Analysis: Saying No to independence is not enough

FOR the first time in five years, the constitutional question is now a live issue in Scottish politics. Faced with seismic political change over the past five years and the relentless rise of the SNP, no-one is in any doubt about the scale of the challenge facing Scotland and the unionist parties.

Time is running out as they come to terms not only with a referendum in 2014 but a political landscape that has been transformed out of all recognition and where identity politics is playing an increasingly important role.

The future of Scotland should not be the monopoly concern of one party. But that is increasingly how it appears as the SNP continue to dominate the political and constitutional agenda. While the option of a second question remains open, we are still talking about a narrow debate involving the Union and the idea of independence. This has to change. We need to redefine Scotland’s role in the Union. As part of that, we have to acknowledge time is limited and four things have to happen before the end of the consultation period.

First of all, we need an idea that takes us beyond the uninspiring and narrow options of devolution plus Calman versus independence, These are extremes that currently exclude one significant alternative – devo-max or autonomous Scotland or Home Rule within the Union, which I now prefer, especially in the light of history involving both Keir Hardie and Gladstone. This alternative embraces maximum devolved powers, with key issues of defence and foreign affairs and some Treasury matters remaining with Westminster, and full fiscal autonomy – the raising and spending of taxes in Scotland.

Opinion polls show that, without being debated to any great extent, this idea has captured the imagination of the electors. The reasons are straightforward enough. People love their country and want identity, nationality and diversity better recognised; the maximum number of powers exercised by the Scottish Parliament; to say No to independence, and at the same time, remain part of the UK. It would be a constitutional and political outrage if this alternative was not given serious consideration by all the political classes in the period up to the referendum. These are the very basic outlines of an idea that require a great deal more work.

Second, we need to build a credible and substantive case for Home Rule.

Third, there needs to be a campaign to drive the issue forward, building support for this alternative but also alerting people to the need to respond to the consultation paper and show politicians at Westminster and Holyrood that their views should not be ignored.

Fourth, there has to be a technical and legal dialogue about how all this could be captured in a ballot paper. Cynics argue it is too complicated, it will just muddy the waters, the Scottish people can’t deal with more than one question, which is both patronising and insulting to electors. These arguments are about tribalism and a lack of intellectual effort, nothing more. It is up to the Scottish people to decide the questions they want to be asked. Electors need to be taken seriously and treated like grown-ups.

Alex Salmond can’t corner the market on options for our future, and have his political cake and eat it. He can’t have both independence and Home Rule, nor can there be a question where you can tick both boxes!

This is an opportunity to strike at the heart of SNP thinking. But saying no to independence is not enough. Home Rule within the Union starts to address this issue in a new and refreshing way.