Scotland's Future
Life is slowly returning to normal after all the excitement and drama of the Scottish independence referendum, and what a great few weeks it has been.
Politics has been changed for ever, not just in Scotland but across the UK, and that's all down to the Yes campaign.
Speaking personally, I would have settled for Devo Max before the campaign even got underway and the panicked response of the Westminster Parliament in agreeing to Devo Max at the 11th hour and 59 minutes only goes to show what a folly it was not to have a second question on the referendum ballot paper.
So we shall see what happens now because the political establishment is on the defensive and is under huge pressure to deliver on its promises, failing which they will be punished by Scottish voters who now believe in their ability to make the political weather.
I admired Alex Salmond's statement in the immediate aftermath of the No vote and his subsequent decision to stand down from front line politics in November - the baton will now pass to others to finish the job.
But no one can doubt that Scotland's fourth First Minister has made a lasting impact on the world stage.
First Minister on Referendum outcomeFirst Minister Alex Salmond |
Win Win (15 September 2014)
I think Andrew Rawnsley is right to say that the independence referendum is a 'win win' situation for Alex Salmond because the parties campaigning under the Better Together banner, Labour in particular, have really lost the plot by refusing a second 'Devo Max' question on the ballot paper - only to play the Devo Max card at the 11th hour when they realised the result was slipping away.
The problem is that the version of Devo Max now on offer has not been agreed by anyone and its main proponent, Gordon Brown, is a 'death bed' convert because as a Labour MP and former Prime Minister he's had plenty of time to champion more powers for the Scottish Parliament - instead of trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat in the final few days of the referendum campaign.
Now having a second Devo Max question on the ballot paper would have made a big difference because the Yes vote that it would have undoubtedly produced would have belonged to the people, the voters, and any political party that sought to wriggle out of or water down that commitment would certainly pay a price in future elections.
But Gordon Brown's cynical ploy is to try and keep the whole issue of Devo Max as the property of the political parties and professional politicians, yet these are the same set of vested interests that kept Devo Max off the referendum ballot paper in the first place.
So while many of Scotland's Yes voters, such as myself, are not nationalists or SNP supporters we can see how cynically the Westminster based parties have behaved and that does not bode well for any of them in the future.
Whatever the result of the Scottish referendum, Alex Salmond will be the winner
Even if independence is rejected, the nationalists will be stronger than ever and inevitably far more powers will be devolved to Scotland
By Andrew Rawnsley - The Observer
Alex Salmond has presided over the transformation of Scottish nationalism from romantic protest to contenders for power. Photograph: Andy Buchanan/AFP/Getty Images
About three years ago, when the London and Edinburgh governments were beginning their negotiations about the referendum, a senior member of the cabinet told me about a meeting between him and Alex Salmond. The minister half-laughed: "Salmond really thinks he can be the father of his nation, some kind of Ataturk of Scotland." This remark was delivered in a tone of bafflement mixed with condescension. It was typical of the attitude that prevailed in all the UK-wide parties. They could see that the SNP leader had skilfully presided over the transformation of Scottish nationalism from romantic protest to contenders for power, but it was still inconceivable to them that he could ever achieve his party's ultimate goal. Scots might huff and puff their grievances about the union and the unionist parties, they might even elect nationalist governments, they might even do that twice in a row, but they would never blow the house down. Incidentally, Scottish unionist politicians were usually as firmly of this view, if not more so, as English ones. I remember one of Labour's Scots telling me: "The nationalists are only borrowing our voters."
It has turned out to be terribly complacent, but at the time that attitude was understandable when the opinion pollsters and the bookies were both suggesting that the odds of the Scots voting for independence were only marginally better than the chances of Elvis being found alive in Fort William cohabitating with Dennis the Menace and the Loch Ness monster. It was that inability to conceive the possibility that Scots would ever vote for separation that emboldened David Cameron to bring things to a head and insist on a straight yes/no question on the ballot paper, excluding the option of "devo max", which he has now ended up pledging anyway in his desperation to save the union and his job. If Scots do not give the answer that the prime minister anticipated when the referendum question was set, that decision will be seen as the most colossal misjudgment of his premiership. It could also very well be the end of his political career.
The Tory leader was not alone in his miscalculation. Most of his peers at Westminster under-estimated the forces powering nationalism and the man marshalling them. Though known to like a flutter on the horses, Mr Salmond is an essentially cautious operator whose gambles are calculated. The left of his party didn't much like it, but it has proved to be smart to present Scots with a version of independence that sounds de-risked. One of his great campaign achievements has been to persuade a lot of Scots that they can keep everything about the union that they like or that makes them feel secure – the BBC, the NHS, the Queen, the pound – and be rid of everything they don't like – austerity, rule from London, the bedroom tax, the Tories and the Tories. The no camp call his prospectus bogus, often with good reason, but most of Better Together's arguments have just pinged off the SNP leader's armour-plate of confidence and optimism.
