ST ANDREW'S Day 2010 was supposed to be a day that etched itself on Scottish history. Alex Salmond promised it would be the date of a referendum on independence, an epoch-making moment that would echo down future generations. After the political mac
hinations of the past week, November 30 next year will instead be a day much like any other. And I can't but help feel this will come to be regretted on all sides as a wasted opportunity.
All four Scottish party leaders will be feeling pretty pleased with themselves this weekend. Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott will be happy they've headed off a potential threat to the survival of the United Kingdom. Salmond – although he could never admit this publicly – will be relieved he'll not now have to hold a referendum he would almost certainly lose, setting back the cause of independence for generation.
So, everyone happy then? Actually, no. The people who have a right to feel aggrieved about this cosy political stitch-up – which is little more than a happy coincidence of self-interest – are the Scottish voters. They have been denied the chance to make their views known on the future direction of their country, and to settle an argument that has marbled Scottish political debate for 40 years.
What's more, they will also be denied the opportunity to have a say on the Calman Commission proposals to beef up the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If the referendum had gone ahead, it would have become a de facto choice between independence and "devo max".
None of this will now happen. In the past I've been critical of the lack of transparency in the Calman process. Last week's developments simply compound this problem. Calman's recommendations will not come under the sustained and detailed scrutiny that a referendum campaign would guarantee. The commissioners will not have the bracing discipline of knowing that their conclusions would have to pass a public test.
For those of us who favour a strong Scottish Parliament within the Union, with wide-ranging financial powers and new legislative competencies, this is bad news. With no prospect of a referendum, Calman's blueprint will not have to be robust enough and radical enough to beat independence in a straight fight. There may even be pressure to keep the reforms fairly modest, so as not to incite new calls for a plebiscite to ratify them. For all these reasons, I fear Calman's recommendations will be more anodyne than they would have been if Scotland was heading for a historic vote on St Andrew's Day next year.
The justification trotted out by Scott and Gray last week, and echoed by Gordon Brown in his speech to the Scottish Labour conference in Dundee on Friday afternoon, doesn't bear much scrutiny. They said constitutional navel-gazing was not what Scotland wanted from its politicians at a time of economic crisis, with millions in fear for their jobs and livelihoods.
Conveniently, this ignores an obvious fact. The primary purpose of this constitutional change is to give the Scottish Government the financial powers it needs to tackle Scotland's specific economic ills. The recession is the reason we need more home rule, not the reason why the debate should be stifled. It's the reason why this whole process is relevant to the wellbeing of every single Scot. And ultimately it's the reason the public deserves a say in the matter.
The referendum will now be added to the growing pile of broken SNP promises. (To recap, these include local income tax; a workable Scottish Futures Trust; smaller class sizes; banning alcohol off-sales for under-21s; grants for first-time home buyers; cancelling Edinburgh's trams; and the scrapping of student debt.) It begs the question: what will the SNP actually do for its final two years of government? Normally at this point in a four-year term, ministers are forging ahead with the implementation of a raft of manifesto pledges. But the Nationalists' cupboard is already bare and Holyrood's legislators are twiddling their thumbs.
Salmond's minority government is looking increasingly lame, shorn of ideas that can muster a parliamentary majority. Could it be time for the SNP to reassess the wisdom of going it alone? The main reason for refusing to do a coalition deal with the Lib Dems after the 2007 election was the Nationalists' insistence that any potential partner had to agree to a referendum. Now, with that policy on ice, surely there is scope to look again at some working relationship, if only to get government working again? The Lib Dems still share many of the Nationalists' broad aims, but perhaps the Tories are now the more likely ally.
There is no shame in taking stock in the middle of a parliamentary term – the previous Lib-Lab administrations did it, effectively renegotiating their ruling partnership in the light of changing circumstances. The prize would be a Scottish Government with a degree of stability and effectiveness that Salmond is finding elusive.
If he doesn't embrace partnership politics, others will. The opposition parties can use their in-built majority not just to knock down SNP laws but to create laws of their own. A worrying sign for the Nats is Labour's decision to bring forward its own legislation on combating hospital superbugs, believing that ministers' plans aren't tough enough. A newly-confident Scottish Labour, with a history of cross-party co-operation, could be law-makers in opposition. Salmond, if he has sense, will get there first. The ditching of the referendum is regrettable moment for Scotland. But some good may yet come of it.
The full article contains 959 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
