Independence - the Will of the People?

A week after the Prime Minister ratcheted up the pressure on his Scottish counterpart, the Westminster and Holyrood governments remain poles apart – and there is little prospect of the much talked-about talks, due to take place this week, making much difference.

Objects of disagreement range from the timing of the independence referendum, the number of questions and the number of answers, to who will administer the plebiscite and who can vote in it – not to mention, of course, the desired outcome.

But who is winning this unscheduled political heavyweight bout? And who has the most to lose? While David Cameron and Co are relishing the opportunity to put pressure on Alex Salmond to put his money where his mouth is, the latter – ably and vocally assisted by his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon – has seized the moment in his own way.

Displaying impressive statesmanship and framing the discussion in typically patriotic terms, Salmond has nonetheless been forced to ‘name the date’, seemingly against his greater wishes (though staging the vote after celebrating 700 years since Bannockburn and hosting the great and good of the Commonwealth was surely an inevitable and irresistible prospect anyway).

For his part, Cameron has made a bold statement of authority – not only that a Holyrood-run referendum would not be constitutionally binding, but that it could be open to legal challenge (with only one likely winner). The assumption up to now was that, in practice if not by law, the democratically expressed wish of the Scottish people would be impossible to ignore.

The Scottish government thinks it can still have it that way. That seems unlikely… unless they defy Westminster’s insistence on a single-question, two-option ballot paper. Although seeking independence, the SNP are open to a third way, a solution that all indications suggest is currently the will of the people they govern – so-called ‘devo-max’.

The coalition would rather the question be one of ‘in or out’ – a halfway house (so the argument goes) would perpetuate the economic and social uncertainty. This is bluster – the real reason for the Conservatives opposing a multi-option referendum is the fear that introducing a second alternative to independence could split the pro-union majority of parties and of voters.

The Nationalists, on the other hand, have calculated that even this result – substantially increased autonomy for Scotland, leaving little more than foreign affairs and perhaps monetary policy in the hands of Whitehall – wouldn’t be a bad one for themselves or the country in the long run… and may convince more unbelievers of the viability of an independent Scottish nation.

Ironically, there seems to be more fervour for Scottish independence in the rest of UK than exists north of the border, and by taking the initiative in forcing the issue into the national spotlight, the coalition has begun the new year in assertive and savvy fashion (conspiracy theorists even claim that a House of Commons without Scottish representation might be an eternally Tory-led one).

All of which puts Ed Miliband in another awkward place. While his new Scottish lieutenant, Johann Lamont, has the straightforward brief of harrying the First Minister in the Holyrood chamber, being united but divided from his despatch box foe is proving tricky for the Leader of the Opposition - cue more soul-searching and inward preaching from Labour over the weekend.

Indeed, soul-searching is what both parties to this week’s much-anticipated talks might have to engage in. For the SNP – is it rational to make a nation hold its breath before confronting such an historic moment in its history, for the sake of sentimental statecraft? For the coalition – is it fair to deny the Scottish people their most-desired option, for the sake of democratic neatness?