David Cameron's proposal for a referendum on Scottish independence might have caught opponents as well as allies by surprise. At first sight, the British Prime Minister seems to be setting the terms for the play on this issue. He appears to be outmanoeuvring Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, by offering him what he wants, but with conditions; Mr. Salmond's Scottish National Party (SNP), which holds an absolute majority with 69 of the 129 seats in Scottish Parliament, is committed to a referendum on independence. The catch is that the outcome will be binding provided the U.K. parliament at Westminster and the devolved regional chamber at Holyrood in Edinburgh agree to it and provided the plebiscite occurs within the next 18 months. If held after that, the result would be only advisory. It also suits Mr. Cameron that Scottish public opinion is currently running at 32 per cent for independence; there is more support in Scotland for stronger devolved powers within the U.K. In addition, the 18-month deadline would enable a binding referendum to be held a year before the iconic 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, in which a Scottish army defeated a larger English one. Furthermore, Mr. Salmond cannot reject a referendum and is trying to influence the argument by insisting on a date late in 2014.
But Mr. Cameron's gambit is also high-risk. As he has not consulted the other pro-union parties, in particular Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it is unclear if he aims to preserve the union or merely score party-political points against the SNP. The majority of Scottish voters have backed the centre-left since the mid-1980s. Mr. Salmond has drawn on widespread resentment of Westminster dominance without slipping into ethno-nationalism; for example, SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament have taken their oath of office in Urdu, Italian, Gaelic, and English. Mr. Cameron might have played into the SNP's hands by provoking Scots to accuse him of interfering in their nation's affairs; they are also angry about his choice of Lord Forsyth, a former Cabinet Minister for Scotland who is very unpopular north of the border, to put the argument for a referendum. Constitutionally, only Westminster can legislate for Scottish independence, but it remains the case that no British parliament can bind its successor. That in turn means that even if the Prime Minister forestalls Scottish independence now, he could well generate enough opposition in Scotland to ensure the dissolution of the United Kingdom in the not inconceivable future. Ironically, Mr. Cameron leads what used to call itself the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Keywords: Scottish independence, David Cameron
The British Prime Minister indeed seems to have a taken a very high risk. He might win this plebiscite. But he will loose a lot if he does not keep the scottish people happy.
The conservative party had always welcomed reforms with imminent situation of the U.K. Referendum whether in consistency with other stake holders of the region matters very impertinently. Nevertheless the terms and conditions however are slightly awkward. Of course conditionality is one of the prerequisite of monumental transformation of the country like U.K. It seems though,done just for political posturing in the form of gimmick for personal gains.
Is this an extreme case of the colonial “divide and rule” policy already practiced within the UK (the loveable rich bankers versus the damnable poor, the pathetic disabled, the expensive oldies) being extended to the very existence of the Union itself? Do the British now accept that there is no pride/extra benefit left anymore by being British? In the more straightened economic circumstances, are we seeing not only a readiness to abandon the long-cherished social values of the civitas but also a readiness to embrace the dubious policy of ‘every linguistic-racial community for itself’? Was the pride in the rich diversity of British society a PR façade? Has the ‘bulldog spirit’ given up its ghost? Too weak to ‘punch above the weight’? What next ... a ‘Rise and fall of the Little Englander’ type of best-seller by a tabloid journalist or a TV programme by a cultural icon from the BBC?
Ask yourselves, why are the UK mainstream political parties so persistant in their voicing of keeping Scotland in the union. These parties will attempt every conceivable trick and manouvre to ensure Scotland remains a country within the UK. Since when did Westminster get so passionate about anything Scottish in the past which leads me to smell a rat. Could it possibly be that Westminster stands to lose financially if Scotland departs and stands on its own two feet like almost every other country on earth. The English, Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish have been fed very convenient scaremongering untruths for many decades, can't wait until the whole murky facts reveal themselves in the not to distant future which I believe will create massive repercutions strengthening Independence for not only Scotland. Anyone asking if Scotland can financially manage to support its inhabitants need only ask themselves what Scotland lacks that other similar sized nations possess. Extremely interesting times!
Please Email the Editor