The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The flaws of Cameron's Unionism

The PM failed to offer a truly positive alternative to Scottish independence.

By George Eaton Published 16 February 2012 15:15

It was an unusually humble David Cameron who spoke in Edinburgh today. He admitted that the Conservative Party "isn't currently Scotland's most influential political movement", adding that "more than a little humility" is called for when any contemporary Tory speaks in the country. And, with no little sincerity, he brushed aside those who point out that the Tories would benefit politically if Scotland went it alone. "I'm not here to make a case on behalf of my party, its interests or its approach to office. I'm here to stand up and speak out for what I believe in," he said.

Unlike some opponents of independence, Cameron focused on the positive case for the Union, rather than the negative case against an independent Scotland. In an eloquent and emotional paean to the UK, he declared that "we have turned a group of off-shore European islands into one of the most successful countries in the world."

But it's not hard to see why his speech will have left many Scots cold. It took some chutzpah for Cameron to claim that "we all benefit from being part of a properly-funded welfare system" when his government is imposing £18bn of welfare cuts.

In a reference to the failed Glasgow Airport terrorist attack, he boasted that the "the full resources of the UK state went into running down every lead. Our tentacles reach from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the CIA computers at Langley." But for many Scots, this will serve only as a reminder of the disastrous foreign policy pursued by the UK government in recent years. An independent Scotland would not have gone to war with Iraq or become trapped in Afghanistan and, some will say, would have been safer as a result.

Cameron held out the possibility of further devolution after the referendum but was notably vague about the form this could take. The danger for the Unionist parties is that Scottish voters, the majority of whom support fiscal autonomy, conclude that the only way to win it is to vote for full independence. If Cameron wants to offer a truly positive alternative to secession, he should embrace "devo max".

The campaign against Scottish independence will not lead by Cameron but by social democratic heavyweights like Alistair Darling, Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell. Today's speech was a reminder of why.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Scottish independence

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:12 — Drew Edward (not verified)

Well enough pitched speech but given the amount of time Unionists spend accusing the SNP of being vague about an independent Scotland, I'm expecting more of a masterplan 6 months on, on a better vision of the UK.

The pro-Union campaign still resembles Wil E. Coyote lighting the fuse on an ACME bomb under the bridge and putting their fingers in their ears in the belief that eventually they'll get Road Runner.

Calling out for Labour big beasts like John Reid, Alisdair Darling and Gordon Brown is all very well, but it didn't help defeat the SNP in 2007 and I'm not massively convinced they still have the same clout in a post Iraq/Westminster expenses/banking crisis/phone hacking world. Running on a new Labour greatest hits campaign couldn't convince even Labour to go for David Miliband as leader.

Thu, 2012-02-16 15:39 — Steve E. (not verified)

Ming Campbell – a heavyweight?

Lord help us.

Thu, 2012-02-16 15:48 — David (not verified)

So, the sub-headline reads, "The PM failed to offer a truly positive alternative to Scottish independence" and then Eaton writes, "Cameron focused on the positive case for the Union". That is contradiction enough, but then he fails to state what Cameron's positive case actually was. (Maybe I blinked and missed that bit of the article.)

Thu, 2012-02-16 15:52 — Alan (not verified)

Good little article. If Cameron is serious about his wish for the union to remain, the best advice anyone could give him is: do not send any Conservative's to weigh into the debate. Stay away. And well away.

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:13 — Alan (not verified)

Damn that apostrophe

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:32 — Colin (not verified)

Positive case?

It was all about how the Union benefits from Scotland's continuing presence.
Nothing on how Scotland, or more importantly the Scottish People benefit from the continuing Union.

As a Scot I couldn't care less about the UK retaining its seat on the UN Security Council, or its clout in the EU (ah - the delicious irony that this should come from Cameron!), or even its leadership within NATO.

That is what Cameron is interested in though. Posturing, and the pretence of being a continuing world power.

Huge turn off for the Scots people who will actually vote.

Cameron thinks he is pulling on a common bond? He may as well be from a different planet.

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:42 — Dave (not verified)

@ Alan, but surely the point he was trying to make was that everyone on this island benefits from influence and priviledges that go with it from being united for eg. and influence on things like the EU, and Security Council at the UN, and that as Scotland is currently part of the UK that the Scottish people benefits from this influence that neither an independent Scotland nor a diminished UK would have by themselves.

Whilst, there are pros and cons of independence, and the union, being in a block of 62m has more clout then being in a block of 5m and 57m, it's a fair and positive point to make.

Sat, 2012-02-18 22:24 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

The Playing Fields of Eton cut no ice north of the border. Softy Dave had his ears boxed by Scotland's hardman.
Dave is making a right 'balkans' of the problem. Should this go on the Conservatives and its renegade Scots will be left with the rump of the UK - Little England. The South.
How the North of England must be now ruing the day they turned down the option of becoming a region.
Even the Welsh must be feeling a little apprehensive.
Still the Orange Order will be loyal to the death!

Confederate

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:53 — James Hunter (not verified)

"Whilst, there are pros and cons of independence, and the union, being in a block of 62m has more clout then being in a block of 5m and 57m"

Not really if the 5 millions interests are outvoted by the other 57 million.

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:57 — Alan (not verified)

Dave, to an extent i agree, but with regards to the EU, most Scots would rather we represented our own interests at that particular table. I think that most people feel that 'clout' could be sacrified for representing our own interests.

