Politics and the Independence Referendum

It has already been a busy week for Scotland. The deadline for ticket applications for next year’s Commonwealth Games in Glasgow closed on Monday; today it was revealed that Edinburgh’s trams (yes, that is really happening) would finally be running by May next year; and biggest of all, the new Proclaimers musical premieres tonight.

Tomorrow, meanwhile, marks exactly a year until the people of Scotland decide the country’s constitutional future. Some readers may wonder how the campaign can possibly still have so far to run, but if last week’s budget announcement is anything to go by, it’s unlikely that any political discussion north of the border during the next 12 months will be able to escape the spectre of the referendum.

Waxing lyrical about the human, physical and intellectual capital that exists north of the border, John Swinney lamented that he “should be able” to deliver a more generous budget but instead was unfairly and unnecessarily constrained by Westminster’s budget cuts, especially those to the welfare state. His opponents didn’t miss the trick.

Swinney was playing a dangerous game. Putting the control of Scotland’s finances wholly in Scottish hands, enabling tax-and-spend policies that can be better targeted to the needs of Scots is a persuasive argument. But on such a sensitive issue, he would do well not to be seen to be playing politics with the livelihoods of the most vulnerable.

Nevertheless, welfare is certain to be a major trump card for the current Scottish Government during the coming campaign. It is one of a handful of issues on which Salmond and co can trap their Labour counterparts between a rock and a hard place – opposing the SNP on one front and the Conservative-led coalition on the other.

Add to that the issue of timing – while the London base of the party is putting on its best poker face ahead of a potentially era-defining battle in 2015, the Scottish wing will have to show its hand long before then. In order not to give too much away, Labour’s main defence on welfare is likely to be that redistribution is most efficiently and equitably performed across the largest possible population. Whether that is true is another debate for another blog on another day.

What emerges from arguments like this, though, is the depressing likelihood that a decision with such deep and lasting consequences will be fought as much on the grounds of short-term policy squabbles as long-term constitutional considerations.

When it comes to such insignificant matters as EU membership, monetary union with London and the future of Trident, slurs and statistics have been flying in both directions in almost equal measure, so it’s no wonder that these issues – and thus the independence debate in general – have so far failed to capture the public’s imagination, or make much impact on opinion polls that show a stable but not irreversible majority in favour of the Union.

Tomorrow’s milestone will no doubt be marked with much orchestrated fanfare by a Scottish Government understandably keen at least to retain the initiative – to win the public-relations battles, if not (as it stands) the public-opinion war. It will also be a reminder that there is still a very long way to go.

Parliament, Syria and the Spectre of Iraq

David Cameron has today denied that he has “no hand to play” following last Thursday’s Commons vote that delivered by far his biggest political defeat since becoming Prime Minister. He must be quite a poker player.

The shock rejection by MPs of a motion that merely sought backing for a “strong humanitarian response” to the crisis in Syria – possibly involving military action but only subject to a further Commons vote, having made “every effort” to secure a UN resolution – has wrong-footed not just the British government but also their counterparts in Washington.

Cameron’s response in the moments after the result was announced was stark, and has drawn both praise – for its decisiveness – and criticism, for its abruptness. But what choice did he have at the time? He knew his authority had been undermined by the night’s events, and feared a mauling in the political press the next day.

What is more, any other form of words would have raised suspicions that he was planning to put a similar motion back in front of Parliament, possibly within days, in an attempt to get the ‘right’ answer from them. The rhetoric on that prospect has since softened, though, with talk of a fresh debate should circumstances “change very significantly”… whatever that means.

In the meantime, the UK remains in a very weak position on the international stage. How can even British representatives at the UN advocate military action without Parliamentary backing? By one interpretation, that puts us on the same side as Russia and China – more persistent but also more familiar foes for American diplomats.

If the government regrets one thing above all, it may be the timing of the vote – especially given the embarrassment caused by President Obama’s decision to wait until Congress reconvenes next week before seeking his own legislative mandate.

What was originally intended to be a swift, unequivocal response to the chemical-weapons atrocities committed by the Assad regime a week earlier ended up looking like a knee-jerk reaction driven by emotion rather than calculation.

Cameron insists that he recalled Parliament because he couldn’t otherwise have guaranteed MPs a say on British participation in an American-led action – which many had believed was to be launched that weekend (one wonders whether a simple phone call to the White House might have put his mind at ease). 

In the end, being called back to Westminster early for such an apparently inconsequential vote probably riled MPs more than the content of the motion itself.

The move also showed up the coalition’s vast underestimation of the extent to which the Iraq fiasco still scars the British public’s conscience. Ten years on, the prospect of once again voting in support of intervention in the Middle East before gaining UN approval clearly spooked Members on both sides of the House.

That is to say, spooked them more than the appalling images of innocent civilians writhing in the wake of one of the worst war crimes in living memory. And that is a measure of the damage done by that saga to public confidence in our political leaders’ military judgement – and the ethical consequences of that collapse in trust.

So what happens next? This weekend’s G20 summit in St Petersburg – already fired up by the spat between America and Russia over Edward Snowden – just got even more potentially explosive (then again, it is the G20, so a damp squib should probably be expected).

Next week, Congress is likely – in an increasingly rare act of unity – to deliver a resounding vindication of the President’s position, further humiliating the Prime Minister. Meanwhile Assad will no doubt carry on as before, watching with incredulity the West’s continuing failure to act, and wondering just how much more he can get away with. 

After all, if the events of 21 August don’t constitute a ‘red line’, what on earth does?