A No majority appears the most likely response on 18th September, and a very high turnout. Those are neutral facts.
Alex Salmond won last night’s debate – he was more skilled rhetorically, and has only one weak point that Alastair Darling can use. As Darling had used that weak point well in the previous debate, Salmond had evidently taken counsel with his speechwriters and devised several excellent rhetorical responses to Darling’s factual and accurate criticisms of the SNP’s plans. They both bellowed at each other a lot and I doubt if their shouting-across-each-other attitude convinced anyone. That’s my opinion.
As the audience interrogation exposed, Labour’s failure to oppose the Tory/LibDem destruction of the welfare system and privatisation of the NHS, was their worst weakness in trying to campaign for Better Together.
Why I’m voting No:
When I published Leaning Towards No, I expected reaction from Yes voters who’d been hoping I would come down on their side of the fence.
I wasn’t expecting the reaction to be so supportive of the SNP. From the reactions, [hardly anyone]* who plans to vote Yes intends to challenge the SNP’s plans to install devomax “currency union” in place of our present devolved system, and while some actively support the plan, many simply don’t see changing the SNP’s policy as possible.
*Not quite “no one”, as I initially wrote.
It therefore seems likely that – much to my annoyance and disappointment – I really don’t have any choice but to vote No. I don’t support devomax. I never did. I won’t vote Yes to have devomax replace status-quo devolution, and that’s what the Scottish Government’s White Paper says is going to happen.
Let me go through the various objections I’ve received to this, beginning with the silliest. (None of these are direct quotes from anyone, so if you recognise yourself in them, it’s purely coincidental.)
I know that sounds like a silly question.
Back a couple of years ago, one of the ideas being proposed about the referendum was that it should include a third option – devo-max or devo-plus. In July 2012 I noted the multiple reasons why – though undecided on the Yes/No question – I was against these options, and moved on: there seemed no reason to dwell on what was not going to be voted on.
Tom Gordon outlined the difference between the two, and who was supporting them, in the Herald:
Devo-plus was supported by LibDem Tavish Scott, Conservative MSP Alex Fergusson and Labour’s Duncan McNeil plus Reform Scotland, a think-tank based in Edinburgh that is, it says, independent of its parent think-tank Reform based in London:
devo plus could be a credible alternative to independence, if that option was rejected in the referendum.
Devo-max was floated as “full fiscal autonomy” and was supported primarily by the SNP:
Devo Max is intended to make Scotland more accountable for its spending. At present, Holyrood is responsible for 60% of all public spending in Scotland but has a say in setting and raising just 6% of it, through business rates and council tax.
Under Devo Max, Edinburgh would be responsible for raising, collecting, and administering the vast majority of taxes and benefits, and would receive a geographic share of North Sea oil revenue. EU rules mean VAT would stay the same across the UK, and financial regulation, employment, and competition law would also remain reserved.”
David Cameron is bringing his Cabinet north to Aberdeen today “to highlight the importance to Scotland’s oil industry of staying in the UK.”
Presumably you have to be Scottish to understand why this is such a ludicrously bad idea. Or at least, not an English Conservative who was 25 and working for the Conservative Research Department in London in 1992.
In the 1992 general election, the Conservative Party won 5 seats in Scotland.
It’s been 22 years and that victory remains the highlight of their electoral achievements in the past quarter-century. (Yes, they do have 14 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, but most of them are “list” MSPs – they represent a region, not a constituency.)
The most effective thing David Cameron could do to win a No vote for independence in Scotland is to stay in England and repeat some variation on “Of course the Scots have a right to hold a referendum on independence: naturally I want Scotland to remain part of the UK but we will respect the democratic will of the Scottish people whatever happens.”
I actually respected Cameron’s decision not to debate Alex Salmond; I assumed his advisors had let him know it would have done neither Cameron or the Better Together campaign any good in Scotland, however well the English Tory Prime Minister comes across in his own electoral territory.
The notion that a Conservative Prime Minister visiting Aberdeen to tell the Scottish people that we’d never be able to cope with our own oil industry if we were independent so we’d much better stay part of the UK…
When the SNP transited smoothly from “we’ll use to the Euro” to “we’ll use the pound” that was a campaign tactic.
When the Tories, LibDems, and Labour all bounced to their feet and said ha ha, we won’t let you use the pound, that was a campaign tactic.
I do not believe either the Yes Scotland or the Better Together campaigns have really thought this through: or at least, they are certainly not making a fact-based argument based on having thought this through.
Ian Bell writes in the Herald:
“Hardball” is the macho cliche being applied to the Chancellor’s fiat towards a currency union. Despite its protestations, Mr Darling’s team pursues the kind of negative campaigning that never goes out of style in Westminster. No compunction is involved. The referendum must be won at all costs. But what might that cost be, exactly, if the prize is a united kingdom in the aftermath?
George Osborne says the Treasury won’t permit Scotland to use the UK pound, supposing Scotland votes for independence. In May 2015 – regardless of how Scotland votes in September – Osborne’s reign as least-qualified British Chancellor since the one who forgot his budget speech in 1869 comes to an end, so his pronouncements are necessarily limited to campaigning for a Yes vote.
(What? There was another reason for his coming up to Scotland? Seriously, does anyone think a very posh, very English Tory Minister telling Scots what they can and cannot do is likely to be anything but a drawback for the Better Together campaign?)
Quite possibly the worst result for 18th September would be for fewer than 50% of the electorate to vote, but for Yes to win by a narrow margin. The more Conservative Ministers moved to join the debate the better in that regard.
The SNP published a White Paper on Scottish independence in November, and while the ebook has been sitting on my reader, I haven’t yet pushed my way through it. So. for 2014, I’m embarking on a blogging project. Every Thursday, I hope (with July exemption) to write deconstruction on the SNP’s vision of what we’ll be voting for if we vote Yes.
Scotland’s referendum on 18 September 2014 is a choice between two futures.
This is a splendid opening line. But: one reason for the high turnout in 1992 and 1997 is quite possibly, that on both occasions, Scottish voters wanted the Tories out – and wanted Labour in. After the poll tax and the destruction of heavy industry in Scotland, voters were energised, aware, and hugely angry. We really did feel there was a choice between two futures – the grim grey Toryism that had, by 1997, been plodding on for 18 years of hell, and a bright hopeful New Labour future with Tony Blair. (Yes, I know what that sounds like now. But we did.) And to be fair – I had infinitely rather Labour won in 1997 than we’d had another five years of Conservative rule. Whatever New Labour’s flaws and failures, and they turned out to be huge, the Conservatives had done worse before 1997 and are doing worse now. (And yes, a Tory government would have done exactly what Labour did over the Iraq war, but faster and with bells on.) No other election since has felt like 1997 did.
Still: if enough of us vote Yes on 18th September, Scotland becomes independent in March 2016, and for good or ill, that is a huge change. So, yes, two futures. Fair enough.
After nearly two years of thinking about Continue reading