As I observed last week, he has also been ruthless, in a way that echoes the rhetoric and tactics of Nigel Farage in England, at feeding on contemporary discontents and laying them all at the door of everyone's favourite villain, "the Westminster elite". His other key insight was to see that the route to a majority for independence was not to be found in a Braveheart-ish appeal to blood-and-soil. The swing constituency to win over were those Labour voters whose living standards have been stagnant for many years and whose traditional party has disappointed them. If Scotland chooses secession this week, it will be principally because a crucial segment of these voters have swung yes.
You can say – as his opponents do – that it is all very deceptive to suggest that independence is the miracle cure. You can say that it is a fantasy to suggest that a separated Scotland will be like Norway only even better. You can suspect, as I do, that the divorce negotiations will not be the amicable uncoupling of Mr Salmond's dreams. They will be nasty, brutish and prolonged. You can predict that there will be tears if Scots vote for independence and then make the rude discovery that you can't have your tunny cake and eat it. Should he become the first leader of an independent Scotland, in potential prospect for Mr Salmond is a wild see-saw from political ecstasy to agony. You can say all sorts of things about his tactics and his promises. You can't say that it hasn't worked.
What was treated as a foregone conclusion for no just a few weeks ago is now on a knife edge. Last weekend's poll giving the edge to yes triggered frenzy at Westminster and prompted David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to abandon prime minister's questions to rush north to plead with Scots not to go. It can be argued that the shock poll may ultimately turn out to have saved the union by spurring the UK parties into action and flushing out warnings about the consequences of independence from major businesses. It could also have the effect of mobilising previously reluctant or complacent no voters to the polling stations. You can also argue, as the yes camp do, that a massive turn-out, boosted by people who have been off the electoral register since the poll tax, is going to help the cause of independence. As one sensible Labour figure puts it: "A lot of wise people will tell you there is a silent majority for no and they will also tell you there's usually a late swing to safety in referendums. But it's very difficult to poll – so who knows?"
Only this much we can assert with some confidence. Whatever the result on Thursday, Mr Salmond will be the winner. Only if the polls are sensationally wrong and independence is rejected by a large margin can he now look like a loser. Assuming that the polls are broadly in the right territory when they suggest it is extremely tight, he wins one way or the other. He wins, against his own initial expectations I suspect, if Scotland votes for independence. He wins, in a less historically dramatic but still very significant way, if Scotland votes to give the union another chance.
If Scots vote for separation, independence will have his name on it. Other personalities will have played their roles and some deep-seated, long-term forces will have ruptured the union, but the history books will record him as the "father of his country". Whether you regard that prospect with horror, with delight or with indifference, it will be a huge political achievement. The more so for having been pulled off against the combined weight of all the major UK-wide parties and most of the establishment.
It would create a multi-headed crisis in the British state. It would set off a series of detonations underneath Mr Miliband as the Labour party contemplated the separation of the country where it was born and the elimination of about a sixth of its representation at Westminster. Mr Cameron will be in high peril of losing his premiership. If the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party loses the union, his position will be untenable in the view of significant numbers of Tory MPs from across the spectrum of their party. If he didn't fall on his sword, the signatures would be mustered to trigger a confidence vote. Says one senior Tory: "More than enough people hate Cameron for that to happen."
If yes loses this Thursday, Mr Salmond still wins. The nationalist movement is more potent than ever before while the UK-wide parties will have to deliver on the promises to devolve far more powers to Scotland that they have been panicked into pledging to try to save the union. "The status quo is no longer on the ballot paper," says one senior Labour figure. Interestingly and ironically, it is the Tories who are now proposing the most radical version of devolution. Whatever is ultimately agreed, Scotland is going to get a lot more powers of self-government. Which many think was the goal Mr Salmond started out with.
This has come in such a rush that its full consequences have yet to be thought through. A very big issue, which already has Tory MPs hopping, is how England is going to react to a lopsided arrangement in which Scotland enjoys a quasi-independent status. One senior member of the cabinet worries that "the slumbering beast of English grievance will wake up".
Even if the union wins a reprieve on Thursday, the argument is clearly not going to end there. The hope once entertained by both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband that this referendum would put independence to bed for a generation is now for the birds. Among yes voters, even among a lot of no voters, Scots have been energised and exhilarated. Their feeling of empowerment will surely have been sharpened by the spectacle of Westminster politicians on their knees pleading with them not to go. Even if Scotland says no this time, the nationalists will be back to ask the question again.
Heads, Alex Salmond wins. Tails, he wins. In whatever currency you are using.
