Brian Monteith: Referendum hothouse calls for cool at Westminster

Triumphalism is an ugly and dangerous characteristic that the SNP would be well advised to discourage.

That “whae’s like us” attitude so often on show at the SNP conference, the alter ego to the Scottish cringe that often dominates Labour and Conservative gatherings, is not only electorally repellent, but is corrosive to disciplined and effective party campaigning that brings about victory.

Already, recalcitrant voices can be heard suggesting that Alex Salmond is sneakily, snidely, cunningly (you choose the epithet) trying to snatch independence from the party’s grasp at a time when it has never been better placed to achieve it. The reason for this is that in his speech to the conference, Salmond constructed a logical case for including a third question in the long-drawn-out independence referendum, one that offers a sort of Devo-max or Devo-plus (you choose the terminology) on the grounds that it would be in Scotland’s interest to at least gain more home rule if we are going to the trouble of having a referendum.

Some nationalists think they smell a rat. Many believe that Salmond has always favoured stopping short of full sovereign independence anyway and that he will be happy to achieve a superannuated Holyrood as the fulcrum of his political career, fearing that to play for higher stakes will leave him walking away with nothing. Others, including this unionist observer, have always thought that Salmond’s gradualist approach has paid-off handsomely.

It was the fear of losing support to the nationalists as Labour lost not one but three elections to Margaret Thatcher, and then again to John Major, that finally turned devout Westminster-rule politicians such as Robin Cook and Brian Wilson to support John Smith and Donald Dewar in rolling out devolution. Even after devolution was delivered, it was the SNP’s constant chipping away at the weaknesses in the political and institutional relationships between Westminster and Holyrood – even though we were thoroughly soaked with Whitehall money in those first ten years – that led to Labour proposing the Calman Commission that has morphed without any Tory input into the Conservative coalition’s Scotland Bill.

Rather than devise a Scottish Parliament that would have to take responsibility for its own actions, the architects of Dewar & Co presented a building both metaphorically and literally that was unfit for purpose, would require high maintenance and remain divisive. The solution was to make the parliament accountable for its actions – something that Calman or the Scotland Bill will not, indeed cannot, achieve. The problem for Alex Salmond is that while he can see all the opportunities of ignorance, naivety and sheer uninterest towards Scotland from Westminster politicians that are available to exploit, unlike the triumphalists he must suspect that at heart we Scots do not wish to venture outside the comfort zone of the UK. Better, then, to gain as many extra powers now and look to get more in another ten years than to have nothing now.

As a moderate approach, it looks sensible, but Salmond’s critics are not always known for being on the moderate or sensible wing of the party and, after imbibing in the potent elixir of outright electoral victory, why should they hold themselves back now?

The answer is they owe it to Salmond. Those suggesting the all or nothing approach should ask themselves where the cause for independence lay in June 2003?

The SNP had just been humiliated by the Jack McConnell-led Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. This was after Tony Blair had taken the UK into an unpopular Iraq war, after Labour was required to find its third First Minister in four years, after three education ministers, the Clause 28 divisiveness and the arrival of one Thomas Sheridan who wanted to feast on Labour votes. Still the SNP slumped.

The doubters would do well to ask themselves whose judgment has been right so far.

For unionists thinking this is a moment of weakness in the SNP where they should pounce and wrest control of the referendum, I urge extreme caution.

For years, indeed since the mid-Nineties, there were many politicians, even cabinet ministers, asking why not hold a referendum and kill the independence issue for at least a generation? With Alex Salmond winning minority control of Holyrood in 2007, there was an ideal opportunity to weaken the nationalist cause this way, but it was not seized.

In the elections of 2010 and 2011, the unionist parties could have offered a referendum, but failed to do so. Having suffered a public slap in the face, they now think it is time to call Salmond’s bluff when they were the ones who showed cowardice in the field. The public is not blind and it is not stupid.

Now is a time for cool heads among the unionists, especially down at Westminster. The Scottish Labour and Conservative parties should be given time to choose their new leaders and devise their own strategies that they believe will be most effective in maintaining the United Kingdom.

For all the talk of Miliband, Moore and Mundell, what will happen if, say, Murdo Fraser says a new approach is needed? What if Fraser were to call for the Scotland Bill to be parked and a new constitutional convention brought forward? How would the Conservative-led coalition respond when such an idea might appeal to its Liberal Democrat partners?

What if, say, Ken McIntosh were to say Calman-Plus must be on the referendum voting papers? Would Miliband have to withdraw support for the Scotland Bill that his forebears devised?

The new Scottish leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties will have an axiomatic role to play – and their room to manoeuvre should not be limited by Westminster actors worried about losing their stage presence.

Alex Salmond has been the key figure in bringing the SNP to where it is now and putting the issue of independence before the people (eventually). The unionist parties should learn from this and give their new leaders, whoever they are, the time and space to respond.

• Brian Monteith is policy director of ThinkScotland.org