Margo MacDonald: Don't let it be a neverendum

Published on Tuesday 7 September 2010 16:37

MY spirits lifted when I heard Alex Salmond would put Scottish independence at the heart of the SNP campaign next May.

Skipping over the irony that such an announcement from the leader of the independence movement should be reported in the news section of the paper, I savoured the moment.

Nearly 20 years since the SNP last ran a campaign that set out to convert people to supporting independence, it looked as though its leaders had finally accepted there's no easy way to replace Westminster with Holyrood as the sovereign, superior and internationally-recognised parliament of Scotland.

The SNP had bowed to the wisdom of making its message easy to understand and unequivocal. Nationalist candidates and canvassers alike would explain and argue the merits of sovereignty, independence, and outline the limitations of fiscal autonomy and other poor-quality imitations of the real thing. Or so I thought . . .

Now that I've seen the First Minister's actual message to the rank and file, my heart is not quite so joyful. Unbelievably, following the frustration of being in government, but not in power, in Holyrood, Alex Salmond is still flogging the dead horse of a referendum, instead of arguing for a mandate to negotiate independence.

The election next year will be a virtual referendum, because the arguments for sovereignty to transfer to Edinburgh will be couched in terms of how much better social, economic and international policies would be if they were devised and operated by one government, elected by and accountable to, people in Scotland.

If the pro-sovereignty parties, and like-minded independents, take the initiative, the unionist parties will have to try and defend the legacy of government from Westminster. They'll have to prove the benefits of the Union for Scotland - a difficult enough task when we're not facing a longer, deeper recession than elsewhere. Unionists will have to rationalise Europe's worst health statistics, continuously-high suicide rates, an absolute and chronic housing shortage, neglect of the infrastructure needed for economic development, a consistently lower business start-up rate and slower economic growth, and an inability to protect our fishing industry because we can't fight our own corner in the EU.

That's the choice for Scots. This election will illustrate how the opposing sides of the constitutional divide approach Scotland's future. Both sides will have to produce arguments, statistics and vision to persuade that they are best placed to set the standards, ambitions and improvements which our society and economy can achieve.

Pro-union voters will still choose the unionist party that best expresses their opinions and policy preferences. Unionist voters will be able to choose which party, Labour, Tory or Lib Dem, best expresses their views, and all three will argue that their policies are only possible within the union. The drawback in this for those parties is that their support is split amongst pro-union voters. This makes it almost impossible for one of them to form a majority government. But if that outcome reflects the electorate's position, who's complaining?

On the other side of the argument, because the pro-independence vote is overwhelmingly behind it, the SNP as a party has a better chance of winning more seats than the unionist parties combined if voters prefer its sovereignty argument. Lukewarm nationalists who enjoy being in parliament, and even better, in government, will complain that this approach will force voters to choose between independence and devolution. Too true. After ten years, we have the evidence to judge whether unionism can optimise Scotland's potential. And we can honestly measure the limited success demonstrated by devolution in trying to overcome the lack of the constitutional, legal powers necessary to customise policies and strategies to make the most of our resources, human and natural, in the future.

So why another referendum at this stage? If the SNP puts persuading people to vote for sovereignty ahead of getting votes simply to stay in government, and if it wins the argument, it can claim a mandate to negotiate how independence and the new relationship with Westminster will be brought about. And there will be MSPs elected for the pro-union parties who'll accept the will of the people and actively take part in, or acquiesce to, negotiations.

If the Scottish Parliament elects a majority of members, in one or more parties, in favour of sovereignty, the time for a referendum will be after a negotiating team, hopefully multi-party, has a series of settlements agreed with Westminster, and/or propositions that negotiations have not resolved.

And during these negotiations on the transfer of sovereignty, the sharing of assets and liabilities and the emergence of new attitudes towards a new, equal, partnership, the business of administering Scotland will continue under whichever party can command a majority.

Anything else will become a Neverendum.