Eddie Barnes: ‘An appetite for further change, less than independence’

ON THE surface, it will all boil down to ten simple words. Announcing his preferred question in the Scottish Parliament last week, to the thumps of approval on SNP desks, Alex Salmond could hardly have made things clearer. Under his plans, the question to be put to people in Scotland on the country’s future would be: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” Simple.

If only. The One Big Choice? “Actually there are six choices,” opined one leading figure in civic Scotland last week as he reflected on the future. Confused? You should be. On Friday evening, the Church of Scotland issued a statement declaring that, contrary to reports that morning suggesting otherwise, it was not in favour of devo-max – the system under which Scotland becomes near as dammit independent, short of printing passports. This helped clear things up a little; but only prompted another question. As no-one yet has properly defined devo-max, how can you know you’re against it?

The complex unravelling of Scotland’s constitutional dilemma continues tomorrow when a disparate group of organisations – including voluntary bodies, the Institute of Directors, the National Union of Students, and the self-same Church of Scotland – holds an event in Edinburgh calling for a full debate about the coming choice (or choices). All with different views, they nevertheless believe in unison that the nation-changing debate should not be restricted to a straight battle on the question of independence.

Instead, they argue, people in Scotland should be given the chance to consider the full gamut of constitutional options. The possible end is that a “third way” gets on to Salmond’s ballot paper in 2014. The First Minister is eager to help, declaring on Thursday he would respond to any public call for a second question, in addition to his own favoured one.

The UK government is equally determined to rule it out, insisting Scotland needs to make up its mind on secession once and for all. One thing most experts agree on is that, if the third way did appear, it would most likely win the greatest public support. Can such a magic pill be found? Is this the way forward? And what are the motivations of those who are seeking to promote it, and to block it?

The six options mentioned fall roughly as follows: Scrap the Scottish Parliament. Keep things as they are. Give a few more powers to Edinburgh. Devolve pretty much all taxes and welfare spending. Devolve the lot, and employ the UK to do defence and foreign affairs. Independence. For the purposes of the debate which civic groups are starting tomorrow, the debate centres on the fourth and fifth options.

The definitions fall into two distinct categories: devo-more/devo-plus and devo-max. The main advocate of devo-plus is one of the groups which will attend the launch in Edinburgh tomorrow, the think-tank Reform Scotland, headed up by corporate adviser Ben Thomson, who is close to Salmond. Under devo-plus, the Scottish Parliament would assume powers over most taxes, including the biggest, income tax. Westminster would retain responsibility for VAT (which must apply equally across a unitary state) and national insurance. Perhaps the biggest change would be to hand control of the billions spent on “social protection” to Holyrood, giving all power over welfare payments to MSPs.

“The fundamental defect of the current devolution settlement is the lack of financial responsibility it gives to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution plus is a credible and fully thought-through third option that seems to be in tune with what opinion polls suggest most people in Scotland want,” declared Thomson recently. Also on similar grounds are ideas emerging within Scottish Labour. Backers include former First Minister Henry McLeish and Ian Smart, one of the founders of the pro-devo Scottish Labour Action movement. Smart’s preferred scheme would see the receipts of most major taxes “assigned” to the Scottish Government, so it relied on that income, rather than a block grant. Holyrood would also have the scope to vary those taxes, except those which – if levied at different rates either side of the Border – might trigger tax avoidance as people criss-crossed the Border for cheaper prices (for example, on excise duty). The aim would be the same: to make Holyrood sing for its supper.

Thomson has been at pains in recent weeks to distinguish devo-plus from the other variant which has been given an airing over the past month: devo-max. The definition of this is less clear, perhaps because it lacks a benefactor. In 2010, the SNP government had a stab. Its draft referendum paper declared: “Under this proposal the Scottish Parliament would, with certain exceptions, be responsible for all laws, taxes and duties in Scotland. The exceptions, which would continue to be the responsibility of the UK parliament, are defence and foreign affairs, financial regulation, monetary policy and currency.”

Under such a scheme, the Scottish Parliament would take total control over all income and expenditure raised in Scotland, collecting it all itself, before sending a payment to London for the cost of defence and foreign affairs. In what was seen by UK government figures as a sign that the idea had been shelved, the SNP government omitted it from its refreshed consultation last week. It was not for him, Salmond declared, to explain or to flesh out the detail of the proposal. That, he declared, was for anyone in “civic Scotland” who decided they wanted it put forward. But there is little doubt he is keen to nurture the plan, hoping that a groundswell of support will hand him a reason to put it to the people. On Thursday, at Edinburgh Castle, Salmond was asked how he would measure whether or not there was enough popular support for such an option to get on the ballot paper. He replied with a joke about how, like the proverbial elephant, he would know when he saw it. The clear impression is he wants to ensure his fall-back option is there – should independence be rejected.

