-off at the mouth about. He gives the impression that any law that doesn‘t agree with Salmond’s law must be wrong. -----------------To take up the Prof’s point – The reason Scots appear reluctant to embrace independence is because they do not believe that Salmond knows what the word means or worse, that he does know but wants to redefine it to suit his own idea of what it should mean. This is bourn –out by his ludicrous “Independence in Europe” slogan which makes no sense as, as everyone is now aware, the EU has made it crystal clear that there will be no such thing as Independent states in the United States of Europe. ---------------------- The above answers the author of this article’s first question. As to his second question – devolution is an on-going process of the present UK set-up. So, why does it have to appear on a ballot paper for independence? – Answer – IT DOESN’T! The third question is also superfluous as reference to any dictionary will show “the status quo” means - The existing condition or state of affairs – which surprise surprise is what we have at present. Deary me it is no wonder business has fled to China and India if it took us as long to manufacture goods as it takes for our under-worked overpaid politicians to arrange some ballot papers with a couple of tick boxes on them – YES THREE YEARS IS CUMIN IT IS IT NO? AYE IT DEFINITELY IS - AM NO DIPPIT A DINAE NEED THREE YEARS O SNP TUITION TAE PUT A TICK IN A BOX
Gibbo
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 02:10 PM8 and 9 I take it you are scoffing me, well thats ok if you are doing it me you are leaving someone else alone, I hope you are still active on here after the may elections, I will enjoy a wee bit banter then.
peter58
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 01:31 PMI particularly enjoyed Bill's comments about Joan McAlpine. However, rather than comparing her to Eva Peron, a more accurate one could be made with Saddam's trusty right-hand man Chemical Ali. Now reincarnated as Chemical McAlly - a fitting tribute for this ex-journalist, sometime blogger and propagandist.
Brond
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 01:13 PM#8, Sorry, I was referring to Devo-Max not to independence. Apologies for the confusion.
Buford Van Stomm
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 01:05 PMI will say simply to Bill that the definition of Independence is to be able to control your own life and not to be bullied by others who would put you down ==================================================== Priceless...more of this please.
Buford Van Stomm
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 01:04 PMRecently, polling evidence suggested that support was at around 68% ==================================================== ha ha ha ha
Gibbo
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 12:54 PMI will say simply to Bill that the definition of Independence is to be able to control your own life and not to be bullied by others who would put you down, if the westminster Government had invoked the word Union to it true meaning then this situfation would not have arrive but they are so desperate to hold on to Scotland resources for themselves they have forgotten that this is supposed to be a Union of two equal Countries but the people will have their say in May just wait and see.
Brond
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 11:31 AMRecently, polling evidence suggested that support was at around 68% and yet none of Scotland's political parties are engaging with this issue. Only the SNP stand on a platform of change, though it may be offering too great a change for many. Labour, with their new leader Johann Lamont, have failed to move any further forward than the now discredited Scotland Bill. If the SNP do lose a referendum on independence then they could remain the most popular political party in Scotland as they will undoubtedly move onto supporting Devo-Max. Labour, on the other hand, will have come out of a campaign where they have supported the same position as David Cameron's Tories. Douglas Alexander has said that Labour needs a new story for Scotland but to date the party have failed to agree on what this should be. There are those in Labour (ex-First Minister Henry McLeish, Malcolm Chisholm, some trade unions and grass roots members) who believe in Devo-Max but they have been driven underground. It looks like Labour will remain behind the curve, following David Cameron's lead; this will give Cameron a poll boost (his party are now level with Labour) as he is seen to be taking on the querolous Scots, and it may be the death knell for Ed Miliband, whose leadership has failed to energise the party. Labour still seem to think that if the SNP lose a referendum on independence then they will lose support - but those who support independence will easily transfer their support to Devo-Max to salve their disappointment, adding to those who already state Devo-Max as their preferred option. Labour are in danger of deserting the field.
douglas-home rule
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 11:03 AMI would point out, if Devo Max is not on the ballot and Independence defeated, then further devolution is very unlikely. Labour and the LibDems simply have no mechanism to get more powers to Scotland given their electoral weakness. So to block Devo Max and advocate more devolution is just the Alick Douglas-Hume trick. Surely we wont get tricked again!
SlyFifer
Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 08:14 AMPending Moderation
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.