The Times: Future of the Union Conference by Smith Design Solutions

Scotland and the Union: Can it survive the Salmond surge? Full report on The Times conference

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union

Big beasts, opening salvoes and a badly needed debate By Magnus Linklater

view is that Scotland would be better off outside that union, he emphasised the positive note his campaign intendn the packed lecture hall of the ed to take. “A positive campaign will Royal Society of Edinburgh last always beat a negative one,” he argued, Friday, we heard the opening sal- adding: “Scotland has changed, and voes of what is likely to be a long- changed for the better. The campaign running debate on Scotland’s con- for independence will stay on the high stitutional future. Judging by the rapt ground of vision and confidence in the attention of delegates, and the barrage future.” The discussions that followed began, of questions that followed each session, it was one that was badly needed. perhaps for the first time, to reveal the The Times conference was deliber- nature of the challenges ahead, not ately titled Scotland and the Union: just for the nationalist cause, but for What Future? because, in our view, those articulating an alternative. Evethat offered an alternative to the argu- rything, from the legality of Mr Salments that have tended to dominate mond’s proposed referendum, to the the political scene since the stunning future role of the Bank of England, election victory of the Scottish Na- relations with Europe, and the need to secure Scotland’s defences, was tional Party last May. The arguments have largely dissected by experts more concerned been led by those proposing or op- with the facts of the matter than with posing independence. We felt there scoring political points. What emerged as the day prowas something missing from that: the role of the union that has held these gressed was that it would not be islands together for 300 years. Could enough simply to restate old positions; it survive? Should it survive? And if it that Scots wanted more from the devolution settlement than they had yet did, what shape would it take? The day was led off by a keynote been offered, in the shape of greater speech from the First Minister, Alex powers, an increased ability to control Salmond, and though naturally his taxation and a more vigorous role in

determining the nation’s future – but that these alternatives needed a great deal more clarity than they had yet received. By the end of the day we had learnt about the constitutional hurdles that lie between the electorate and a decisive vote in late 2014. We had listened as the economic challenges that would confront an independent Scotland were dissected – but had heard too about the alternative options, running from the terms currently offered in the Scotland Bill, through to the relatively new concept of “devo plus” to its big brother, “devo max,” and something called “independence-lite”. Finally, we saw the “big beasts” of Scottish political life – Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary – square up the nationalists, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, and Duncan Hamilton, advocate and former MSP. It was perhaps the first time that the two sides of the argument had been heard at so senior a political level, and it was here, inevitably, that the sparks flew. We learned in detail about the

Alex Salmond told attendees he believed that positive campaigning would always beat negativity. Picture: James Glossop fundamental ideologies that separate the two sides: the conviction, on the part of the unionists, that the United Kingdom was a tried and trusted arrangement offering security and certainty – and the argument, from the nationalists, that it was time for Scot-

Commercial View

Scotland’s Artists By Jacqui Low

Perhaps wisely, Holyrood rarely tries to match the glamour of Hollywood. Yet the film that has just made the biggest impact at this year’s Oscars may be instructive for those in the midst of the sound and fury of the current constitutional debate. The Artist tells the story of the revolution that swept tinsel-town in its early golden age, leaving established silent stars facing obsolescence as a new generation came to the fore, able to adapt to the new way of communicating stories to keen audiences. The film’s message is simple, yet elegant: good story-telling just never goes out of fashion but, in a fast-changing world, those trying to piece together a compelling narrative must be ready to adapt their means of delivery to prevailing circumstances. Failure to move with the times and engage with audiences on their own terms is to risk being fatally ignored. As the debate surrounding Scotland’s constitutional future rumbles on, political and civic leaders must grasp the fact that this is a time of transformational change

in the way the target audience – the peoples of Scotland and the UK as a whole – can be engaged with and included. So far, there has been no shortage of ideas put forward from all sides as to solutions to Scotland’s needs. With two and a half years left until the Scottish Government’s preferred referendum date, a shortlist of the possible outcomes for future constitutional settlement still seems to be expanding exponentially. A nonexhaustive list so far includes the Scotland Bill, full independence, independence lite, fiscal federalism, devo-max and devo-plus, not to mention the status quo ante bellum that some would prefer. What is becoming increasingly clear is that there will be a multitude of voices with important things to say about the constitution, each anxious to be recognised and heard. Yet I am not the first to point out that the proliferation of jargon used to explain those views is in danger of subsuming the debate and encouraging those whose opinion matters most Scottish voters - to switch off entirely. Endless discussions that focus simply on the mechanics of a referendum are in danger of leading some to believe that this is all an academic exercise, something to be thought about “in future”. The reality is that most of us are perfectly capable of grasping quite complex constitutional and fiscal arguments to make an informed decision. But the quality of that decision-making will also depend on the standard of communication with us, irrespective of its merits.

