Brian Monteith: Positive push to keep Scotland in the union
David Cameron: starting to give reasons for maintaining Union. Picture: Ian Rutherford
The Prime Minister has now hit the right notes with reasons to stay part of the UK, writes Brian Monteith
The Prime Minister should be congratulated on his speech in Edinburgh last Thursday and given every encouragement to repeat the exercise, for while he struck the right tone there remains much unfinished business that only he can put right.
It is not difficult to find critics of David Cameron in Scotland, and I must include myself as one of those, albeit from a position of occasional disappointment rather than hostility. Nevertheless, I think that most fair-minded people of whatever political persuasion who might read his Edinburgh speech would recognise that at last there was a wholehearted and sincere attempt to explain why Scotland has a better future remaining in the United Kingdom than leaving it.
It might not answer all the questions posed by Nationalists but for once there was a real attempt to construct a positive case on a non-partisan basis. It was a speech worthy of a Prime Minister speaking for the whole of Britain rather than the leader of the Conservatives looking for party advantage.
Gone was the negativity. Instead, Cameron argued that while Scotland is capable of being an independent nation, there was more to be gained by being British too and that both Scotland and the rest of the UK benefits from us working together. He did not use the words “New Unionism” but that is what he has started to articulate – long overdue.
Whatever is finally settled regarding when the referendum vote will be, who oversees it and the wording of the question (or questions), the advocates of Scotland’s union with Britain have to start explaining the many benefits that come from our interdependent institutions, our sharing of risks and opportunities, and our intertwined social and cultural relationships, be they at top tables or the result of family ties.
There are of course negatives to independence, such as the threat to what remains of our shipbuilding industry winning Royal Navy contracts, but it is important that these are presented by showing the loss of opportunity that the union currently offers rather than suggesting a dependency that belittles our faith in Scotland.
All of that said, the Prime Minister then astounded his audience by suggesting that further powers could be transferred to Holyrood following a “No” to independence. What these powers might be and how far they might go was not explained, but the offer was made and many hares have already been set running.
While I welcome the apparent realism of the Prime Minister that reform of Labour’s devolution settlement will not be achieved by the Scotland Bill, that unwanted progeny of Wendy Alexander, Tavish Scott and Annabel Goldie, I cannot fail to notice that we have been here before and that the Scottish public, being once bitten, will most certainly now be twice shy.
When in 1979 former prime minister Lord Home said that if we voted “No” in that year’s referendum, a Conservative government could bring forward something better than what Labour was offering, many people thought it an honourable offer – but nothing ever materialised from the Thatcher or Major governments and Home’s offer was shown to be worthless.
For David Cameron’s words to mean anything, to have any credibility and thus make a difference, the Scottish Conservatives must work out what new level of devolution, be it new-devo, devo-plus or devo-max, they are willing to legislate for and then keep their word.
For new devolved powers, it is no good offering the Scottish public a lucky bag; they will not settle for anything less than the genuine article, a Louis Vuitton, and not some knock-off at that.
There remains a difficulty about this new found Tory enthusiasm for devolution and it is the fact that it was only last November in the party’s Scottish leadership election that the winner, Ruth Davidson, was telling us there would be no more powers for Scotland after the Scotland Bill. It was for her a line in the sand and it was intentionally so, for it marked her out as implacably different to her main rival, Murdo Fraser, who has been campaigning for fiscal autonomy since 1998.
Now, with a few carefully considered words of the Prime Minister, Ruth Davidson has been instructed to go back on her promise to the party members. Can Davidson show face in public again and advocate Murdo Fraser’s policy as if it is her own? Does she have the gall to remain leader when she has been elected under a false prospectus?
Worse still, does she or her party even matter to Cameron, for he has with such casual authority made Davidson and her supporters a laughing stock at Holyrood.
One is left feeling that the Prime Minister is happy to devolve more power to a Scottish Parliament but cannot contemplate giving such power to his party in Scotland and will dictate how the Conservative campaign towards the referendum will be run – with the strategy determined in Downing Street but the bloody infantry deployed from the Scottish Tory camp in Edinburgh.
As I have explained above, for there to be any currency in the Prime Minister’s offer, there has to be a policy paper published, consulted upon and debated by the Scottish Conservatives. It must be adopted and advocated as regularly as any others that Ruth Davidson has already promised. Two weeks ago, she issued a paper on education – now she must do the same on greater devolved powers.
