Post-script to Smith

Early in January 2012, David Cameron decided he had a problem in Scotland and thus, he started the process that ended with the referendum. There was a serious political imperative behind this but it is doubtful, even today, to discern any real intent to tackle the constitutional future of either Scotland or the UK. For David Cameron, this was the opportunity to halt the rise of the SNP, put a stop to nationalist fervour and inflict a crushing defeat on Alex Salmond. None of those political objectives was achieved. 

On reflection, Cameron’s strategy has intensified the anti-Westminster forces and given new impetus to the desire in Scotland for radical change. Despite repeated and cogent demands to have a second question on the referendum ballot paper, the thrust of the No campaign was to offer nothing positive and certainly no vision for Scotland’s future within the Union. 

Based on a history of opinion poll evidence to date, consistently showing a 70/30 vote against independence, this was to be a battle to kill off nationalism with a slam-dunk outcome assured! The Edinburgh agreement sealed the fate of this approach and the rest is history. 

Unionism clearly stated there would be nothing on the table until independence was defeated. This insane strategy survived until the last few weeks of the campaign. But then ‘Fear Fortnight’ intervened when an opinion poll suggested for the first time that the Yes campaign was ahead. Real panic, fear and hysteria broke out, sending Labour and the Better Together campaigns into crisis. Out of thin air and with no regard for the previous two years, the ‘vows’ appeared. All of a sudden, a set of proposals for Scotland’s future appeared with a string of commitments from nowhere; without any previous discussion at any levels within the parties and certainly with little serious discussion between the parties. 

A second question on the ballot paper now seemed like an inspiring idea. The self-denying ordinance of not offering Scotland anything positive until the defeat of independence was trashed overnight and Unionism declared that the Scottish Parliament would be permanent! Now pursuing a script that goes well beyond fiction, David Cameron, in the early hours of 19 September, declared that “English votes for English laws” would be his priority. To be fair, that is his priority but the senseless timing of his announcement and his cavalier disregard for post-referendum sentiment in Scotland was breathtaking in its contempt. Indeed, this certainly helped shape the new mood of Scotland after the referendum. 

This was the context in which the Smith Commission was born with the mission to deliver this brave new world of powers and taxes for the Scottish Parliament and to produce cross-party agreement of the new proposal in less than 100 days, with a further promise of a White Paper from Westminster in time to raise a glass on the 25 January to both Robert Burns and a new future for our Parliament in Edinburgh. This was not the best way to look at a post-referendum settlement for Scotland but nevertheless compared with the shambles of the previous two years, Lord Smith seemed like a breath of fresh air. Panic had given way to purpose and now to policies. 

Importantly, Lord Smith has provided a layer of sense and seriousness to what had been a Unionist campaign of stunning incompetence. This is welcome and while his proposals will not satisfy everyone or indeed anyone, some respectability has been injected into our political and constitutional debate. These powers will strengthen our Parliament. 

We must await the outcome of the General Election to see whether or not the Smith package survives and in what shape his proposals will be enacted. But this will not be the end of the story; it is but a staging post to eventually arriving at the “settled will of the Scottish people”. Whatever that is remains in doubt. 

Despite the massive democratic engagement in the referendum, scrutiny of the Smith Commission will take place in Westminster, not Holyrood or Scotland. More significantly, there will be no referendum to agree the Smith proposals. What now for the sovereignty of the Scottish people and our democracy? 

It is worth noting that a referendum designed to kill independence and nothing more, has resulted in new powers, some would argue far-reaching powers for our Parliament, which will not have a vote in Scotland. 

For the UK, nothing seems to have changed. The constitutional debate at Westminster is chaotic with many grievances being aired but with no ideas emerging or even a process whereby matters could be taken forward. How many more tranches of powers can be moved out of Westminster to Holyrood? How many more commissions can we create? There is only one possible outcome for Scotland if this ad-hoc constitutionalism continues. We, slowly but surely, move to independence. Or instead, do we create a credible, sustainable, intelligible, supportable and attractive alternative for staying in the Union? The Smith Commission doesn’t provide that. Nor was it asked to do so. 

We can’t continue to provide political solutions in response to periodic outbursts of political unrest, to what are essentially constitutional issues of how we are governed in the UK. To borrow a phrase from cosmology, we need to arrive at ‘steady state’ politics. This seems a long way off.