The political game is clear. Salmond and his allies want to ensure that, even if people vote No to independence, they still come out having made major progress with devo-max. For, as acute political observers such as Independent MSP Margo MacDonald sense, independence will then inevitably follow. Hence the reason that Messrs Cameron and Osborne (and, at Labour, Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran) have made their opposition to any such safety-net crystal clear.

Sources close to Cameron insist people in Scotland must now make up their minds whether they want independence or not. In the same way, figures close to Lamont note that this is a question of independence – nothing else. And with Labour and the SNP preparing for High Noon, party leaders want to ensure that, when the dust has settled, the SNP is seen to have lost. Even the Liberal Democrats – whose support for federalism might have been expected to prompt them to support a second question – remain determined to keep the question tied down. One Labour MP sums up the mood: Yes, further devolution should be considered for Scotland. “But it has to be done on the grounds of appropriateness rather than appeasement”, or after the referendum is over. The pro-Union parties for now are in a mood to gamble: independence or bust.

Game over then for devo-anything-more-than-at-present? Not quite. For Salmond has powerful allies in civic Scotland on his side. On the same day two weeks ago that he announced his preferred date for the referendum, a meeting of civic groups, including the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Trades’ Union Congress was being held to discuss the constitutional debate. Adamantly, members insist they are not for devo-max, devo-plus or devo-whatever. Instead, they simply feel that, as the sparring begins, and with Labour, Lib Dems and Tories locked into their position, a historic opportunity to discuss a new way forward is being spurned.

Grahame Smith, STUC general secretary, said: “These organisations want to look at the options. That is reflecting the views of people in Scotland. People aren’t polarised in that way and there is an appetite for further constitutional change, less than independence.”

Others speak of seizing this chance to settle Scotland’s constitutional deadlock. “You will never stop nationalists being nationalist, but we just want to get to a place where Scottish politics isn’t continually dominated by the issue of the constitution,” says one. They believe the status quo doesn’t deliver that. Another figure organising tomorrow’s campaign added: “For the political parties this is about winning a vote. They can’t afford to lose. There’s a real frustration that they’re not looking at the bigger picture.”

But there is self-interest here too. Bodies such as the SCVO – deeply critical of the costly welfare reform led by the UK government – believe they, not London, should be dealing with Scotland’s benefits culture. Devolving control to Edinburgh would, “help the third sector” here, says one source. Devo-max or devo-plus would see a huge chunk of public money suddenly being apportioned by Edinburgh not London. Another smiling third-sector figure in Scotland suggested last week that, if Britain’s aid budget was devolved to Scotland, Edinburgh’s share would see it with a £1 billion pot of cash to play with. No doubt the eyes of Scottish charities are lighting up already.

With these interests in play, Salmond’s hoped-for elephant may be trumpeting by the time the SNP’s consultation on Scotland’s referendum ends this summer. In such a case, he may argue he cannot ignore the public mood for a second question. Against that, it is clear if he does propose a second question on devo-plus or max, then Westminster will walk away from a deal giving Holyrood the powers to stage his referendum at all. It would then head, inevitably, to the courts.

Or it could be the case that the pro-Union parties end up feeling pressured to accept a stronger devolved settlement as the basis for their No campaign. Not for nothing has the canny First Minister allowed more than two and a half years for the run-up the referendum. For this one, starting tomorrow in Edinburgh, has a lot further to run.

• Countdown to the referendum: Key dates

This week (Jan 30-Feb 5)

Talks to be held between Alex Salmond and Michael Moore on the framing of the referendum

Up to 9 March

UK Government public consultation on an independence referendum

Up to 11 May

Scottish Government public consultation on an independence referendum

Spring/summer

Analysis of responses and negotiations between UK and Scottish Government continue

January 2013

Scottish Government plans to table Referendum Bill at the Scottish Parliament

October 2013

Scottish Government plans to pass Referendum Bill

November 2013

Scottish Government plans to publish a white paper setting out its proposals for independence

Autumn 2014

Scottish Government preferred date for the referendum

NB: all dates pending negotiations between UK Government and Scottish Government. Coalition sources have not ruled out pressing ahead with a referendum as early as next year