Scottish independence: David Cameron offers a deal to reject independence
VOTE NO and get more powers. That was the offer on the table from Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday, as he pledged to reopen the devolution settlement for Scotland if voters rejected independence in the forthcoming referendum.
In a carefully choreographed pitch he hopes will persuade soft Nationalist voters to back him in opposing independence, the Prime Minister made his strongest declaration yet that he was prepared to examine a looser arrangement between Scotland and the rest of the UK, saying he wanted to look at “what further powers could be devolved”.
However, he said those powers could be considered only if and when independence was rejected by voters, saying it was for people in Scotland to decide on that first, before any fresh deal within the UK was examined.
The offer prompted a fresh row with the SNP government in Edinburgh, as Alex Salmond demanded to “see the beef” of Mr Cameron’s claims, after the Prime Minister repeatedly failed to provide specific examples of which powers he thought could be devolved.
The First Minister accused Mr Cameron of failing to spell out what his plans would look like or what they would involve, saying he was now duty bound to make it clear in the months ahead.
But the Prime Minister later told Mr Salmond he would not be doing so, and urged him, in face-to-face talks, to “get on” with holding a referendum – which the SNP wants to put off until 2014. He said that, “for all our sanity”, the debate over whether Scotland should become independent had to be settled speedily.
The frosty tone continued later as, after an hour of talks with the First Minister, Mr Cameron expressed his “frustration” at the slow pace of progress on agreeing the ground rules for a referendum.
And, in an acknowledgement of his lack of political backing in Scotland, he said he hoped to “hear from” Labour foes including Gordon Brown, John Reid and Alistair Darling, saying he would need their support in any campaign against independence.
His offer of more powers came as a surprise, given previous Tory statements on devolution. It follows comments by the party’s Scottish leader Ruth Davidson that she believed a “line in the sand” should be drawn on Holyrood’s powers, once new powers enshrined in the new Scotland Bill were in place.
However, there have been warnings that if the pro-Union camp does not show flexibility on the devolution settlement, it could push voters, particularly Labour supporters, into the hands of the pro-independence camp.
Mr Cameron acknowledged the Conservatives weren’t “currently Scotland’s most influential political movement” and that, therefore, “more than a little humility is called for” when speaking in Scotland.
Despite Tory opposition to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, he said he believed in devolution, as it gave people “a choice and a real say in their own affairs”.
Turning to the future, he said: “That doesn’t have to be the end of the road. When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.”
But he added: “That must be a question for after the referendum, when Scotland has made its choice about the fundamental question of independence; when Scotland has settled this question once and for all – and ended the uncertainty that could damage and hold back Scotland’s prospects and potential.”
Pressed later to name a single additional power he thought should be devolved, Mr Cameron declined to do so. However, in comments that would appear to rule out a system of “fiscal autonomy” running in Scotland with Tory blessing, he said it was “because we have the fiscal union” within the UK that the country was able to work.
He also argued the UK would always need to demonstrate “solidarity” across borders.
He said: “When there are floods in Cornwall, or a factory closure in east Kent, or an economic problem in the west coast of Scotland, we don’t sit around asking, ‘Shall we help’, ‘Is this our responsibility’, ‘Is this part of our package’, as we do in the EU issues. We think this is our country, this is our United Kingdom, we have solidarity, we help each other.”
Under fiscal autonomy, Scotland would take complete control over all taxation, paying the UK government for services it decided to share with the rest of the country.
Mr Salmond insisted last night that Mr Cameron’s new offer needed meat on the bones.
He said: “What I said to the Prime Minister in the discussion is, if that is the case, we now need to know what it is. We need to know the detail – where’s the beef?”
He insisted bodies in civic Scotland considering where they stood should know whether the pro-Union parties might be set to come out in favour of a more-powers option.
“The anti-independence parties now have absolutely incumbent, particularly the government of course to spell that out, to give the detail,” he said.
The First Minister accused Mr Cameron of echoing a Tory claim made in the 1979 devolution referendum campaign by the former prime minister Alec Douglas-Home who said a Conservative administration would propose a better solution. “They can’t expect to do another shimmy as was done to Scotland back in 1979,” Mr Salmond said. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
He added: “This is a matter of months, not years, for us to be given the specifics of what is now – to quote the Prime Minister exactly – ‘on the table’.”
The talks, at St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh, showed little signs of agreement on how the referendum should be held. But Mr Salmond said the only “substantive point” of disagreement was whether one or two questions would be asked, claiming two other areas of dispute – whether to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and the issue of the 2014 date – were close to agreement.
On a second question, he said: “If there’s a strong demand from civic Scotland, from the unions from the voluntary sector, the churches, civic society, looking for something different, for some other option to be tested, politicians at the very least should listen. It’s the only serious issue in terms of process that needs to be settled.”
Mr Cameron did accept there was an obligation on the part of the pro-Union parties to set out their vision of enhanced devolution, according to Mr Salmond.
But Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, who was at the talks, said: “We still have differences of view over the issue of timing, the franchise and whether there are one or two questions.”
