Scot free?

The past week brought one of those little coincidences that history sometimes likes to throw at us. On Monday, Canada held national elections, and the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) was almost wiped off the political map, signalling at the very least a long pause in francophone separatists' decades-long efforts to break up the country. Then, on Thursday, the separatist Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority in the Scottish Assembly, setting the clock ticking for a referendum on independence some time before 2015.

Already there are similarities between historical events in Canada and the way things are shaping up in the UK. As soon as the BQ's doppelganger, the Parti Quebecois (PQ)*, first won election at the provincial level in 1976, it began setting the stage for an independence referendum, picking fights with the federal government in Ottawa and generally trying to foment an "us against them" atmosphere in the Province. The SNP has signalled a comparable stance, announcing that it will demand that greater powers are devolved to the Scottish Assembly, while reserving to itself the right to determine the timing of any referendum.

There are also similarities between the initial responses of the respective central governments in Ottawa and London. Way back in the 1970s, Ottawa made no attempt to deny the PQ its right to hold an independence vote on its own terms and at a time of its won choosing. News reports suggest that David Cameron has made a similar commitment to SNP leader Alex Salmond, though not all of Cameron's Tory backbenchers are as equable about the prospect of a referendum. Some are urging Cameron to "call the SNP's bluff" by calling his own referendum on the issue in the very near future. There are two problems with this. First, Salmond isn't bluffing; he really does intend to call a referendum on independence, and thinks he can win it. Second, a Westminster-run referendum would stoke the us-against-them mentality among Scottish voters that Salmond desperately needs if he is to achieve his goal.

This is not to say that there is nothing Cameron should be doing. Canada endured two separate independence referenda in Quebec, the second of them defeated by the narrowest possible margin, before the federal government decided to take a more proactive stance. The right of the people of Quebec or of Scotland to decide their own political arrangements is hard to deny; after all, politicians in London and Ottawa have enthusiastically endorsed sovereignty movements in places as far-flung as Bosnia, Kosovo and Southern Sudan. However, the terms on which the national government would allow separation to occur -- everything from how assets would be divided to the wording of the referendum question itself -- are legitimate concerns of the national government. The government of Canada passed legislation defining its stance on these issues at the end of the last century, in the wake of the second referendum. The effect has been to remind Quebecers, in a non-confrontational way, that opting for independence would bring real costs as well as the putative benefits offered by its proponents.

Until that legislation was passed, and in the lulls between referenda, Canada experimented with all kinds of "amending formulas". This only tended to reinforce the notion that the provinces could call the shots. In the UK, however, the right to amend the constitution rests solely with the national government in Westminster. This makes it both appropriate and important for it to spell out the conditions on which it would accept a Scottish referendum vote for independence, and what its negotiating stance would be in the aftermath. The key message: you can check out any time you want, but you should clearly understand how much of the furniture we'll let you take with you.

Scottish independence would be less of a blow for the UK than Quebec independence would be for Canada. Scotland accounts for much less than 10% of the UK economy, whereas Quebec is near 20% of Canada's. More importantly, Scotland's departure would not leave part of the UK physically cut off from the rest, whereas a separate Quebec would create a 500-km wide gap between Ontario and the Maritime provinces. Still, better for all if Scotland were to stay, and that's what Cameron and his pals need to start showing now, rather than taking comfort in opinion polls or muttering unwise threats.

* Do you really want to know the difference between the BQ and the PQ? Oh, all right. The older PQ only contests elections in Quebec, disdaining overt involvement in Canadian national politics. Some time in the 1980s the separatists realised that there was something to be said for establishing a beach-head in Ottawa as well, so the BQ was formed to contest seats in national elections (but not in Quebec provincial elections). In practice the supporters of the two parties are the same and separatist politicians move freely between the two. There, now you know.