Duncan Hamilton: David Cameron’s ‘vote No for a mystery prize’ puzzler

Published on 19/02/2012 00:00

HE CAME, he spoke and he confused. But now he has gone again, what on earth are we to make of the David Cameron visit north?

In one sense, the message was more positive and politically astute than we might have expected. When UK Prime Ministers wander north, they usually manage to offend, patronise and reveal their total ignorance of all things Scottish. Margaret Thatcher was about as welcome as the plague, whilst Tony Blair had an unerring knack of annoying everyone. But Mr Cameron brought a fresh and upbeat tone. He deserves credit – not least for his frank and welcome admission that independence for Scotland and England is certainly a viable option. His speech sought to put the current debate in a Unionist context and make a positive case for the Union.

But then the wheels came off. This visit, you will remember, was part of the negotiations with the Scottish Government on the referendum. The UK position has been entirely predicated on the apparent “need for clarity” and to avoid “uncertainty”. And yet, Cameron came with an offer which no-one could understand, and which he has subsequently been unable to explain.

The “new” UK Government position appears to be that far from devo-max being opposed, it is a live prospect, and one which may even carry their approval. To quote the Prime Minister directly, “When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And, yes, that does mean considering what further powers could be devolved.” Cameron later confirmed that “further options for devolution are on the table”.

Eh? So let me just get this right. Having spent the last months fulminating against the “uncertainty” of constitutional change – not least the mythical list of anonymous businesses which were about to leave Scotland unless the referendum was immediate – the new plan is to facilitate the referendum, seek a “no” vote and then open up the constitutional debate all over again?

And exactly what “further powers” are we talking about? No-one in Scotland is any the wiser. Plainly more than the Scotland Bill – otherwise the offer is empty – but if so, does the Prime Minister seriously expect Scots to vote against independence without the detail of his newly launched alternative? And he attacks the Scottish Government for “uncertainty”? Moreover, if that detail is to be produced – as it now must be – how does that fit with the UK Government assertion that only an immediate Referendum is acceptable?

Watching Cameron entering the debate on “more powers” and devo-max brought to mind an image of heavy English cavalry brought North to make a decisive intervention, but instead charging straight into heavy marshland. But that is where he now is – having explicitly and deliberately assumed responsibility for articulating his own version of devo-max. Quite why he did that before having an idea in his own head about what he meant, is not clear.

But having made the offer, he must now define its terms. Is he offering fiscal autonomy? Is it the devolution-plus model developed by people like Ben Thomson? Something else? To have any credibility, Cameron must deliver total clarity. If he knows what he means, he must share it with those of us who actually get a vote in this referendum for our deliberation.

But even if we take the Prime Minister’s conversion to devo-max as sincere, the process proposed in the event of a “no” vote is wholly unsustainable. Cameron was right to concede that Scottish voters alone have the right to decide on independence, yet (unless proposing a second referendum) seems to assume that devo-max would just be delivered by the UK Government as a “thank you” to Scots for voting “no’”

We are all going to be voting in the referendum anyway, so why not simply include it in that process and on the ballot? Now that Cameron has, in principle, recognised that wider civic Scotland wants the option of devo-max as a minimum guarantee, I struggle to see the logic.

In fact, if he has now crossed the Rubicon on devo-max, why not positively argue for it in the referendum? According to the polls, he might win. Imagine that – a Tory PM on the winning side of an argument in Scotland. Surely that has to be a more substantial and attractive position than the ‘vote “no” for a shot at the mystery prize’ routine he rolled out in Edinburgh?

Further, including devo-max on the ballot means that the change, when it comes, has a democratic legitimacy. That cannot be bestowed by the executive action of a UK Government led by a Tory Party with one Scottish MP and a Lib Dem party rejected by Scottish voters in 2011.

When he reflects on his options, I suspect therefore the current position of Cameron will shift further.

The Prime Minister’s intervention this week was therefore important, but probably not in the way he intended. His “offer” on further devolution needs urgent clarification. It does suggest, however, a realisation that the options for Scots are devo-max and independence. Consequently, a two-question referendum becomes much more likely.

For most Scots, that would represent real progress, and a victory for common sense.