On Life After Losing the Independence Referendum

[danieldwilliam]

Here is how I think the Independence Referendum is going to play out.

I think the Yes campaign are going to lose. I think they will poll about 40% of the vote.  I’d call this result a definate maybe. Not enough of a rejection to make those who really, really want Scottish independence to give up for fifty years (1). Not close enough to make independence supporters think that they might win a second referendum in 5 years’ time and go through on the away goals rule (2). Some might try to paint this as a resounding vote in favour of the Union but I don’t think it will be seen as such by the people of Scotland. Most Scots will feel that their preferred option of some more powers up to and perhaps including fiscal autonomy wasn’t put to them. I think the result will be seen for what it is, a vote for neither of the two options on offer.

Over the next two years Scotland will be engaged in a long conversation about the constitution, about the practicalities of politics in a multi-nation state, about wealth creation and distribution and national identity.  So will England.

From a Scottish point of view I think what will emerge from this is a settled demand for more powers for Holyrood.  I think it likely that the bare minimum acceptable increase of powers will be offered as part of the No campaign in order to buy off some floating voters. I think a campaign around fiscal autonomy will begin to coalesce as a No win looks more likely.

There are real threats for anyone who tries to deny strong and consistent demands for more autonomy from Scotland.  The Labour Party in particular are vulnerable to losing Westminster seats to the SNP (3) if they take a No vote as an endorsement of the status quo. With the result at 40% or there abouts, those in favour of more autonomy will be able to argue that unless more powers are forthcoming there is the prospect of a second, successful independence referendum in less than a generation.  Scotland can await England’s best offer on a revised constitutional settlement for the early part of the 21^st Century.

The independence referendum will engage large numbers of people into political activity. That’s my prediciton based on seeing how activists joined and remained within the reform movement following the AV referendum. Some of these people will remain active after the referendum and that’s your presure group for Devolution Max.

What about England?  Part of the difficulty of giving, or returning, more powers to Scotland is that the more powers are located in Scotland the more strained our current constitution looks. Powers without fiscal responsibility for Scotland look indulgent.  Powers in Scotland that English areas other than London don’t have look unfair.   The West Lothian questions become more and more begged.  All the talk of national identity and national priorities in Scotland is bound to provoke similar thinking in England.  Is the current constitutional framework working for England?  Is it working for London? For Cornwall? How do you deal with the differences in opinion and wealth between the South and the North?

So, I see some renewed discussion in England about an English Parliament, or devolved regional assemblies or returning more power and more fund raising responsibility to local authorities. I’ve no idea how this discussion will turn out. Not really my bag to carry.

It makes the 2015 election really, really interesting from a constitutional point of view. Will the Labour Party go into the election campaign, six months after a No vote with a platform of more powers for the devolved parliaments? Will they go into that election with proposals to address the West Lothian question? For some revised constitutional settlement for England?

Or will they have to be dragged to it?

Will the Labour Party win an outright majority or will the Lib Dems do enough to end up in coalition, and in a position to drag a reluctant Labour Party to some form of reform?

How will the SNP fair in Labour’s urban heartlands of Glasgow and the central belt? How far will non-partisan seekers after fiscal autonomy influence the Scottish Labour Party?

All difficult to tell.

And it all sits around allied constitutional questions about the House of Lords and voting systems.

What I think will happen is that even with a No vote in Scotland there will be an inevitabilty about constitutional change in Scotland. This in turn, I think makes the current arrangement of England without its own parliament or assemblies unworkable. Solving these issues opens further questions about the role of Westminster and the use of voting systems (4).

So constitutional change keeps rumbling on as the background conversation to the more bread and butter issues of taxes and pensions and law and order.

I think the choice for the Labour Party is whether they want to manage this process in the 2010’s or be dragooned into it in the 2020’s.

(1) I think this is sub 30%.

(2) High 40’s, mid 40’s is still too far away.

