By John C. Dyer, UK correspondent
9 January 2012 London and Edinburgh. The simmering conflict between the governments of Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron has erupted in verbal warfare.
Over the weekend Prime Minister David Cameron demanded that, subject to further legal advice due later this week, Scotland’s leadership set a date for its planned referendum on independence. Cameron also insisted there only be one issue on the ballot - in or out. In return Cameron offered the referendum would be binding. Cameron pointed out that the referendum could only be binding if Whitehall agreed. Cameron would agree subject to an in or out vote to be scheduled within 18 months.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded for Scotland. Sturgeon replied that the Prime Minister was interfering with a Scottish decision. She argued that the Scottish people were entitled to have the referendum for which they voted in the time frame for which they voted when they handed the Scottish National Party a significant electoral mandate in the last election.
During the campaign for that election, First Minister Alex Salmond promised a referendum no sooner than 2014. He has also suggested that the ballot raise the question of whether or not the government should instead seek repatriation of greater powers rather than full independence.
By the night of the 9th, Sky News reported that Cameron may have backed off the 18 month deadline in the face of Scottish anger. But not a demand for it to be held "sooner rather than later."
On 10 January this became "only Westminster has the power" to schedule a referendum. With these words Westminster opened what the British call a "consultation" on when the referendum should be held, what should its form should be, who should be able to vote. The announcement was heralded as a historic gauntlet laid down to Scotland. First Minister Salmon essentially told Westminster, in an American phrase, to "pound sand."
The battle is now joined.
Cameron cited feedback from unnamed companies reluctant to invest in the UK while the issue remained unresolved. But BBC’s political analysts suggest the reason for the timing of Prime Minister Cameron’s gambit is the Prime Minister’s assessment that he cannot leave this to the capable First Minister’s management.
But I wonder if there is more to it than Scottish independence alone.
I raised this issue prior to the Prime Minister’s deadline during my reflections in this blog on the Prime Minister’s 2 January address to the country. The demand for Scotland to set an in or out referendum comes less than a week after I warned that overall poll numbers that seem to suggest a consensus in support of the Prime Minister actually disguise serious division between the “Home Counties” and the balance of the UK.
The gambit seeks to regain the initiative, now in the First Minister’s hands. That is true. Cabinet Ministers “briefing” in the background express a real concern that the canny First Minister could win if allowed to manage the referendum on his own timing. Perhaps that is also true. It is also true that the Prime Minister has Scottish connections. How strong they remain is unknown.
However, at the heart of it may be the Prime Minister’s awareness that First Minister Alex Salmond is a capable adversary who embodies an alternative approach to the UK’s current social and economic policies and government style. Seek it or not, Alex Salmond is rapidly becoming more than potential victor on the local issue of Scottish independence. He is becoming a visible national focal point for those who argue 1) there is an alternative to the philosophy governing Westminster, and 2) the balance of the UK need not be subservient to the ambition and interests of the Home Counties. And dominos watch and wait. Wales, Cornwall and even the North of England have movements seeking either independence or greater local rule.
The issue could be seen by Labour as a model that suggests the way forward for Labour is to out Salmond Salmond on the national level. But a chorus of former ministers and wonks advise Miliband to out Cameron Cameron. “Advising” Ed Miliband via the newspapers, they argue that Labour must accept the economic framework the Coalition has fashioned.
One, Davin Kelly, Downing Street deputy Chief of Staff from 2007 to 2010 (toward the end of Labour rule), advised Miliband to accept financial “realities.” He argued government should charge baby boomers for services related to aging (and for other services based on means testing) rather than spreading the cost across all taxpayers as has been Labour’s historic position. Kelly bases his advice on an alleged relative affluence of the boomers, even in their retirement, but in effect his advice pits workers against pensioners.
Miliband gave yet another address widely interpreted to be meant to address his leadership. He appears to have bought at least some of this wealth of advice. He claims to "get" the idea that Labour must adapt to provide social fairness without money to do so. It is not clear what that means. But it is also clear he is not calling for any buy, see, spend, do. Miliband may even have orchestrated the release of all that helpful advice as cover for this major address (although the last is entirely unconfirmed speculation).
But however much of it he buys, neither Labour officials nor Miliband seem to see Salmond as a model for an alternative approach to leading the UK through its economic crisis.
Labour also echos the Tory and Liberal Democrat stand on Scottish independence.
I have little doubt a well governed United Kingdom is significantly more in the interest of both Scotland and the United Kingdom than Scottish independence would be. In my 2 January article I expressed sadness at its prospect. If I had a vote, which I won't, I would vote for Union. But, and this is an important but, I wonder aloud, did anyone in the hierarchies of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, or the Tories consider the impact of an attempt by London to bully Scotland into voting on London’s terms?
By making an issue out of this issue the national parties risk a self fulfilling prophecy. Was doing so really necessary at this time to defeat the independence movement?
I think not.
Or was this the handling simply the reflexive attempt of a competitor to dominate the competition? It may be that the Prime Minister gave in to the internal competitive imperative. The competitor on the playing fields of Eton must dominate (and all that).
I also doubt that.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister may have calculated the risks but concluded that they were necessary. Why? Because the Prime Minister feels a need to defeat or otherwise "put in his place" this effective opponent now. Now, before the opponent clearly demonstrates to Scotland - and others in Wales, Cornwall and the North of England also chafing under Coalition policies - that the alternative Salmond's leadership represents works better or at least more attractively than the Prime Minister's.
Rocky days lie ahead for the UK economy. The Prime Minister's own 2 January speech reflects how much this weighs on the Prime Minister's mind. I think the Prime Minister may well have concluded that Salmond represents a danger to his own leadership over the UK as a whole, and that danger outweighs any risks that Scotland would rally behind Salmond on the issue of independence.