Today's Cabinet meeting in Aberdeen, now underway, has given ministers plenty of opportunity to stare earnestly at Scottish things while trying to make the case for the Union. Here are some of Mr Steerpike's favourites. [caption id="attachment_8719911" align="alignnone" width="620"] Image copyright The Cabinet Office[/caption] All captions gratefully received in the comments...
You will recall that, according to the greatest account of England's history, every time the English thought they had solved the Irish Question, the Irish changed the Question. Something similar afflicts David Cameron's grapplings with the Scottish Question. The poor man is damned if he does and equally damned if he doesn't. The other week he was lambasted for his effrontery in giving a speech about Scotland in, of all places, London. Today he is lambasted for bringing his cabinet to Aberdeen. How dare he lecture us from afar; how dare he venture north like some touring proconsul! The optics, as the pros say, are not very good for the Prime Minister. The cabinet very rarely comes to Scotland. Drawing attention to that fact may not help Mr Cameron's cause.
Ask any election strategist and they’ll tell you that momentum is everything. For the past 18 months, the No campaign has had all the momentum in the referendum debate. The Yes camp were becalmed, the No side had everything going for it and (let’s be honest) there was more than a hint of complacency on the unionist side. Well that there was should have been blown out of the water by what has happened over the last couple of weeks. Subtly, almost imperceptibly, the ground has shifted in the independence debate. The Yes camp has not bounced into a lead or anything like that, but it has started to make progress.
I took part in a documentary about Scottishness a few weeks ago, and it wasn’t bad at all. I mused, mainly, on my own border-hopping, fretful-about-independence Scottish-Britishness, and a decent number of people got in touch afterwards to say I’d been speaking for them, too. Others were more cross, but interestingly so. One thing about the whole experience bugs me, though. That was the way they had me sit in a swanky Scottish restaurant in Belgravia and made out like I belonged there. It’s not that you don’t get Scots in Belgravia. Most will probably own castles back in Scotland, too, though. When they move to Belgravia, they do so in a manner similar to the way that orthodox Jews move to Israel; to finally be among their own. This is not my world.
Those of us who want a referendum on the European Union need to be cautious in our approach to the Scottish one. What is sauce for Alex Salmond’s goose may prove sauce for the European gander. We should not assume, for example, that José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, is telling the truth. Or take the argument that business is opposed to Scottish independence. The CBI and suchlike always favour the current arrangements and fear uncertainty. They will oppose British independence even more surely than Scottish. They are not always wrong, but their view should not be credulously accepted. Mr Salmond is right that the threats made by the powers that be in a campaign are very different from what they say after a clear result.
Stewart Hosie, the SNP's finance spokesman at Westminster, said something unwittingly revealing last night. Taking part in the latest of BBC Scotland's referendum debates (you can catch it here), he observed that: There is a plan from the Scottish government and the Yes side… What we don't have is a plan a from the No people about what happens in the event of a No vote. So I want them to explain to you today when are they going to cut £4bn from Scotland's budget? [...] There is precisely nothing from the No camp to explain what they're going to do to Scotland in the event of a no vote. Give Hosie marks for honesty. You don't often get it as clear as this. I don't think Hosie mis-spoke here. Not when he's inventing a phantom threat to the Scottish block grant.
A recording of a conversation between Alex Salmond and George Osborne has been leaked* to The Spectator. An edited extract follows: Alex Salmond: Scotland and England are different countries. So different, in fact, that we should no longer live together. Our interests have diverged and so must our futures. George Osborne: I do not think that is the case. Nor, by the way, do I hope it is. Alex Salmond: But it is! George Osborne: [wearily] Perhaps you are right. Very well; if our interests and futures diverge then perhaps, as you suggest, present arrangements will no longer prove as satisfactory as once we thought they were. Alex Salmond: I knew you would see the light.
Personally, I’m now waiting for the Queen to get involved. After all, there’s not much left of Alex Salmond’s independence-but-not-independence blueprint that is left intact. First it was his ‘we’re going to share the pound in a Sterling zone’ claim. That was ruled out by George Osborne (and Ed Balls and Danny Alexander) last week. Then it was his ‘independence in Europe’ claim, and that was dismantled by Jose Manuel Barroso today. The only pillar of Salmond’s grand ‘everything’s-going-to-remain-the-same-only-different’ scheme which remains in place is a shared monarchy. So it can’t be long before Her Majesty also intervenes and says: 'Do you know what?
Alex Salmond is now a man without a plan. He is offering Scots a future of uncertainty and instability. Threats of a debt default leaving Scotland and Scots with a bad credit rating. No idea which currency we would be transitioning to. By contrast if Scots want to know the benefit of remaining in the UK, they need only reach into their pockets and pull out a pound coin. We have one of the most trusted, secure currencies in the world. We have the financial back up of being part of one of the biggest economies in the world. The pound means more jobs, smaller mortgage repayments, cheaper credit card bills and lower prices in the supermarket. Why would we gamble that for an unknown currency? This morning’s interview with Alex Salmond on BBC Radio Scotland was instructive.
Last week, David Cameron said that we have ‘seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history’. He meant the United Kingdom. It was a powerful speech, part of a welcome and overdue campaign to make us all think about what is at stake in the referendum on Scottish independence. It seems strange to argue that the loss of less than 10 per cent of the population would bring this country to an end, and yet I do really suspect it might be so. Mr Cameron did not touch on the question of what the nation, minus Scotland, might be called, perhaps because he does not know and is fearful of making plans for such an eventuality. But the difficulty of getting the right name is a fascinating emblem of the depth of the problem.