In any case, for most people i speak to, concerns over the security council etc come pretty far down the list of priorities, rightly or wrongly. Given the situation with the security council over the Iraq debacle, i'd prefer we had our own voice there anyhow. No matter how small.

Thu, 2012-02-16 17:00 — Alan (not verified)

Also, i find it pretty disappointing that Cameron chose to address fear of terror as a large part of his speech today. Particularly given the catalyst for this was, in a large part, down to the undemocratic decision-making of the Westminster government of the time. And rode roughshod over the wishes of the people. And not just us Jockanese!

Thu, 2012-02-16 17:02 — Dave (not verified)

"Whilst, there are pros and cons of independence, and the union, being in a block of 62m has more clout then being in a block of 5m and 57m"

Not really if the 5 millions interests are outvoted by the other 57 million.

But what are your interests? There are many shared interests that the people of Scotland shares with the peoples of Wales, England and Northern Ireland....People talk about the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, yet people in Scotland predominantly voted for the Govt that took us into those places. It may be that some Scots' feel that it is better to try and keep a low profile in the world today, and in someways it is, Ireland for example is yet to be hit by Islamic terrorism, but the flip side of it, is that you lose the prestige and bargaining power that you currently have.

Thu, 2012-02-16 17:10 — Dave (not verified)

@ Alan, i agree, Westminster rode roughshod over everyone in the Iraq debacle, and whatever happens in Scotland, i do believe that Westminster needs a massive overhaul.
I am no fan of Camerwrong and can hardly believe i am defending him, i just think it is a fair point that he is making, and you are right that there is a trade off between 'clout' and sitting at the table yourselves, it is one of many things that you guys need to consider when you make your big decision.

I like many Englishmen, will be sad to see you go, but if you do, fair enough, it is your choice, and we south of the border will have to reassess our own relationship with Wales and NI, and probably the EU too...we live in interesting if uncertain times.

Thu, 2012-02-16 17:38 — James Hunter (not verified)

@Dave
"I like many Englishmen, will be sad to see you go"

But we're not going anywhere. Nothing will change apart from Scotland finally standing on it's own two feet and being able to look at itself and accept that whatever happens in the future it was on our own terms and wasn't "imposed" upon us. The buck will stop at us. Hopefully we'll make a success of things and the rest of the UK may finally wake up and decide to reform what's left of Wasteminster.

I believe independence would improve Anglo-Scottish relations.

Thu, 2012-02-16 17:56 — Dave (not verified)

@ James Hunter

'I believe independence would improve Anglo-Scottish relations.'

I hope it does too, as there are plenty of areas that we can co-operate on, that it is in our mutual interest to do so on, which is why i believe in partnership rather then going our seperate ways, but even if Scotland does become independent, I hope the 'Social Union' which Salmond speaks of isn't just lipservice to win votes, and that a positive cross border relationship can be built that is deep and beneficial.

Thu, 2012-02-16 18:02 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Are you a secret Tony george Eaton? I only ask because you are so pro Union on these matters, I heard Call me Dave's desperate speech and I thought it was rubbish.

Colin

"Huge urn off for the Scottish People" also a Huge turn off for we English as well.

Dave

Point taken but this 57million would like some Independence as well.

Thu, 2012-02-16 18:18 — duck soup

Scottish Government ministers are invariably excluded from UK delegations to the EU.On fishing,farming and energy and in other matters Scotland's needs are ignored.We have no clout as things stand.The other day the leading Scottish agricultue magazine Scottish Farmer released the result of a poll of Scotland's farmers.100% of respondents said they had no faith at all in DEFRA.Yet that is the department that represents them in Brussels and refuses to include Scottish Government representatives in any delegations.
As for having "clout" at the United Nations.That is the language that betrays the mindset of the imperialist.Or in the UK's case the deluded ex-imperialist.Scots do not wish or need to have "clout" and to "throw weight about" at international forums.There is nothing inferior or second rate in being a small nation.

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:03 — Dougie (not verified)

Can I congratulate @Dave and @Alan for some intelligent debate on Independence for Scotland. Long may it continue.

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:14 — Alan (not verified)

Cheers Dougie. It's funny, but away from the media the debate is for the most part conducted in a good spirit. For something as important as this, it deserves to be. And has to be. Unfortunately, in media circles, it is yet to be!

And on your last point Dave - i hope that it isn't just lip service and i don't think it can be. Should Scotland decide to go it alone i think that the future prosperity of Scotland and England will, to a large extent, still rely on one another prospering, albeit alone. I can't see how else it would work. I can't see either nation going in a 'huff' with one another!

Maybe a bit like Rangers and Celtic at the moment. They could probably survive by themselves, just not as well!

Thu, 2012-02-16 23:09 — Dave (not verified)

Thanks Dougie..

@ Alan, well i hope that doesn't mean that one of us is going to be going down the swanny like Rangers are at the moment ;)

I agree, there are lots of good comments, unfortunately, this debate can sometimes attract some bitterness and nastiness (from both sides). The embryonic 'British-Irish Council' could have an enhanced role to play in years to come as it can draw together common ground and development opportunities. I do fear, however, that before we can grow together, we will grow apart, when you read some of the comments dotted about (once again by both sides). I don't think the danger would be a nation going in a huff, what i would see would be nationalism running high in Scotland with a spring in it's step, and a wish to different no matter what the cost or sense... south of the border will be a bit more complex, as the remaining part of the Union would need to assess whether it goes on or breaks down into independent states..and of course England will need to re-invent itself after 300 odd years of investing itself into the UK.