Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Major UK Parties Offer Scotland More Power for "No" Vote

The British Conservative, Liberal Democratic and Labour parties have all signed onto a declaration offering Scotland more powers to control its own fate if the kingdom opts to remain part of the UK. Foreshadowed a few days ago by former PM Gordon Brown and printed on the front page of the Daily Record, the brief declaration suggests that the status quo is gone regardless of how Scots vote on Thursday. On October 16, Mr. Brown will reveal a 12-point plan in the House of Commons for Scotland's future. The problem is the referendum comes a month earlier -- a case of a day late and a dollar short.

The fact that the three "London" parties are making this offer now has led the nationalists to argue that the "No" campaign is afraid of losing. After polls suggesting that the "Yes" camp is leading or at least in a statistical dead heat, there is some credibility to this claim. What Mr. Brown is going to propose is something close to "Devo Max," maximum devolution short of independence. Under Devo Max, Whitehall would retain defense and foreign affairs authority and nothing else. Mr. Brown won't quite offer that but it is in that direction.

The trouble is that this could have been one of the options on the ballot paper. Mr. Cameron, in his very finite wisdom, demanded that the choice be a simple one of Aye or Nay to independence. His arrogance in believing Scots would never dare go it alone is now forcing him to make offers out of weakness rather than strength. It gives courage where he does not want it.

As for the LibDems and Labour, they have been rather deceitful in their campaigning. The LibDems have been in favor of devolution as a way to scotching (forgive the pun) demands for independence. Had they fought their corner harder over the last couple of years, offering more without the threat of a referendum, this whole campaign might actually have been unnecessary. Meanwhile, Labour has betrayed just about every principle upon which it was founded to keep the dozens of Scottish Labour MPs sitting in Westminster. Without those safe Scottish seats, there will not be another majority Labour government in Westminster for a generation or more.

In another sense, though, this campaign has shown off the best of Britain, not just Scotland. The debate, while passionate, has not sparked any riots, and both sides have vowed to live with the result. Not only has Scotland considered its future with attention to detail but the rest of the UK has behaved remarkably well. If the Scots go, they go. If they stay, they stay. Life will go on.

What has disappointed is the "No" campaign's lack of vision. Defending the status quo against the magic of "independence" is not an easy thing. However, it would have been done better had the unionists spent less time asking "what will happen under independence to . . ." and more time explaining why the union is a good thing in positive terms. Scotland has a bigger voice in world affairs as part of the UK; Scotland benefits from sharing burdens and revenues with England, Northern Ireland and Wales providing more stability (a harder argument to make given the facts); Scotland's youth have more opportunity as Britons than they otherwise might (again a hard case).

Instead, the Nay-sayers have relied on fear of the future, an approach unworthy of such a debate. There are excellent reasons to keep the union, but one could hardly tell given the way the No camp has argued its case.

© Copyright 2014 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home