It's never been one of my ambitions to become David Cameron's speechwriter, but I'm wondering if I should be claiming royalties for his use of the term "neverendum" when he spoke in the Commons about Alex Salmond and the SNP's push for an independent Scotland. A quick search reveals that I have used the term three times on this blog (as far back as 3 April 2007) when discussing similarities between the way the SNP is pursuing its goal and the way the separatist PQ and BQ have attempted to break up Canada. (Any suggestions that the term "neverendum" might have actually originated in Canada are, of course, entirely true).
It's encouraging to see that the Westminster government has learned one lesson that took a long time to dawn on the Canadian federal government in Ottawa: you can't allow the separatists to make all the running and set all the rules. If they're allowed to do so, the advocates of a breakaway will always promise their fellow countrymen a pain-free idyll, lifting of the yoke of oppression, yadda yadda. They will time the vote to their own best advantage: Alex Salmond is looking to October 2014, just after the Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup have been staged in Scotland and, more portentously, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. And they will frame the question in a way that attracts the undecided: the 1979 referendum question in Quebec was almost incomprehensibly vague (but was still rejected). Reports suggest Salmond may even try to hedge his bet by offering three choices on the ballot: stay in the UK, leave, or something in between, known as "devo-max", with almost all powers other than foreign affairs and defence devolved to Edinburgh.
David Cameron and his point man on this issue, Chancellor George Osborne, are now trying to push back a little, which is entirely welcome. The Westminster government has received a legal opinion that only it, and not the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, has the legal right to stage a referendum on this issue. Westminster is offering, in effect, to license Holyrood to hold a referendum whose results would be binding on both sides. There would, however, be conditions: only a YES/NO question -- no "devo-max" -- and the vote to be held by the end of 2013, in order to end damaging uncertainty.
Cameron and Osborne are also starting to point out that the Scots would not be able to select which bits of Britishness they would like to retain in the event of a "yes" vote. For example, Salmond has generally suggested that an independent Scotland would continue to use Sterling, but Osborne has begun to point out that in that event, it could not expect to have any influence over Bank of England policy -- and the alternative of adopting the Euro is surely not one that the canny Scots would wish to contemplate.
Salmond has bristled at what he sees as Sassenach interference in Scottish democracy, and has warned that Cameron and Osborne could actually boost support for independence. At the same time, he seems to realise that there is a lot to be said for pursuing an agreed approach: his latest wheeze is to invite Cameron to a meeting to discuss the issues. Cameron may be cautious about accepting -- he may fear that such talks would appear to place the Holyrood and Westminster governments on an equal footing -- but discussions now are surely better than arguments and lawsuits later.
There's one more demand that Cameron may want to bring to the table, based on the Canadian experience: Salmond should only be allowed to ask the question once. After two referendum defeats, the PQ and BQ in Quebec still consider the independence issue open, because they didn't get the result they wanted -- hence the term "neverendum". If Westminster is willing to accept the result of the vote as binding, Salmond should be prepared to accept that he can't just keep asking the question until he gets the response he wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment