The Union: a gamble worth taking?

Darling is right to highlight the risks of Scottish independence, but there are risks to staying in

In an interview published in the Observer last week, former Chancellor Alistair Darling warned of the "profound risks (and) immense downsides" of Scottish secession. Not only would Scotland's separation from the rest of the United Kingdom involve considerable "trauma and expense", he said, it would also generate "uncertainties (not) worth gambling on". The "uncertainties" to which Darling referred were principally economic. If an independent Scotland chose to remain within the British sterling zone, how would it cope with the Bank of England -- an institution over which it had no control -- setting its interest rates? If it opted for the euro, would it submit to a new Franco-German regime of tight fiscal discipline? As a small country, could it withstand the financial turbulence of another global banking crisis?

These questions are hugely important and the SNP cannot afford to ignore them if it is serious about convincing a majority of Scottish voters to back its plans for independence at the ballot box in 2014. But it would be naïve to think Darling raised them simply as an intellectual challenge to the nationalists. He didn't. Rather, by employing the language of "risk" and "uncertainty", he was trying to promote the idea that independence represents a dangerous leap into the unknown, while the Union, by contrast, offers only security, continuity and comfort. The problem, though, is that this is clearly not the case. For Scotland, remaining within the UK is at least as much of a gamble as going it alone.

Take the issue of Trident, Britain's fleet of nuclear armed submarines and the largest concentration of nuclear weapons anywhere in Europe. For the last 30 years its missile carrying component has been stationed at the Faslane base on the Firth of Clyde, barely an hour north of Glasgow. Had a nuclear confrontation between the USSR and the West been sparked during the Cold War, Scotland's largest city would have been in the firing line during Moscow's first attacks. Fortunately, no such confrontation occurred. But the threat from the Faslane and Coulport installations persists. The environmental devastation wrought by, say, a spillage of nuclear waste or a collision of vessels would be enormous, as would be the effect on the large human population centres near by. Yet, an independent Scotland could force the removal of Trident from Scottish waters and rid itself of that potential source of catastrophe.
 
A sovereign Scotland would also have the option not to participate in the kind of British military adventurism which, in recent years, has stoked resentment in the Middle East and helped make UK citizens the targets of Islamist terrorism. Reflecting its new status as a small, northern European nation-state, it could conduct its foreign affairs in the spirit of peaceful diplomatic cooperation, discarding the more belligerent approach to international relations it was forced to adopt as part of a major, if declining, world power. It could even radically reduce its defence expenditure from the £3.1bn per year it currently contributes to the UK's annual defence budget to £1.8bn in line with the Nordic average.
 
Another enormous gamble Scots could avoid by extracting themselves from the British political structure is that contained within the coalition government's strategy for economic recovery. As dole queues lengthen and growth flat-lines, it is becoming increasingly obvious that George Osborne's programme of radical austerity is not going to work. Neither does it appear to be reducing the UK government's massive debt burden, which is fast heading toward £1tr. This means the longer Scotland stays part of the Union, the larger the debt pile it will inherit if it ever leaves. So separation sooner rather than later could rescue Scots from an extended period of economic hardship in the future, as well as ensure that it, rather than the UK Exchequer, takes a majority share of revenues generated by North Sea oil production in the years to come.
 
Alistair Darling is entitled to issue stark, headline-grabbing warnings about the risks of Scottish independence and the instability the break-up of Britain might cause. Clearly, rhetoric of this sort is going to be central to the "Save the Union" campaign. But then he and his Unionist colleagues have no right to complain if their nationalist opponents decide to focus on the hidden and not so hidden risks embedded in the constitutional status-quo.

James Maxwell is a Scottish political journalist. He is based between Scotland and London.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.