The obvious person to undertake this task for Cameron and Davidson is Murdo Fraser; he understands the issue inside out, he eats it for breakfast, lunch and dinner and has seconds when his wife is not looking. If Davidson is to retain any shred of self-respect, she should task Murdo Fraser with the role of developing the new policy that the Prime Minister wants. Davidson can hardly write it herself, having been so implacably opposed to the idea.
There is not a moment to lose. The fate of the unionist campaign, never mind the fate of the Scottish Conservatives themselves, could be determined by how they now play their hand. Fraser may have lost the battle for a separate Scottish Tory party but he is winning the war for more powers for Scotland.
• Brian Monteith is policy director of ThinkScotland.org
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: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 12 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 10 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 35 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Heretic
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 04:36 PMSneaky has received much praise for his "detailed" comments. I recommend the following: "If you read a review, an opinion, a description or a fact and you don't know who wrote it then it's no more reliable than if it were sprayed on a railway bridge." David Mitchell I have been persuaded over the last few years to become an English nationalist (small n intended). It may be a surprise to some here that the English feel as betrayed, used and ignored as they do. In the main, I find that English Nationalists are not anti anybody, that they understand only too well the reasons that the Scots want to be in more control of their country and their lives. Born and brought up in England, I am one of those who has a foot in both camps, with a strong Anglo Scot heritage. It seems strange to an Englishman like me that the best hope for the emancipation of my nation probably lies in the ability of the Scots to gain theirs. But does this mean that either Scots or English Nationalist must throw the baby out with the bathwater? Whose Union is it anyway? For far too long Westminster MP's have been allowed to believe it is theirs. I have news for them, they are wrong. It is the British Parliamentary and other so called elites that stand in the way of both our peoples having more say in the governance of our nations. Just for the sake of argument, imagine Westminster out of the picture, just for a moment. Both countries with their own Parliaments free from the shackles of a British Parliamentary system that has failed us and refuses to recognise the need for change. Someone mentioned a "social union" I believe this already exists and it is more powerful than many of the politicians realise. I also believe that in the coming months this will be tested to the full, with politico's on both sides of the argument bending and twisting statistics to underpin their particular arguments. Let them get on with it, but don't be fooled. I look forward to the day when all nations on these islands have the amount of "independence" they truly desire. Unlike some others I believe this will make "Our Union" stronger. All nations held in the same esteem as equal partners. Now why does that frighten Westminster so much?
Kobi
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 08:41 PM#32 "I am a Scottish Nationalist and am looking for what I think is best for Scotland." The two are mutually exclusive. Scottish Nationalists look for what is best for Scottish Nationalists.
stellarbluesky
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:49 PMWell said, Brian Monteith. Post 11 – ‘Sneeky’ by name – sneaky by nature. I think Gordon Hay and Co’s first thought is right – this is a Scottish Government (SNP) ‘insider’. But the reason is not the ‘clarity’ of his information – merely its volume. Just wait till its accuracy is openly challenged by UK Government spokesmen not afraid to be named – this will happen very soon now. Kobi’s posts 13 and 14 are spot on about Salmond’s effrontery – where’s the beef in the little chap’s post-independence mystery prize hallucinations? The world’s most amusing writer, PG Wodehouse, wrote that, ‘It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.’ Indeed – SNP zealots are always such fun to be around. Where would Scotland be without an England to be Scottish at?
Roytenn
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:27 PMKobi 28. I must have struck the right note by your attack on me. You do not know me and you do not know what my thoughts are on international matters but then that didn't stop you. I am a Scottish Nationalist and am looking for what I think is best for Scotland. Maybe if Monteith had stated what he was people could understand his point of view but I still have this memory of Thatcher and it is not a pleasant one. Thank you for your attack on me as it shows how insecure you are.
jofradd
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:21 PM@27 Yes but the SNP don't want the rest of the UK to be a foreign country. They want to have their cake and eat it. To retain the pound and the monarchy (?), to have a "Social Union" whatever that means, no border controls. Its some independent country that has its interests rates set by the Bank of England. Do they really think that the Bank is going to take any notice of Scotland's interests if its an independent country ? Alex Salmond knows he can't win a yesno vote hence the delay in the vote and all this posturing with Devo Max. As long as Scotland remains in the UK it has no right to be treated differently than the rest of the country as a condition for remaining a part of it. The referendum should be held asap with a straight Yes or No, its for Scotland to decide.
