Scots not so inclined to march to Cameron's tune

ANALYSIS: SCOTTISH FIRST minister, Alex Salmond is rarely shy of microphones, but he carefully stayed away from them following prime minister David Cameron's decision on Sunday to push the issue of Scottish independence to the top of the political agenda in the United Kingdom.

A referendum, Cameron said, had to be held quickly. Not when Salmond wants it, in 2014 or later.

It has to offer voters a clear choice between the union and independence, and it has to be binding – unlike all bar one of the recent referendums held in the UK.

Cameron’s intervention has not played well in Scotland, a place where the Conservatives now hold just one Commons seat and where Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) has majority control of the Holyrood parliament in Edinburgh.

Last year, the SNP promised a referendum, but it did not put a date on the promise until five days before the May election when Salmond spoke of 2014 – on Sunday, Cameron pushed for 2013 believing that the Scot cannot be allowed to run the show.

Salmond’s 48-hour silence, which lasted until lunchtime yesterday, is partly explained by the desire to keep the focus on an unpopular Conservative prime minister, but also, perhaps, by a concern not to become the sole face of Scottish independence.

In his absence, SNP first minister Nicola Sturgeon took his place, though her declaration that the SNP favours a straight “In” or “Out” question, rather than one that also offers extra devolved powers to Edinburgh, is disingenuous, at best.

So far, both sides disagree about what type of referendum can be held, and who can call it, with the SNP insisting that it has the right to organise a non-binding poll that would, nevertheless, have unstoppable momentum behind it if passed.

Here, the law is on the side of the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition.

A referendum solo-run would be ultra vires. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the Scottish advocate-general could even allow legislation for a referendum to go to the floor of Holyrood for debate.

“Any Bill introduced in the Scottish parliament providing for a referendum on independence would be outside the powers of the Scottish parliament and, if challenged, would be struck down by the courts,” the Scottish Office said.

All of this will be seen in Scotland as more London diktats, and there is history. In 1979, Labour offered a Scottish assembly, but demanded a 40 per cent turn-out to make a result valid. Not enough did vote, so the 51.6 per cent “Yes” counted for naught.

The question now is whether Salmond intends to push ahead, despite the very real danger of a court challenge from a member of the public, or, less willingly, by London. More probably months of talks will ensue. Salmond is in no rush. In the 1960s, the SNP’s more fundamentalist ranks were prepared to take independence, even if it meant that Scots were worse-off – they famously declared that they wanted Scotland “free, or a desert”.

Salmond acknowledges that Scots do not want independence that much, and has learned in a 30-year personal campaign that the “march of a nation”, to quote Charles Stewart Parnell, has to be taken step by step.

For now, Salmond holds many of the cards.

Ideally, from his perspective, he would get independence, but full control over Scotland’s affairs – if voters accept a “devolution-lite” option – would be a considerable consolation prize.

For the pro-union camp, the battle is harder. Labour, particularly, will shy away from supporting a Conservative-led campaign, while Liberal Democrats voters can be picked off by promises of greater devolution, short of independence.

Equally, there is no political figure among his opponents to compare with Salmond’s stature – a reality that also helps significantly to explain the SNP’s majority last May, even if that vote could not be interpreted as one for independence.

The saga is replete with irony. Holyrood was set up by Tony Blair in 1999 to head off demands for independence, while its voting rules were deliberately designed to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.

But it got one.

Not only that, but the party’s performance in office – during a five-year minority term up to 2011 and outright control now – has given it, in Salmond’s eyes, “the freedom to win freedom”, to borrow from Michael Collins.

So what do Scots think about independence? The answer varies, but a Mori poll last September found that two-thirds wanted all tax powers held by Edinburgh, not London, though just a third favoured separation.

Even SNP voters, now including more women and working-class Catholics, are not a homogenous bloc – 85 per cent back full tax devolution, but only 61 per cent independence – and this even before a campaign begins. However, pro-independence feelings are rising.

The fervour may increase during 2014 – the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, but also the year when the Commonwealth Games come to Glasgow – though the SNP is infuriated at the William Wallace-like portrayal of nationalists “in painted woad”.

In time, however, the issue of the costs of independence will dominate, rather than whether Cameron or Salmond should decide the referendum date – including, for example, the share that Scotland would take of the RBS bank bailout if it quit the union.

The Scottish cabinet yesterday signed off on a consultation paper, to be published later this month, that will confirm 2014 as its favoured date, but leave open the option of whether voters should face two questions, or three.

However, the debate is not being held in a vacuum. Salmond had intended publishing the paper before Christmas, before pulling back because its release would have come during the euro’s travails which highlighted the vulnerability of small nations.

For now, Salmond can content himself that the new year has begun well, with cries of “Tory interference” filling Scottish airwaves. However, heads of government must also comply with the requirements of law.

Mark Hennessy is London Editor