Leader: The Union is under threat but the Tories and Labour aren’t listening
While Westminster is fixated on the EU, Scotland is moving ever closer to independence.
By Staff blogger Published 27 October 2011In his first conference speech as Conservative leader, David Cameron memorably told his party that it had to stop "banging on about Europe". The events of the past week prove that it did not take his advice. Unemployment is rising and growth is falling but Tory MPs have chosen this moment to reopen the debate about Britain's membership of the European Union. They seem neither to care nor to remember that their party's last two prime ministers were destroyed by divisions over Europe. As Karl Marx observed, history repeats itself, "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce".
Mr Cameron was right to impose a three-line whip on his recalcitrant backbenchers but he must share the blame for the record rebellion. He has consistently indulged the fanatical Eurosceptics in his party, withdrawing the Conservatives from the mainstream European People's Party and perpetuating the myth that EU regulation is to blame for Britain's growth problems. His refusal cogently to explain the benefits of EU membership has encouraged the perception that there are none.
The debate over Europe has obscured a far more significant constitutional development. Largely unnoticed by Westminster, Alex Salmond has been advancing his strategy for independence. As the Scottish National Party leader told the SNP conference in Inverness, the referendum ballot paper will contain two questions: the first on full independence and the second on fiscal autonomy or "devolution max". Aware that he may not be able to win a majority for the full break-up of the Union, Scotland's First Minister is hedging his bets.
But talk of devolution max as an agreeable compromise disguises what a bold step it would be. Scotland would win complete control over spending, borrowing and taxation, leaving Westminster in charge of only foreign affairs and defence - a degree of autonomy comparable to that enjoyed in Spain by the Basque Country and Catalonia. The economic relationship between England and Scotland would be profoundly altered. What, for instance, would be the consequences for English business of Scotland adopting an ultra-low rate of corporation tax? If judged successful, would fiscal autonomy be extended to England and Wales? It is these sorts of questions that Westminster must begin to debate.
In the meantime, it would be hubristic to dismiss Mr Salmond's chances of winning full independence. The SNP has amassed a £1m war chest and the polls are moving its way. A ComRes survey published on 15 October showed that 49 per cent of Scots now favour independence, with just 37 per cent opposed. The Scottish Lib Dem leader, Willie Rennie, posed the question: "What if devo max got 99 per cent Yes and 1 per cent No in the vote, while the independence option got 51 per cent Yes and 49 per cent No?" But Mr Salmond has confirmed that a slim majority for independence would overwrite a large majority for devolution max.
Labour and the Conservatives, currently leaderless in Scotland, have struggled to articulate a coherent alternative to independence. So unpopular are the Scottish Tories that Murdo Fraser, front-runner for the leadership, has pledged to disband the party and establish a new centre-right grouping if he wins. Labour, which for so long assumed that its hegemony over Scotland was permanent, remains dazed after its second defeat at Holyrood, though some in the party are beginning to think imaginatively about how to respond to the nationalist threat.
Henry McLeish, the former Labour first minister, has called for the party to embrace devolution max as a "serious alternative to independence". The political calculation is that fiscal autonomy would leave Mr Salmond less able to offer the panoply of benefits - free university education, free NHS prescriptions and free personal care for the elderly - on which SNP support rests. Indeed, as its own creator now concedes, the "Barnett Formula" for allocating public spending gives Scotland an unfair advantage over the rest of the UK.
When the SNP completed its extraordinary victory last May, Mr Cameron vowed to defend the Union with "every fibre" in his body. However, many in his party, which has held just one seat in Scotland since 1997, do not feel the same way. For the Tory right, an independent England - economically liberal, fiscally conservative, Eurosceptic, Atlanticist - is an attractive prospect. The United Kingdom, one of the most successful multiracial, multi-faith, multinational states the world has ever known, remains a cause worth fighting for. Yet, over the past weeks, fixated by the EU, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed less aware of this than ever. And Labour remains complacently quiet.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

31 comments
Right, Arthur. Do you seriously believe that the eurozone crisis is a storm in a teacup?
How relevent is the Union in the context of common EU membership? It's not as if either England or Scotland can up sticks a move far. More like the divorce of mutual advantage, where each partners state benefit adds up to more than they had for being wed. It disna hae to be acrimonious if the twa are better off parted.
Just give enough warning so us weans can move back north and get the Scottish passport.
Alex Salmond is banking on the EU bank rolling independence.