(3) Those Labour supporters in England who doubt that the SNP are a credible threat to your Glasgow MP’s I’d invite you to think about the five Glasgow Holyrood seats Labour lost to the SNP using first past the post. Would you rather hand over tax raising powers to Holyrood or create 20-30 new marginal seats? How long can you be out of government in Scotland and expect Scots to vote for you at Westminster?

(4) I think it very unlikely that any English Parliament or Assembly would use First Past the Post. And what is the House of Lords for if most domestic policy is being formulated in single chamber regional assemblies?

Comments

[hano.livejournal.com]

Something that's just occurred to me. You'll recall how during the Cold War,the USSR acted as a kind of anchor over the West. In that the more egregious attacks on civil liberties and so on were politically impossible because 'that's what the evil Soviets' would do. In the same way, I wonder would something similar happen in the competition to win hearts and minds over independence, the Tories being forced to tone down their neo-liberal austerity shock-doctrine fuck off back to your gutter peasant shtick for fear of driving the Scots into the arms of the SNP and a newly independent Scotland?
I wish. Sadly I think the ideological and financial interests that Cameron and Osborne really represent don't give a damn what Scotland does, it's an irritation getting in the way of the true prize of selling off as much of the UK State to the highest bidder as they think the can get away with.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

That’s an interesting point. I reckon you have something there.

I tend to agree that Cameron and Osbourne don’t really care much what Scotland does. Goodo.

I look forward to the day when I can say I don’t really care much what they do.

But I think it’s difficult for them to act on this because it appears that many people do.

Also, given that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK state’s exchequor we are what they are selling to their mates.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"given that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK state’s exchequor"

Nobody believes that. The picture of feckless, scrounging Scotland has been repeated so often in the media, that it's a given in England. Have a look at the comments in any piece in any English paper about Independence, and it will come out in the first half dozen or so posts.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

It’s not important if the readers of the Daily Mail believe it or not.

In terms of the motivation of senior Tories to defend the union the fact that Scotland is a net contributor is what matters. They can talk about the flag and think about the cold hard cash.

If the rhetoric of Scottish scroungers makes that difficult for them then that is a rod they have made for their own backs.

(Although no one is a net contributor at the moment because no one is a net contributor, except Bluebird and the Captain and the rest of their generation but Scotland runs less of a deficit.)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I don't read The Daily Mail.
I was talking about The Guardian.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The Guardian is irrelevant.

[hano.livejournal.com]

Believe me, I look forward to the day when I don't have to care about what Cameron and Osborne are up to. I'd love to hope that it's because they've been thrown out of power, their policies utterly discredited. I'm not holding my breath.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

There is always room for you here in the People Socialist Republic of North Britain. I’ll sign your visa application with great happiness.

We have whisky and kittens and bright copper hair styles, we all wear mittens and carry brown paper parcels tied up with string. Even the wind is a valuable thing.

Although the brown paper parcels might be an improvised explosive device sent to the Board of Celtic.

[hano.livejournal.com]

Don't tempt me.
Anyway, I'm part Irish, we're used to the IEDs. Hey, some more uh, Republican countrymen of mine invented the damn things. War of the Flea and all that.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Tempt. Tempt.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I like your thoughts.
However, rather than speculate, I'm looking at what happened the last time Scotland voted no (or rather, didn't vote yes by enough to get over a "40% of the entire electorate" hurdle). What we got was 18 years of right-wing rule, where Scotland was used as a social laboratory for the Poll Tax, mass unemployment (which, if it wasn't hurting, wasn't working) and the imposition of a philosophy which held that there was no such thing as society.
In the words of Max Boyce, "I was there". Notable by its absence in these two decades was any sort of concession to constitutional reform. No meant no.

