In case it escaped your attention over this festive period, The Times named Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond as ‘Briton of the Year, 2011.’ Could this be more ironic? Here is a man who has made it his mission to deliver independence to Scotland, destroying the United Kingdom in the process.
Now, Salmond’s effectiveness as a political force should not be questioned. The greatest compliment he can be paid is the recognition he is now receiving south of the border. For the SNP to begin trailing by 14 points in the polls, only to win an outright majority in a PR voting system, (ultimately winning 69 of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament) is extremely impressive. In retrospect however, this was never meant to happen. The Holyrood founders headed by the late Donald Dewar aimed to fashion a system to rule out such an outcome.
Indeed, one must question how the SNP have been allowed to make such gains. Salmond’s current position is as a result of building upon 2007 electoral success, namely the winning of a one-seat majority, thereby leading a minority administration. Yet throughout this parliaments lifetime the Unionists failed to take up the fight. Given the narrow margins this was a mistake which may come back to haunt the anti-independence movement in Scotland.
Of greater concern for those of us who wish to preserve the union, is that this lack of fight lingers. Where is the unionist opposition coming from? In Scotland itself at last years election the Labour Party lacked direction and widely misspent, while at the 2010 general election the Conservative Party returned one MP, Edinburgh Zoo currently has more Giant Pandas. Consequently, the Prime Minister is in a difficult position. He, and his party have minimal sway with the Scottish electorate, and with the election of Ruth Davidson as leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party for Scotland, it seems unlikely that this endemic unpopularity will subside before a potential referendum before 2016.
So, what can David Cameron do? It is all very well insisting he does not seek to become a 21st Century equivalent of George III, the monarch who lost America, but unless real action is taken he may not have a choice. The Prime Minister must make a point of visiting Scotland and in doing so talk about the state of our union, making it clear that he will counter any move for independence. Although risky, he may take the initiative himself, play Salmond at his own game and call for a referendum, in doing so, dictating the timing and controlling the terms of the argument. It may make more sense to ask the Scots to vote ‘yes’ in favour of the union, than ‘no’ to independence.
In commissioning a report to examine the West Lothian question (Scottish MP’s voting at Westminster on issues such as health and education in England, while English MP’s have no say in Scotland) the government is trying to placate those English based MP’s who would happily see Scotland leave, for the sake of parity. The report, due back in February 2013, could signal the first change in the voting rights of MP’s since the 1707 Act of the Union, and form part of an eventual compromise.
Amongst all the doom and gloom you would be forgiven for thinking there is no hope for unionists, when quite the opposite is true. The polls highlight that those in favour of an independent Scotland remain, as they have for a generation, at around 30%. What is more, the SNP succeeded in winning 45% of the vote with a low turnout of 50%. It is also foolish to assume that a vote for the SNP is equivalent to a vote for independence. Moreover, talking tough and being brash is not a novel tactic. The Scottish electorate was promised a referendum during the last parliament, while history reminds us of the ‘Free in ‘93’ slogan.
Indeed, the model for independence appears confused and historically flawed. In days gone by, the cry was to leave the tired, broken United Kingdom and move toward an ever expanding Europe, where “smaller states [were/are] championing change.” With a two-speed Europe becoming a reality this is no longer a truism. Further, Scotland is hardly a Celtic Tiger, with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland (a subsidiary of HBOS) both bailed out by the taxpayer. Would the E.U. welcome another state with a failed financial system? Some on the fringes of the SNP have muted a new currency entirely, hardly effectual given the state of the markets. Britain in comparison looks stability personified. We share a currency, fiscal policy, language and culture, all built over three-centuries, far more beneficial than any deal with the Nordic states.
Political movements traditionally burn brightest before they die. The old Liberal Party tore itself apart after winning a landslide in 1906, whilst the Conservatives have arguably failed to recover from there unpopularity after being in power between 1979 and 1997.
Whilst it is beyond disappointing that the English and the Scots who have associated together, married each other and worked together for centuries cannot get on, one must question what example this sets for the rest of the world, and indeed for current devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland. With the precise details still to unfold one thing is for certain, unionists must rally.