Scottish people will have a big shock when they have to decide on how to fund a health service, a social security system and so on.
Luddite needs to understand, globalisation has erode the nation state, not the EU.
Does the SNP & its spptrs look like a movement of national liberation? I don't think so....but they are playing a dangerous game.
Who knows how the developing world economic crisis will play out? The UK is now an industrial lightweight - perched on an everest of banking debt....the current eurozone crisis is revealing the realities of the conflictss between US Anglo v Franco German finance capital. It is not fanciful to imagine a UK banking collapse and in the consequent dissaray
for vested interests to aid & encourage a breakup of the union. 3 balkanised British statelets united under the `Euro` dominated by the EU.would suit these interests very nicely
mike cobley
It's the cheapest polemical trick to imply that because the UK is a multi-cultural state Scottish self-determination would be somehow a rejection of multi-culturalism.Why don't you e-mail the Scottish National Party MSP Humza Yusaf and ask him for his views?Or e-mail SNP MSP Marco Biagi who,when he was sworn in as a member of the Scottish Parliament,took the oath in Italian as well as in English.
"The United Kingdom,one of the most successful multi-racial,multi-faith,multinational states the world has ever known,remains a cause worth fighting for."
Perhaps the anonymous writer of this article could explain just why the maintenance of religious and racial tolerance on this island is so dependent on the continuation of the political union between England and Scotland.Because I, for one,completely fail to see why it should be.England is the land of John Locke,Tom Paine and Bertrand Russell.You don't need Scotland in a union in order to evolve.Nor does England need Scotland in the current union in order to benefit from any positive influences which might emanate from north of the Tweed.When a genuine English left-winger like Billy Bragg can favour the brake up of the union and see the benefit for progressive politics in England then it's time for the metropolitan radicals of The New Statesman and The Guardian to reconsider their attitudes.
P.S. Strange that in the sentence I quoted that the writer thinks the UK worth "fighting for",instead of worth arguing for.
Mikecobley, I'm sick of second rate unionists peddling third rate notions of what constitutes a sovereign statet. So I guess we've something in common.
And you're right-there are differences within Scotland, just as there are within every nation. So what?
"My compassion, my humane committment is not restrained or curtailed by a line on a map, unlike those who make claim to the standard of a mythical, divisive Scottishness. " Well, congratulations on your love of humanity. My compassion isn't constrained by a line on a map either-but I want my country to take control over it's own governance, just like all of the other new nations which have appeared in the last sixty years or so. Why is that so offensive to many English socialists ?
You are a defender of the union, and you're in company with neanderthal Tories and the Orange lodge. Are you comfortable with that?. Go ahead and stand up for the right for all of us to work towards a better tomorrow, then: you see that as only being possible within the context of a redundant 18th century political construct that serves neither Scotland nor England well. I don't.
Perhaps you can go tell the Irish and tell them how small minded they are for not wanting to rejoin the fag end of the British empire.
Leah - " you make claims about the English wanting Scottish Independence that I simply don't see played out in real life."
What would it take for you to believe the truth then? Shall we make a pact that at 10 pm next Saturday we'll all open our windows and all yell "Get Lost"? Would the roaring wind of enthusiastic support for actually doing something about independence rather than keep whining about it actually change your mind that here in England we want to see the last of you. Can I put it any plainer?
It's NOT all about you, and it is arrogant of you to suppose so; try saying that in front of the mirror, you just might get the picture
matthew fox
An independent Scotland will fund these things the same way it does at present.Through our taxes.Except it won't be a block grant of our own money sent back by Whitehall minus the money subtracted to help pay for Trident and illegal foreign adventures.There will be an oil fund established as our oil revenues won't disappear.This will develop the renewable energy potential in Scotland that is probably without equal.No bank rolling from the EU or anyone will be sought or required.
It never ceases to amaze me how little the Unionists know. None of this (Independence) is about 'romantic nationalism'.
Bear in mind that the 'Union' (and let's be honest, Westminster has NEVER behaved like there even is a Union) is LESS than 0.03% of Scotland's history. Many of ys can easily trace our roots back to long before the Union even took place.
The Union doesn't even exist, never has, calling it a 'Union' doesn't make it so.
Also, don't kid yourself that Independence supporters are anti-English, it isn't about YOU! Don't be so arrogant as to think it is about you. This is about OUR culture, our languages, our people, our children and our future, we have to do what we believe is best for it. Being run by Westminster certainly isn't the best option.