Ewan Crawford: Spectre of Thatcher haunts the No campaign

THE opening of The Iron Lady film, in which Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher, provides an appropriate backdrop to this week’s dramatic intervention from David Cameron on the independence referendum.

For the SNP, Cameron’s attempt to take control of the process is a reminder of the days when Conservatives reacted to setbacks in Scotland with a shrug of the shoulder and a pat on the head for the children, as if election defeats were just minor inconveniences. There is genuine anger among Nationalists that such attitudes still seem to prevail more than 20 years after Lady Thatcher was forced out of Downing Street.

No-one should be in any doubt that the SNP, to coin a phrase, “is not for turning” on the timing of the referendum. As far as senior ministers at Holyrood are concerned, they fought an election on the basis that they would hold a referendum in the second-half of the parliament. That election was won handsomely and therefore they have the right to carry out a policy ringingly endorsed by the voters.

The idea that, given its election victory, the SNP will accept an ultimatum from the hammered-again Tories is simply something for the birds (incidentally, the suggestion the Nationalists want to hold the referendum on the anniversary of Bannockburn is silly and could only be put forward by people who fail to understand the nature of the modern SNP).

There is a belief among some commentators that the Conservatives in England don’t want to outfox the First Minister but in fact want to help him on his way. The argument goes that this would remove a stubborn anti-Tory block from Westminster elections. Indeed, comments left on Conservative leaning websites would suggest activists have long fallen out of love with the Union.

As far as the Tory leadership is concerned, however, this seems fanciful. A journalist told me recently that David Cameron has said he doesn’t want to be remembered as a pub quiz question: who was the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

Presumably, therefore, the purpose of this week’s activity is to add further to the uncertainty agenda that seems to be the main plank of the No campaign. The official reasons put forward do not even deserve a hearing. The notion that the timing of the referendum is economically damaging is ludicrous set against the Conservatives’ deflationary economic policy. There is, of course, business and economic uncertainty in Scotland at present – primarily driven by the demand crisis and consequent unemployment created by Westminster.

Instead, by raising an issue of process and provoking a row, it could be seen as another attempt to bog the debate down in messy disagreements and detail, rather than the purpose of independence which the SNP is keen to move on to.

In this respect the Cameron move, orchestrated apparently by the Tories’ chief strategist – Chancellor George Osborne – makes some kind of sense. However, I believe the SNP’s opponents have made a serious mistake in seeking to prevent people in Scotland from being asked if they want tax and welfare powers to be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood.

Polls tell us this is the most popular constitutional option at present. For Unionist parties to deny people the opportunity of saying yes or no to some form of greater devolution seems odd. In addition, in pure electoral terms, categorically ruling out something a big majority of Scots say they want is bad politics. It has echoes of the anti-devolution policies pursued by Ms Streep’s character and by her man in Scotland, Lord Forsyth, who interestingly has been outspoken on this issue of late.

I would now expect the SNP to frame the Scottish constitutional debate as a choice between two futures: a right-wing Conservative-led future in which London will always trump Scottish interests in the big decisions, and the opportunity to build an entrepreneurial, social democratic future with the means to tackle our deep-seated problems.

In this respect the fact that Labour has basically left the field on this issue is telling. Indeed, in a television interview yesterday the Prime Minister said innocently that all he wanted was a “clear and decisive question”. As if by magic, Labour’s new Scottish leader, Johann Lamont, issued a statement demanding, wait for it: “A clear and decisive referendum result.” It was almost as if the Labour press team had been waiting for the line to be handed down by Downing Street.

It seems New Labour’s message of discipline is alive and well, but it’s now Conservative Central Office, not Peter Mandelson’s Millbank, which is calling the shots.

Moreover, Ed Miliband’s dreadful start to 2012 makes the prospect of anything other than a Conservative government, either on its own or in coalition, unlikely after the next Westminster election. Mr Cameron’s actions this week, and Labour’s invisibility, have only served to make the Cameron-Conservative versus Salmond-Scotland choice more real.

Before the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections I can remember having long discussions inside the SNP leader’s office, where I worked, over the timing of an independence referendum.

As far back as then it was announced that the referendum would be offered in the second half of the parliament in the event of an SNP victory.

The idea was that, as advocates of independence, the chance of the SNP winning a referendum would be enhanced if the advocates’ credibility had been improved by a period of successful government.

At the time, I remember thinking that neither government nor independence were really in our sights. Ten years on, the SNP has achieved credibility with many voters through its decisions in government, and thanks to the behaviour of Mr Cameron this week, the prospect of real constitutional change is now also an awful lot closer.