I’m probably in a minority on the left here, but I think the Coalition government did a pretty reasonable job of putting Alex Salmond on the spot over his plans for a referendum on Scottish Independence.
Of course, No 10 displayed their usual cack-handedness in not realising that the way to trap Salmond on the referendum was total studied reasonableness, and so being tempted into a bit of bluster, but the core proposition “Want a referendum? Fine, you can have a proper, binding one, but it’s got to be done independently” was the right way forward.
As a result, both in Scotland and in England, we finally get a debate about what Scottish Independence would actually mean, rather than one about a) Using threat of independence as a lever to achieve a political objective b) The use of independence as a way of evading all difficult questions about policy under devolution (It’d be different if..) c) a debate about the process of independence itself.
Here’s the big problem for Salmond: He’s worked his way to the point where he governs Scotland unchallenged, has the chance for independence to be made real, and yet he seems to have a fairly empty argument about what he’d want an independent Scotland to be.
Here’s Salmond’s plan for Independence – Stick with the Queen, Keep Sterling, Stay in the EU. Basically, all he wants different is a Scottish Defence Service to patrol the North Atlantic and a different foriegn policy. Everything else is either already in his power (all the devolved powers) not really very tenable (an entirely different economic policy) or more or less on offer (Devo-max).
As an outsider, I think you could make a credible argument that an independent Scotland would actually be less independent, in policy terms, than it is today.
After all, they’d have little or no influence on their own Monetary policy (as the FT notes). Sure, they’d technically gain fiscal levers in return, but I can’t imagine the EU would want another state on its periphery that didn’t control its own currency and wasn’t bound by strict regulation of fiscal policy. Since an Independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership, the EU would have a very strong hand in those negotiations.
On the other hand, if the long term plan is to stay in a “Sterling zone”, then much the same question arises. As Faisal Islam notes ”Surely the singular lesson of the past year is that monetary union requires fiscal coordination/control.” What then for economic independence? Voluntary submission to rule by a Bank of England, for England?
What’s more, whether in a Sterling or Euro Zone an independent Scotland would be much more likely to need to re-assure Bond markets about their fiscal rectitude, so would either have to pay higher interest rates (constraining growth), or tie themselves into a tighter spending straight-jacket.
To put it another way, if Scotland had been an independent member of the Euro from 2007, today Alex Salmond would be complaining about Mario Draghi, not David Cameron. Is that a great step forward?
On top of that – the Scottish parliament already has Tax varying powers. If they’re not using those now, in the middle of the biggest economic crisis in fifty years, what great policy shifts does the SNP really seek?
To be fair, The Telegraph does note a way out of this - The SNP could decide to sell off Scotland’s future revenue from oil, pay off debt and have some £80bn left over for a sovereign fund. Trouble is, I’m not sure that’s a politically sustainable message: A Scotland to Asset strip!
Of course, none of these limitations apply in the perhaps more evocative issues of foreign, defence and cultural policy. Here Scotland the nation would be much freer to act. No more BBC. No more British Army bases, a seperate seat at the UN.
All of which means that the most profitable ground for an Independence campaign will likely be cultural/social/patriotic, rather than fiscal/economic/employment. I suppose it’s why the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn is regarded as so important to the referendum date, as are the Commonweath games.
I’m just not sure that refighting old battles and sport events is a particularly good ground to fight from.
Not when there are big questions and risks about Scotland’s economic future.
The reason the SNP haven't used the Scottish Variable Rate is because they let it lapse in the last parliament – they refused to pay HMRC to maintain the capability to implement it at 18 months notice and now it's too expensive to use.
Somehow they won the last election despite actively and deliberately reducing Holyroods powers…
Oh, and this interview with John Swinney today is remarkably incoherent on currency matters http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16530358
I did not watch that interview and conclude the SNP had a clear (or even logically cohesive) economic policy post independence.
Despite what the independence argument should focus on it really is a huge priority for us all at the moment I think, particularly the labour party.
That the SNP has vaccumed up previously staunch labour support to secure a huge devolved government North of the border is worrying enough. But what I find more concerning is the lack of urgency being shown by labour over a potentially life threatening blow to its chances of ever getting into power again in Westminster should Scotland decide to go native.
Ed Miliband may be receiving some plaudits in the media for remaining calm and unmoved by the fuss over his leadership, but he really does need a kick up the arse over the state of his party in Scotland.
And even if the Scots don’t vote for independence, who is to say that they wont nevertheless give labour its second worst possible outcome…returning the SNP in ever greater numbers to Westminster elections, at labour’s expense.
Wakey, wakey, labour party, rise and shine.
You're over-thinking it surely? Independence, for Nationalists anway, isn't a policy choice you evaluate in terms of the tangible outcomes; it's a goal worth striving for even if you knew for certain you'd be objectively worse off as a result.
That's never said explicitly for obvious reasons but I know living here & listening to people discuss it that it's that sort of emotional / instinctive issue. Even reasonably articulate informed people don't frame the question as 'what then' – its either something you aspire to or it isnt. And that – I guess – is why Salmond's been so successful since he's not really offering arguments you can rationally counter, he's just appealing to romantic self-identiy.
I'm sure that's true- but it's also no coincidence that support for this position increased the more it could be identified as both an emotionally satisfying and economically positive option. My suggestion is that the latter may have peaked, at least in the medium term. If you passionately believe in independence that's of little importance- but if you're unsure or apathetic it may be the deciding factor.
True but the relationship between economic impact & support isn't a straight-forward linear one – if you can make the case that it's positive then you'll convince a handful more but saying it's neutral or even perhaps negative in significant ways doesn't dent the core support because it's not rational anyway. Salmond's genius (and I seriously think that's the right word) is to never miss an opportunity to grow that core, non-rational support. In that sense tough economic times & austerity is almost as much of a gift to him as a Tory PM.
Anyway, if Salmond succeeds and Scotland secede(?) then the arithmetic at Westminster makes the thrust of 'black Labour' even more important!
I have questions. Is all this straight forward, or is it Alice Through The Looking Glass?
a) Does Salmond really want indepependence, or only the threat of independence for extracting more powers/money? Does he really want DevoMax instead?
b) Does Cameron want Scotland in (the saviour of the Union), or out (less Labour votes)? Though I wonder how pertinent the Labour votes aspect really is.
c) Has Cameron's interruption even been thought through, or is it just an act of bullying? And will it encourage or discourage independence?
I am certain that Cameron was only bluffing when he waved the Euro veto, and was more surprised than anyone when his bluff was called. He was expecting to be offered something that the others hadn't got in return for voting for the Treaty.