OK, so we're not in 1979 anymore (Toto) and Scotland now has a parliament. But a No vote will serve as a signal (or an excuse) to a Conservative government that Scotland does not need or want any more devolution. Pressure will continue from Unionist parties (the Lab/Con consensus)that those elements introduced by Holyrood which are most popular here, like free prescriptions, aged health care and free university education, should be rolled back. Voting in a majority of SNP MSPs will make no more difference than voting in 50 Labour MPs made in the 80's and 90's.
Sorry to sound so negative, but I am looking at the precedents not only of 1979, but of the AV referendum. There will be a movement in the next two years to paint a "No" vote as a way of getting Devo-Max by the back door. This will be encouraged by the Unionist parties making promises of federalism, or fiscal autonomy, or free pie suppers. These promises, like fairy gold, will disappear in the morning. They were made in '79. The argument that needs to be made, again and again, is that if you want change you need to vote for change. Cameron wanted to make sure there was no Devo Max option on offer, because that would have been an enforceable promise. Like it or not the options now are Independence or the status quo.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The past is a different country.

It’s politcally impossible for Westminster to tinker in Scottish affairs in the way it did in the 80’s.

Holyrood makes a difference because Scotland can easily vote for another referendum by voting in a majority SNP government.

Which Conservative government were you thinking of? The one re-elected with a working majority in 2015?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Do you really think that the present government is anything other than a Conservative administration with a few LDs tied up in the boot? And a few bouncing up and down in the passenger seat, squealing "Go faster! Go faster!"

There is nothing which is politically impossible for Westminster to do. All it takes is a decision that Scotland doesn't matter a damn, and they can behave exactly as they please, with no damage to their core constituency.

Scotland may well vote in another SNP government in 2016. That government might well call for another referendum, if the Nay sayers carry the day. Do you think Westminster will grant them a derogation of powers again, to make it legal? Bet you a dollar?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The next indepedence referendum won’t be in the parliament 2016-2020.

By then the SNP governmentment will be in it’s 9th year and second term and beaten in a referendum. I would give even money that they remain the largest party. I don’t expect them to win a majority. Even if they did they would have no grounds on which to seek a referendum because the constitutional reforms implied by the referendum result won’t have not been delivered.

My guess is, that if you are correct that there will be no further constitutional reforms, in 2015+ or 2020+, the referendum would fall in about 2027.

50 SNP MP’s, even half a dozen, would make a significant difference if a minority Labour Party was reliant on them for a confidence and supply arrangement.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I don't eant to wait until 2027. I'll be in my prime by then.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do genuinely believe that the current UK government is not just a Tory government.

I think it’s exactly what it purports to be. A Tory lead coaltion with a significantly Orange Liberal Democrat minority partner. Further more I think they are doing exactly what I would want and expect from such a minority position which is to frustrate the Tory social right wing.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I really would like to know what the current government isn't doing that a full-fat Tory one would. Seriously.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I know I'm ranting to myself just now, but I'm also really hacked off by the media coverage given to the Lib Dem report "obtained" by the BBC ("obtained"? What we need is a public inquiry on leaking)floating the idea of Home Rule. As if there were the tiniest, most microscopic possibility that the LDs could deliver on this, after 100 years of trying.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Someone I know once said if you want change you need to vote for it.

So, I’ll be putting my cross next to a yellow box for change.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Me too.

Why will it be yellow?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Lib Dem colours.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Also, the colours of the SNP.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

Interesting stuff, thanks.

So in summary, everyone who really wants devo max should vote for independence because otherwise we won't get any change at all then? That's convincing me, I'll admit.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that’s a pretty good summary.

I think that if you want devo-max then a Yes vote is the way to go, even if you aren’t sure you want indepedence.

I think the closer to a Yes vote we get the more likely we are to get more change more quickly.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the details yet, but I suspect what I want is the LDs Home Rule - I'm a federalist at heart. However, at the moment, Independence is more appealing than the status quo I think, although how much of that is a relatively short term view because the major Westminster parties are driving me insane, I'm not sure on.