Judging from the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding the independence referendum, it bodes ill as the constitutional debate proceeds.
Whatever the outcome, the parties will all have to work together, but the fences will be virtually beyond repair. Coalition spokesmen don’t seem to realise that, by castigating the SNP and Alex Salmond in the terms that they do, they are maligning the SNP voters who dared to opt out of supporting the unionist parties – and upon whose votes they will eventually rely should they wish to retrieve their lost ground. What is it that justifies the apparent hatred expressed in both the debate on Scotland’s future in the House of Commons on 10 January, and in Scottish Questions on 11 January, when the endless background babble made it impossible to hear the proceedings. Is that what they term ‘respect’ for Scottish matters?
We have become accustomed to a parade of unionist Westminster MPs from English constituencies complaining about Scotland’s alleged public spending advantage; yet, that vexed topic did not come up; that would have been incongruous, in the context of expressions in favour of Scotland remaining in the Union!
There were blatant contradictions. On the one hand, it was time to stop discussing the independence process and get on with the substance. But that does not fit in with the claims that devolution was not an end-product, it was a process!
The hypocrisy is that the unionist parties have come up with no meaningful suggestions for advancing devolution. We can ignore the discredited Calman income tax proposals – they could not work, and they were irrelevant to making Holyrood ‘more’ accountable. And, had Labour won the 2007 Holyrood elections there would have been no speech from Wendy Alexander mooting extra powers – their victory would have represented approval of Labour’s performance, and of their devolution measure. No wonder the SNP won hands down in 2011.
Regarding the second question, devo max, the rhetoric is curious.
The SNP’s stance has always been to favour a Yes/No question. I have observed their spokesmen inviting unionist politicians, if they preferred devo max, to “tell us what they have in mind”, without response. But we know that a majority of Scots would opt for more powers, short of independence. I guess the unionists see the prospect of squashing the SNP with the single independence question irresistible, whereas opening up a debate on devo max could result in a consensus around which everyone could coalesce, and which would be acceptable to the SNP also.
Adopting such a course would present the opportunity for advancing the cause of devolution, but if the unionists are to wrest the initiative from Alex Salmond, they dare not do that – it is total warfare or nothing.
The Coalition is, in any event, on dangerous ground; if they continue with their negativity on these issues, they could generate greater, not less, support for the SNP and for independence.
The only sensible suggestion came from English MP Bernard Jenkin, who said he preferred a post-legislation referendum (which we were deprived of with devolution). But given the circumstances, that would be unworkable.
And it is contradictory for unionists to claim that any referendum is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster, while at the same time berating the SNP over its conduct of the economy, which is also a reserved matter.
Douglas R Mayer
