Peter Jones: The flaw in Alex’s devo-max plan

Relying on the Unionists to come up with a middle way leaves Salmond a little exposed

Political positioning is all as far as Alex Salmond is concerned, and with a two-question referendum idea, he seems to have found the perfect place. If he doesn’t win popular backing for independence, he would likely win backing for maximising devolution to include most tax powers. Actually, I think he should forget the second question idea, for there is a way in which this apparently brilliant stratagem could go horribly wrong for him.

The First Minister sketched out his plans in a post-party conference interview in which he said that “what’s definitely going to be on the ballot paper is a Yes/No question on independence.”

Unionists can hardly object to that. A clear Yes/No question is what they have said should be posed and whatever the outcome, everybody can just get on with it. The Unionist assumption is that since opinion polls have historically shown that more oppose independence than support it, Mr Salmond will lose.

I don’t think that is still necessarily true. The SNP showed in the last Holyrood election that it can achieve what was previously thought to be impossible – an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament. And if the Unionist parties run a No campaign that is as pitifully inadequate as their last election efforts, a Yes vote begins to look possible.

In support of that argument, Nationalists may well cite recent polls which do appear to indicate that there has been a sea-change of opinion, moving in support of independence. Against that, however, the problem is that the independence we will be asked to vote on has not yet been defined, and may not turn out to be so appealing when it is clarified, especially when there is an active campaign against it being waged.

But given that the SNP, beginning with Edwin Morgan’s bequest of £918,000, will have an unprecedented war chest, maybe around £3 million to fight for a pro-independence vote, I think that the best that can be said now about the likely outcome is that it is uncertain.

However, Mr Salmond knows that although the odds on winning are better than they have ever been, a difference of one vote on the wrong side means that there will be no more independence referendums, as he has said, for a generation.

Thus he seems keen on a second Yes/No question, saying in the same interview: “I’m hoping to include a second question on what’s called devo-max, or fiscal autonomy – but the proponents of that really have to come forward and give us the detail.”

Here, we can be reasonably sure of what is intended. Devo-max means Scotland staying in the Union but controlling all taxes, including North Sea revenues but excluding VAT, because that is forbidden by EU rules. Foreign affairs, defence and macro-economic management would remain Westminster’s prerogative.

You can see how this would give Mr Salmond the ideal political position. If he wins the independence vote, devo-max would fall by the wayside. But if he loses the independence vote, he is likely to win a devo-max vote.

Why? Because in almost any political choice where there are three options (the third here being no change) people tend to choose the middle option. Mr Salmond is also inviting the Unionist parties to come forward with this devo-max proposal. If they did so, then they would be campaigning for it. So it looks a sure-fire winner, particularly as polls suggest a beefed-up parliament is what the Scots want.

Thus, if Mr Salmond doesn’t get his independence vote, he is likely to get the consolation prize of backing for all the tax powers a Nationalist government could want.

There are several problems with this, one of the biggest being that such a settlement has to be negotiated with the UK government, which might be inclined to say no. That would suit him almost as well, because it allows for endless campaigning against the perfidies of Westminster for failing to produce what Scots have demanded, fuelling Scottish resentment, and, perhaps, an earlier re-run of an independence referendum.

So, the perfect political position? Not quite. It depends on the Unionist parties coming up with a devo-max proposal. And while there are people within all three parties who support that, most notably Willie Rennie, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, all the various supporters of the concept seem to have different ideas about what it might mean.

What the three parties seem to be forgetting is that they already have a proposal on which they are all agreed – the Calman Commission’s proposals, which are now embodied in the Scotland Bill going through Westminster. It is not perfect and still could be improved, but it still represents the most radical transfer of tax-raising power ever squeezed out of the UK Treasury. When it is passed, implementation could be postponed until it has been put to a referendum vote. The Unionist parties could go to Mr Salmond and say to him that they want that to be the second question on the ballot paper and, if approved (assuming the independence vote falls) that is what will be implemented.

This would not suit Mr Salmond at all. He could argue, justifiably, that it falls a long way short of devo-max. But that’s not the point. The Unionist parties could quote back at him all his own rhetoric about the Scottish people being sovereign, so why deny them the right to pass their verdict on this constitutional change package?

They could point out that it is a proposal that has been thoroughly debated and picked over and is supported by parties who won a majority of the votes (if not the seats) at the last Holyrood election. Yes, it may have faults, but if they are as big as the SNP says they are, surely he would be confident of winning a No vote?

And if he still refuses, that would give Westminster the excuse to organise a referendum on it, even on the same day and in the same polling stations as Mr Salmond’s independence plebiscite. It wouldn’t be interference, it would be recognising the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Of course, the Calman package would then become the middle way likely to win most support, especially since it presumably would be backed by three major parties. Depending on your point of view, it isn’t necessarily the case that two questions are better than one.