LondonReader
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:12 PM26 Kobi "They have a mandate for none of these things" --------- I stand corrected.
LondonReader
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:10 PM11 Sneeky "NO POSITIVE CASE FOR THE UNION" ----- Shouting generally indicates a weak arguement. Putting selective numbers to an anti UK argument does make the argument valid. If there is less spending power then a country's armed forces will be less well equipped. It's that simple. Isolation will not mean that Scotland needs little or no defence. Scotland will remain in the EU; the European project includes a single European foreign policy and European armed forces. You can cherry pick economic statistics entirely to your own satifaction, but the arc of prosperity from Reykjavik down to Dublin, across Scotland and over to Oslo is a myth; and that is before Alex spends Scotland into penury. Stating that size differential swallows up Scotland and makes it matter little which way Scottish voters vote, ignores the fact everyone in th UK gets a government it didn't vote for from time to time. If Scotland leaves the UK then Scotland's 1% of the population will be swallowed up by the EU, where there is far less democracy (read about the news in the rest of Europe for a change.) The so called asset stripping of Scotland by the UK is interdependence; London and Edinburgh give, Glasgow, Belfast, Rhondda and Liverpool receive
Kobi
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:53 PMWasn't Roytenn one of these very rare breeds, a committed national socialist who still weeps over the collapse of fascist and nationalist regimes around the world? He is something that you wouldn't want to find sticking to the base of your shoe.
Psychological
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:52 PMPeople can see what is positive (and negative) about life in the union, as we are living it right now! Ironically, even the SNP Government and their referendum, is a testament to the fair nature of the UK. It's really up the SNP to show why they think it's a positive move to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK - and by doing so making the remainder of the UK a foreign country.
Kobi
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM#25 "They voted in the last general election to be given the choice" They voted in the last Scottish election to be given the choice as soon as possible, not waiting until 2012 because Feartie Salmond doesn't think he can win until then, and not with a rigged question, nor with an extra question on a third option, nor with 16 and 17 year olds getting the vote. They have a mandate for none of these things.
LondonReader
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:20 PM21 jofradd "I predict that by the time of the referendum the rest of the UK will be so heartily sick of the tireless posturing and whingeing of the Scots ...." -------------- As an Englishman I would think that it is Scots who are getting sick and tired of political posturing. It's time they had their say. I would prefer Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom for the benefit of the UK as a whole, but that can only be achieved by a self determined vote to remain in union with England, Wales and Northern Irelend. They voted in the last general election to be given the choice. That is the mandate. The rest is window dressing.
Roytenn
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:15 PMWasn't Monteith one of these very rare breeds, a Scottish Thatcherite? He is something that you wouldn't want to find sticking to the base of your shoe.
christelijk_recht
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:14 PMExcellent post by #11 sneeky, who demonstrates an unparalleled command of the detail of the discipline. It is just this kind of convincing sober analysis that is missing from Unionist arguments. This particularly lucid presentation is worthy of the widest distribution. Pity we can't put the actual name to the author.
LondonReader
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:11 PMSo Labour's Callaghan held a Scottish referendum, but not enough Scots (by Labour's measure) voted to support it. Scots Nats withdrew support from Callaghan and a general election was forced. Thatcher got in and scapped devolution altogether. Major did nothing. Then came Blair's settlement ... you know, the way he did things ... call it a Parliament, keep the Tories out, Labour stay in power for ever and ever. No amen though. Scotland vote for Salmond's promise of a referendum on independence. What do the Scots get? A referendum on independence, with the Bank of England of course, and the UK bailing out RBS; without nukes or NATO but with the EU; not forgetting pie the economic sky. Plus maybe a vote on devo max (independence lite) depending on how lucky Alex feels. So Ulsterman Moore, who was educated in Edinburgh and represents Berwick for the Lib Dems will bring harmony and contentment to proceedings will he? Well no. So enter the amicable Tory PM who wants everything to be crystal clear; in pursuit of which he throws devolution mud into the independence water.
jofradd
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:04 PMI predict that by the time of the referendum the rest of the UK will be so heartily sick of the tireless posturing and whingeing of the Scots they will be glad to see the back of them. I know that I am already. I also predict that the split when it comes will be an acrimonious, costly and extremely messy business for both sides. So don't expect plain sailing.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.