Alex Salmond is the winner from the Scottish independence referendum deal

The agreement to hold the vote in 2014 is a major victory for the Scottish First Minister.

Commentators were quick to declare David Cameron the winner from the Scottish independence referendum deal, but it's actually Alex Salmond who has gained the most. As a result of the agreement, the Scottish First Minister will be able to hold the referendum in 2014, his long preferred date. The UK government originally insisted that it would only give Scotland the legal authority to stage a binding vote if it was held by September 2013, but it dropped this demand in return for Salmond agreeing to a one-question referendum. While Salmond would have preferred a "devo-max" option to be included on the ballot paper (as a potential consolation prize), the decision to postpone the vote until 2014 (the SNP has until the end of that year) gives him what he needs most: time.

With the Yes campaign trailing by 25-points in the latest poll, Salmond now has more than two years to bring the voters round to his side. By 2014, he hopes that the full force of the coalition's austerity measures, most of which have yet to be implemented, will have persuaded Scotland that the time is right to go it alone. With the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics, Salmond always knew that 2012 would be a tough year for the independence cause. But 2014, which will see Scotland celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn and host the Commonwealth games and the Ryder Cup, will provide multiple opportunities for the SNP to stoke nationalist fervour.

While the decision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote is of little significance (polls suggest that they are as opposed to independence as the rest of the Scottish public), Cameron's willingness to allow Salmond to delay the vote until 2014 is a major concession. After a year which has seen the odds continually lengthen against independence, the SNP finally has some cause for hope.

David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond meet on the steps of St Andrews House before agreeing a deal on a Scottish independence referendum. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The private renting sector enables racist landlords like Fergus Wilson

A Kent landlord tried to ban "coloured people" from his properties. 

Fergus Wilson, a landlord in Kent, has made headlines after The Sun published his email to a letting agent which included the line: "No coloured people because of the curry smell at the end of the tenancy."

When confronted, the 70-year-old property owner only responded with the claim "we're getting overloaded with coloured people". The letting agents said they would not carry out his orders, which were illegal. 

The combination of blatant racism, a tired stereotype and the outdated language may make Wilson seem suspiciously like a Time Landlord who has somehow slipped in from 1974. But unfortunately he is more modern than he seems.

Back in 2013, a BBC undercover investigation found 10 letting agent firms willing to discriminate against black tenants at the landlord's request. One manager was filmed saying: "99% of my landlords don't want Afro-Caribbeans."

Under the Equality Act 2010, this is illegal. But the conditions of the private renting sector allow discrimination to flourish like mould on a damp wall. 

First, discrimination is common in flat shares. While housemates or live-in landlords cannot turn away a prospective tenant because of their race, they can express preferences of gender and ethnicity. There can be logical reasons for this - but it also provides useful cover for bigots. When one flat hunter in London protested about being asked "where do your parents come from?", the landlord claimed he just wanted to know whether she was Christian.

Second, the private rental sector is about as transparent as a landlord's tax arrangements. A friend of mine, a young professional Indian immigrant, enthusiastically replied to house share ads in the hope of meeting people from other cultures. After a month of responding to three or four room ads a day, he'd had just six responses. He ended up sharing with other Indian immigrants.

My friend suspected he'd been discriminated against, but he had no way of proving it. There is no centrally held data on who flatshares with who (the closest proxy is SpareRoom, but its data is limited to room ads). 

Third, the current private renting trends suggest discrimination will increase, rather than decrease. Landlords hiked rents by 2.1 per cent in the 12 months to February 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics, an indication of high demand. SpareRoom has recorded as many as 22 flat hunters chasing a single room. In this frenzy, it only becomes harder for prospective tenants to question the assertion "it's already taken". 

Alongside this demand, the government has introduced legislation which requires landlords to check that tenants can legitimately stay in the UK. A report this year by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that half of landlords were less likely to rent to foreign nationals as a result of the scheme. This also provides handy cover for the BTL bigot - when a black British tenant without a passport asked about a room, 58 per cent of landlords ignored the request or turned it down

Of course, plenty of landlords are open-minded, unbiased and unlikely to make a tabloid headline anytime soon. They most likely outnumber the Fergus Wilsons of this world. But without any way of monitoring discrimination in the private rental sector, it's impossible to know for sure. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.