He also insisted Scots were still not clear what independence would mean. “We keep seeing a moving feast from the SNP on what that might look like,” he said. “We’ve seen a shift over the currency that the country might adopt; we’ve had very little clarity about how we would do very major things like regulating our banks and financial institutions.
Labour’s Patricia Ferguson said: “It is bizarre Alex Salmond is now asking David Cameron to define a policy he claims not to support but everyone knows he is secretly relying on as a fall back. This just reinforces the case for a simple, straightforward question sooner rather than later.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 1428 comments to this article
Page 1 of 96
Cruixer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 03:31 PMKind of sums up Westminsters relationship with Scotland this. 'Be good and do as we tell you and we might throw you a bone later.
mallus12
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 01:20 PMRon greer -My final reply to you-before I move on to someone who can give me a worthwhile argument. I take it you must be one of the "enlightened " fraternity.Only your self regarding types can use such a childish reasoning. The Union has lasted over three hundred years and millions of Scots were so easily duped that they couldn't work out the answer you have reached--WERE THEY? In my own case I restate I am not a Unionist and believe a Scotland with people like you in charge is a country I want no part or contact with!
Phearran
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 08:22 AM1420 netcurtains, people might speak English in Scotland now but in 1707 almost everyone either spoke Gaelic or Scots. Also, the main impetus for the creation of Great Britain, as opposed to Scotland nad England, at the very earliest was King James VI and I, who wanted to expand the power of himself and his family. Most common people at the time, even the parliaments (who were usually only nobles and wealthy merchants at the time), vehemently opposed these plans.
Phearran
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 08:09 AMRe: 1404 Netcurtains3 -------- The Tudors did not really have much Scottish ancestors. On the other hand, the mother of Mary I of England was Catherine of Aragon. So do you think that Spain and the UK should be under the same government because of that? America may (possibly) have been named after Amerike, a very rich man, but he simply owned a ship that went on a voyage to North America. Nobody from these islands was living there permanently until 1607.
Ron Greer
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:37 PM1422 Anagach----You are correct. The Duke of Wellington was against railways, because it would 'encourage the masses to move about'
Shawfield Urchin
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:37 PMComment removed by moderator
Anagach
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:24 PM1420 netcurtains3 Anagach, BLAST! I was going to correct what I said - but I had to take the dog out for a walk. You are partly correct but alas no cigar. You need to put ALL as the part (eg all jobs which are JAVA)...... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edinburgh 15, Liverpool 11. Plus the population in the Urban area around liverpool is about double that of Edinburgh. So no where near the ten times indicator of the white hot industry of liverpool versus edinburgh you originally posted. No Cigar. The rich travelled all across Europe in alliances of marriage, the vast, vast majority remained tied to the land, no movement, mixing or cross cultural marriages.
Ron Greer
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:08 PM1416 You're from further beyond Yonder than you think. I don't supported the Old Firm apart from in European games even though my grandfather was a Kinningpark man, My idea of a good Saturday in Scotland would be hearing both of them lost to Scottish teams, but then I think of the poor wives and girlfriends being beaten up.
netcurtains3
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:03 PMAnagach, BLAST! I was going to correct what I said - but I had to take the dog out for a walk. You are partly correct but alas no cigar. You need to put ALL as the part (eg all jobs which are JAVA)...... This gives you TWO TIMES times more jobs in the Liverpool area (within 15 miles commute). 31 jobs compared to 15 jobs. Sorry. With the Tudor thing, I'm pretty sure they have a Welsh connection, a "King Arthur" Wish (eg BRITISH attachment, not just England or Wales) and a daughter married to the Scottish crown and thus leading to British in reality. The whole "King Arthur" thing hits a common wish throughout the UK... even back then. The fact that most Scottish people speak English obviously proves beyond any reasonably doubt that the move north and south of the "border" have been going on for centuries. The only thing that stopped us being one nation was the RICH NOBS.
From Yonder
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:58 PM"fantasist "
From Yonder
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:55 PM"So I just warm my soul taking the p!!sh out of Unionists who have all the forward vision of a flea on a dog @@rse" Typical drunk Scot and that too a Celtic fan! Explosive mixture!
From Yonder
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:53 PM1408 Ron Greer Your post demonstrate yu are the worst fantacist here.
From Yonder
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:51 PM@1413 mallus12 "Ron greer -Still no answer to the question" He is a wastrel. just leave him. Must be a Celtic fan.
Ron Greer
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:51 PM1413, I have now gone back to your post at 1362. It does not deal with a specific Scottish situation as you yourself recognise. I make no apologies for saying that Unionists attacking Scottish aspirations for independence are anti-Scottish independence. Unionists making quasi-racist defamatory statements about the Scots are not exactly pro-Scottish. I became a nationalist, because I was ashamed at the state Scotland was in our acceptance of the learned helplessness inculcated by Unionists.
Ron Greer
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:42 PM1413---What was the question? It wasn't clear in you diatribe.
Page 1 of 96
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.