Scottish independence – waiting for a referendum won't help the nationalists
Just back from Ireland.
Travelling in the opposite direction were Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond who were attending this morning’s meeting of the British-Irish Council at Dublin Castle.
I imagine that Salmond would like it to be called the British-Irish-Scottish Council and in a few years he may get his wish.
Personally I can't wait for a referendum on Scottish independence – the sooner the better – but if Salmond wants it to coincide with the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, good luck to him. Who cares?
Actually, I think a two-and-a-half year wait will work against the nationalists. The arguments in favour of an independent Scotland are so few compared to the arguments in favour of a genuinely United Kingdom that the inherent weakness of the nationalists' case will become increasingly clear the longer the debate lasts.
That of course is one of the reasons why Salmond wants a fallback position so he can still claim victory, assuming he loses the vote on independence.
Hence, if the SNP Government in Holyrood has its way, the electorate will be asked two questions. The first will cover full independence. The second will offer an alternative – greater powers for the Scottish Parliament including full fiscal autonomy ('devolution max' or, in Irish terms, 'Home Rule') with the rest of the UK still expected to subsidise the cost of defending Scotland's borders or bailing the country out if its economy (or banking system) collapses.
Internationally Scotland would continue to enjoy the benefits of belonging to the United Kingdom – which include a seat at the top table of global politics – benefits it could only dream about as a 'independent' nation.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Scotland effectively separates from the rest of the UK but decides not to leave home or divorce. Legally we are still bound to our fragile, independent-minded partner and there is nothing we can do about it.
Thanks but no thanks.
Food for thought.
An article in the Telegraph this week (An independent Scotland would struggle for AAA rating) prompted the following comment on Facebook:
"More Telegraph baloney. Many Scots would say we don't give a toss about AAA if we can be independent from London."
Typically this particular Scot (an old school friend from St Andrews) hasn't lived in Scotland for (I am guessing) 20 years. According to his Facebook entry he worked in America before moving to Adelaide, South Australia, where he still lives.
This morning he wrote: "I will stay in Australia. We have equally awful TV, but at least the weather is nice."
Doesn't sound like he'll be heading 'home' any time soon, does it? And nor will hundred of thousands of fellow ex-pats, independence or no. And yet, as far as I know, they will all be allowed to vote in a referendum that decides the future of a country they no longer choose to live in.
If Salmond has his way 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland will also be eligible to vote. (You can't buy alcohol or tobacco but you can decide the future of the 300-year-old United Kingdom.)
Fingers crossed, this is where Salmond may come unstuck. It's one thing to hold a referendum (with a mandate) at a time of your choosing, but to change the voting system (without a mandate) smacks of something else.
Accusing David Cameron of "interfering" is pretty rich too. Cameron is prime minister of the United Kingdom and whether Salmond likes it or not Scotland is still part of the UK.
For how much longer remains to be seen but imagine if Cameron showed no interest in Scotland's future. The nationalists would attack him for that as well.
I like Alex Salmond. He's a shrewd if increasingly smug politician. He's clever, but not as clever as he thinks he is. Time will tell.