Allan Massie: Difficult hands to play in referendum game

Alex Salmond and David Cameron both have risks and problems to face over the ballot, writes Allan Massie

David Cameron and Alex Salmond will meet at the Joint Ministerial Council today before the First Minister flies off to the US for the Ryder Cup. To forestall criticism from either flank I should say that this isn’t another example of Mr Salmond seeking a photo opportunity. His presence there is perfectly proper, since the next Ryder Cup will be held here in Scotland, at Gleneagles, and there is work to be done.

One should also add that it is improbable that Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond will do anything more than exchange polite pleasantries – something at which both are rather good. The next substantive talks about the referendum will be between the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, and the SNP’s deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon who has been charged with taking responsibility for the SNP’s campaign.

It is looking likely that there will be only a single question on the ballot. I think this is as it should be, because an additional or alternative question, relating to further devolution, should require its terms and extent to be defined. Nevertheless, insisting on a single question is a risky strategy for Unionists to adopt. The opinion polls at present suggest they would win if there is only one question on the ballot, but opinion may shift, and it is also quite possible that the absence of a devolution alternative might actually favour the Nationalists. Both David Cameron and Alex Salmond must be aware of this.

Their meeting comes at an interesting moment for both men. Neither, it seems, is as popular as he was a year ago – or, in Cameron’s case, two years ago. There are mutterings of a leadership challenge to the Prime Minister, and the First Minister was roundly booed at the Glasgow celebration of the Olympics. One shouldn’t make too much of that. All politicians are booed sometimes. Yet I don’t think it would have happened last year.

David Cameron’s position poses a problem for Alex Salmond, one highlighted by an opinion poll this week which shows Labour 15 points ahead of the Conservatives. If that lead was to be maintained until the next general election, Edward Miliband would be prime minister. In the run-up to the referendum this is a bleak prospect for the SNP. As Simon Pia wrote in this newspaper yesterday, “The single issue of the referendum suits the Nationalists perfectly, along with confrontation between the SNP in Edinburgh and the Tory-dominated government at Westminster.”

The argument that independence will save Scotland from the Tories is attractive to many. It loses some of its force if people think the next UK government will be a Labour one. Paradoxically, Mr Salmond should hope for a Tory recovery in England. It will do him no harm to help Mr Cameron to look good.

There is a lot of juggling to be done over the next two years. Given the parlous condition of the Scottish Conservative Party, the Unionist campaign has to be led by Labour. It is sensibly to be fronted by Alastair Darling. Gordon Brown will also be expected to play a part, as will the Scottish members of Labour’s front bench at Westminster. There are fewer of these than there used to be – only three: Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Ann McKechin. It is imperative that Johann Lamont and her colleagues demonstrate in the Scottish Parliament that they are a match for their SNP opponents. If they fail to do this, then Unionist morale will suffer. Labour needs to show it is capable of pushing the SNP into second place at the next Scottish election if it is to be effective in the referendum campaign.

That campaign is a Scottish affair. The SNP would welcome a big contribution from David Cameron, George Osborne and the Conservative Party. They would present this as London trying to tell Scotland how to vote. This doesn’t mean there is no role for the Prime Minister – though he should certainly be advised to keep the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the campaign, even if he has to lock him up in the Downing Street broom cupboard.

There are two things Mr Cameron should do. First, he should state his support for the Union as clearly and persuasively as he can, while at the same time saying, equally clearly and loudly, that the question of independence, or remaining in the Union, is a matter for the Scots – and the Scots alone – to decide. He should say, “I hope – and believe – that you will vote to remain in the United Kingdom, but it’s up to you”.

Second, he should recognise that, though there may be no second question on the paper, there is evidence of a desire for further devolution, and he should pledge to set up an all-party commission, or convention, drawn from both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament, to work out the terms and extent of such devolution, if Scotland votes against independence. This pledge should be made as binding as is constitutionally possible and he should try to get Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, as leaders of the other two main British parties, to sign up to it. The phrase “all-party commission or convention” recognises that the SNP would be included.

I am not suggesting that this would spike Mr Salmond’s guns or even wrong-foot him. He would continue to argue for independence. He would doubtless suggest that promises may be easily made, and as easily forgotten, and that the Tories are not to be trusted. He would remind older voters – and tell younger ones – that in the 1979 referendum the former Conservative prime minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, promised that the Conservatives would produce a better scheme for devolution if we rejected the one on offer; and that this promise proved worthless.

This is why any such pledge must be cast iron. Having insisted that there should be only one question on the ballot paper, it is essential that David Cameron and his coalition partners should offer credible proposals for further devolution, and should recognise that the best way of preserving the Union is to loosen it still further and move towards creating some form of federal structure.