Save our Scotland Sir: Matthew Parris is quite right to praise Lord Lang’s speech in the Lords on Scottish independence 9 (‘The End of Britain’, 8 February) and there were other notable contributions, especially from Lord Kerr, on the European dimension, and Lord Robertson, the former secretary-general of Nato. But is anyone listening? The debate got virtually no coverage in the Scottish editions — and I suspect even less in the English ones. Meanwhile the SNP publicity machine rolls on here and is now promising an annual ‘Indy bonus’ of £600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, exceeding the £500 threshold at which (as Alex Massie pointed out in the same issue) surveys suggest the average Scotsman will sell his British soul.
An interesting day, then. As I suggested yesterday, George Osborne has ventured across the border on a punitive raid. Nothing like a spot of rough wooing to get you through the winter. The reaction from Scottish nationalists has been interesting, to say the least. Some seem most affronted. Who the hell does George Osborne think he is, anyway? He'll no be telling us what currency we may use. Perhaps not but he - or Ed Balls - is certainly entitled to set out his view of what may be in the best interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. And if that view differs from the Scottish view then tough. Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me that nationalists, having declared war upon the British state, are so shocked or appalled when the British state fights back.
Last week, David Cameron said that we have ‘seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history’. He meant the United Kingdom. It was a powerful speech, part of a welcome and overdue campaign to make us all think about what is at stake in the referendum on Scottish independence. It seems strange to argue that the loss of less than 10 per cent of the population would bring this country to an end, and yet I do really suspect it might be so. Mr Cameron did not touch on the question of what the nation, minus Scotland, might be called, perhaps because he does not know and is fearful of making plans for such an eventuality. But the difficulty of getting the right name is a fascinating emblem of the depth of the problem.
It might be bullying but, I suspect, it will be effective. The Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats ruling out Scotland sharing sterling after independence—as Nick Watt reported this morning — is designed to hole below the waterline the SNP's attempt to reassure voters that even after independence they could still share a currency union with the rest of the Union. (Alex Massie does a very good job of taking apart the SNP's response). The potency of this argument is a reminder of what a disaster the Eurozone crisis has been for the SNP. It has made the Euro a far less attractive alternative currency than it was a decade ago and it has alerted everyone to the dangers of currency unions that aren't accompanied by political union.
Last Thursday’s cover story makes alarming reading, Alex Massie arguing that Alex Salmond may come close to achieving victory in September’s vote. Alex wrote: ‘It is beginning to be appreciated, even in London, that Alex Salmond might just win his independence referendum in September. The break-up of Britain will have begun, David Cameron will have to contemplate being Prime Minister of a rump country — and HMS Britannia will be sunk, not with a bang but a whimper. It will be due as much to English indifference as Scottish agitation.’ I would still put my pound sterling on a No vote, and current odds for independence are around 7/2; but I suspect that ultimate victory will probably go to the SNP. There a number of reasons why the union is doomed.
Politics is about power. It is surprising how often this is forgotten. Power and the application of power. Sure, there's policy too and noble aspiration and all that happy-clappy stuff but, in the end, politics is a question of who gets to wield the big stick. Lyndon Johnson knew this; so does George Osborne. In the long and sometimes unhappy history of these islands that has more often than not meant power has resided with the English. As Osborne is reminding us, it still does. Osborne, who has little to lose in the popularity stakes north of the border, is being quite brutal. The idea, much insisted upon by Alex Salmond, that an independent Scotland could enter a currency union with the remaining parts of the United Kingdom is fanciful. Poppycock. Daft. Not happening.
I got a text from a mischievous friend in London this morning. ‘David Cameron has asked me to ask you not to leave the UK. We would miss you all awfully if you did and the Olympics were jolly fun with you on board,’ it said. I don’t think this was quite what the Prime Minister had in mind when he decided to appeal to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish to use their powers of persuasion to get us Scots to stay in the Union. But if that wasn’t what he wanted, then what was it? The Prime Minister’s big speech on the Union today is both interesting and difficult for a Scottish audience to hear.
David Cameron’s speech on the union this morning prompted many questions. Why was he in London? Why were there so many empty seats in the Olympic velodrome? Etc, etc, etc. But Mr Steerpike wants to know why the speech was peppered with song lyrics. ‘We don’t walk on by,’ said Dave - unlike Dionne Warwick. The ‘North Sea’ is, apparently, ‘a light that never goes out’ – now we know what The Smiths were warbling about. Gordon Brown once professed his love for the Arctic Monkeys. It seems that his successor has got hold of the band’s fourth album, which contains the song ‘Brick by Brick’: ‘And we built it together. Brick by brick. Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Brick by brick.
At the Lee Valley Velopark today, David Cameron gave a speech where he called on people across the UK to speak out for the UK and against Scottish independence. Here's what he said:- listen to ‘David Cameron's speech on the importance of Scotland to the UK’ on Audioboo I want to thank Glasgow Caledonian for co-hosting this event. This is a fantastic, forward-looking university – and we are very grateful for your support today as we are to the Lee Valley VeloPark, for hosting us in this magnificent space. Less than 2 years ago, this Velodrome was a cauldron of excitement. Chris Hoy was ripping around at 40 miles per hour I was up there, I had a whole seat but believe me, I only used the edge. 3 more golds – an incredible night.
[audioplayer src='http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_6_February_2014_v4.mp3' title='Matthew Parris and Alex Massie discuss how Alex Salmond could wreck the Union even if he loses' startat=55] Listen [/audioplayer]From a kind of torpor about this year’s Scottish referendum, Lord Lang of Monkton has roused me. You may remember Lord Lang as Ian Lang, a Scot who as MP for Galloway served Margaret Thatcher and John Major as a minister, under the latter both as Scottish Secretary and then President of the Board of Trade. A pleasant, steady and notably capable man, it was possible to imagine him as a potential Tory leader, but he stuck with John Major throughout.
