Unionist stance on referendum alienates the silent majority

AS THE dust settles on an extraordinary week of politics, has the Tory-led coalition at Westminster effectively seized control of Scotland’s referendum, or will the recent flexing of metropolitan muscle be regarded by voters as a tactless and provocative act which makes plain the urgency of repatriating powers to Scotland?

Committed Unionists will applaud the intervention, committed Nationalists will condemn it. But Scotland is full of reasonable, intelligent people with ambition for their nation who remain undecided on the right constitutional path. They will determine Scotland’s destiny, not those who made up their minds long ago. What are that largely silent but interested majority to make of the latest developments?

For me, the Unionist stance on the referendum simply does not stand up to close scrutiny. I say that not just because I disagree with it – and I do – but because it carries no internal logic and no awareness of the reality of modern Scotland. Two aspects in particular will jar with most reasonable Scots.

The first is the attempt to veto a second question on devo-max. That offends precisely because support for devo-max is currently the preference of the majority of Scots. In other words, we are being asked to have a referendum on our constitutional future which explicitly and artificially excludes the option most people would vote for. Canon Kenyon Wright – one of the founding fathers of the Constitutional Convention – speaks for many when he expresses his view that “a straight choice between independence and the status quo effectively disenfranchises a large number of Scots who want neither”.

The point here is to remember that the Convention drew its strength from wider Scottish society – whether churches, trade unions or the voluntary sector. Add to that the number of serious people from the business community who additionally – again on a non-party basis – see the merit in fiscal autonomy and the absolute necessity of devolving significant business taxes to allow Scotland to position itself more appropriately in the international market place, and the weakness of the Cameron position becomes obvious.

This is not a referendum for politicians, but for the people. It is not about party, it is about country. I suspect therefore that the effect of the UK Government attempt to exclude devo-max will simply be to galvanise that silent majority into agitating more forcefully for that option to be put before the people. Further, the Tories trying to control Scotland from afar we have come to expect, but the silent acquiescence of the Labour party cannot be their final position. Politically, a devo-max question is inevitable. The sooner David Cameron and Scottish Labour grasp that, the better.

The second recent Unionist tactic which will alienate many Scots is the threat of a minority UK Government rushing to the Supreme Court in order to stop a majority Scottish Government holding a consultative referendum on independence for which it has a mandate. Each Government has its own legal advice. Both sides think they are right. The legal community is similarly divided. But take a step back into the real world and examine whether the UK threat should be taken seriously. Let’s imagine the UK Government goes to the Supreme Court and loses. For David Cameron and George Osborne, that is a nightmare scenario. Not only has the UK Government poisoned relations, it would be a huge boost to the Nationalist campaign. Even worse, though, would be to go to court and win. Standing between the people of Scotland and their democratic right by aggressively asserting Westminster supremacy over all things Scottish would be a gift to the independence campaign.

So here’s the thing – regardless of whether David Cameron wins or loses any legal case in the Supreme Court, politically he loses either way. By contrast, success for Alex Salmond would be an obvious boost and defeat perhaps even more politically useful. That’s why the threats of legal action by the UK Government aren’t just unwise and inflammatory, they risk boxing the UK Government into a legal case which, regardless of the actual legal result, will result in massive political damage.

There is an adult way out of this, but it will involve major concessions. On the upside, the date of autumn 2014 looks like being accepted on all sides. Beyond that, the Scottish Government will need to rethink which of the remaining disputed aspects of the referendum are non-negotiable. The desire for a Scottish Electoral Commission might be justified, but is it a deal breaker? Votes for 16 and 17-year- olds is a problem for the UK Government (they know that support for independence in that age group is high) but for the same reason losing them would represent a significant setback for the Yes vote. That one might be hard fought in negotiation. But negotiation there must be.

What seems plain, however, is that no agreement is possible without the devo-max veto proposed by the UK Government being dropped.

Sabre-rattling will eventually yield to sensible negotiation. That’s what most people want – and after all, giving the people what they want is what a referendum is all about. «

[email protected]