Those putting forward their ideas must also be prepared to innovate to get their points across in relevant and coherent ways, using all of the increasingly varied communications channels that Scottish people rely upon on a day-to-day basis from online news to social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. For many voters, both informed and uninformed, those are the vehicles through which they learn about issues and get the information that shapes their views. But, traditional media will still be vital in engaging the widest possible proportion of Scottish people, young and old, especially when time and space is needed for explanation. Ultimately, the goal of successful communication is to put forward clear and effective points in ways that hit home. In any situation where an audience needs to be persuaded, they must hear, understand - and act. In the current constitutional drama, Scotland’s electorate is the audience. All the political argument in the world will come to naught if communications are mistimed, misdirected or drowned out by noises off. The Scottish public want to be communicated with on what could be a life-changing decision; not lectured, scared or ignored. Genuine communication is a skill that, at times of crisis and in the rush to persuade, usually flies out the window. Whoever achieves this will take the prize. Jacqui Low, MD of public affairs and PR consultancy Indigo www.indigopr.com

land to re-assert its independence and forge its future in the wider world. It is a debate that will be joined in earnest over the next months and years. But it was here, in Edinburgh, that we first grappled with its dimensions.

the times | 6th March 2012

Future of the Union

Enlightened exchange and a touch of political steel By Mike Wade

look of relief mingled with pleasant surprise crossed Nicola Sturgeon’s face at the end of last Friday’s independence conference in Edinburgh. “This has been a great debate,” said the SNP’s deputy leader with a broad smile, “and a good omen” for the arguments ahead. That mood was shared by the audience who packed into the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an institution founded at the zenith of the Enlightenment. Historians seeking to explain the extraordinary flowering of genius in Edinburgh in the 18th century have, ironically enough, suggested that the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament in 1707, ending politics in the city, forced its thinkers to find other and better ways to change the world – so they turned their minds to science, economics and the arts. On Friday, political debate blossomed once again, with Ms Sturgeon and Duncan Hamilton, a former SNP MSP, going to head-to-head with two Scottish grandees of Westminster in a two-hour debate on the future of Scotland. In a prequel of the battles to come, Labour and Conservative joined forces, with Alistair Darling, the former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, sharing the stage with Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who cut his teeth as Scottish Secretary before he was appointed as Defence Secretary and finally Foreign Secretary. Those, of course, were the days when Conservative MPs still outnumbered pandas in Scotland. Mr Darling set the consensual tone of debate, and was as positive as any politician could be, campaigning under a oneword cause: “No”. This issue of independence, he said, had been in the air all his adult life, and he was delighted to have the opportunity to take it on. He did this by imagining Scotland as a separate state. An independent country would very quickly have to address the imbalance between the public and private sectors, and “serious questions” would have to asked about sustaining current levels of public expenditure. Mr Darling had a positive point, too. Being part of the United Kingdom had been hugely important in 2008, when “the banks bankrupted themselves”, he said. Quoting Sir Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Darling added: “These banks are global in life, but very national when it comes to their death. In the case of RBS the folly was made in Edinburgh not in London, but it had to be dealt with by the UK. The sheer size of RBS at the time meant we could just do it. There are huge benefits from being in a union.” Ms Sturgeon was aghast “This is meant to a positive case,” she said. “It is actually,” Mr Darling retorted, “because being part of the UK, the currency, the banks, all of this is very positive.” Mr Darling emerged as an advocate of more powers for the Scottish Parliament, and though he declined to be specific – “there is no agreement on the third way”— he appeared to be leaning towards

Alistair Darling advocated more powers for the Scottish Parliament and called for an early referendum Picture: James Glossop “devo max.” Strikingly, he echoed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, by repeatedly calling for an early referendum. This brought a rapid response from Ms Sturgeon. “You have to define devo max,” she said. “If you believe in a third option, define. My preferred option is independence; but the point of a democratic referendum is to let the people decide.” Mr Darling was repeating Mr Cameron’s mistake, said Mr Hamilton, and offering a “mystery prize” for those who opposed independence. Mr Hamilton, however, regarded “devo plus” with equanimity. “I am comfortable about a staged approach to independence,” he said. “If it takes longer, because it is the will of the people, I am comfortable about that.” The SNP has its own areas of fuzziness. The “social union” – the mess of familial ties that links the cross-border communities – is vaunted by the party as a guarantee of good relations between Scotland and “RUK”, the Rest of the United Kingdom. Ms Sturgeon explained that independence and interdependence were not mutually exclusive, but two sides of the same coin. “Just as an individual who leaves home doesn’t turn their back on their family,” she said, “they remain interdependent with that wider network. The same would be true of independent Scotland. Let no one argue that independence is about isolation or separation. It is about Scotland taking responsibility and working with others for the future good of our country.”

The SNP’s deputy leader proved to be an adroit debater. She was prepared to flesh out detail of the SNP’s monetary policy in an independent world, addressing the key issue of the economy that will, all agreed, decide the referendum. “It would be reasonable”, she said, for an independent Scotland to want representation on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. There would be no need for the country to view the bank as a lender of last resort to the Scottish government, because “we intend to operate with the degree of fiscal discipline so we do not need them.” After all, she added, every year over the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament the administration had balanced the books. Ms Sturgeon’s other, eminently sensible, tactic was to play to her strengths. Like the First Minister Alex Salmond at the morning session of the conference, she stressed the virtues of the NHS in Scotland, which has not been subjected to the unpopular reform programme devised by Andrew Lansley, Westminster’s Health Secretary. For months, it has been her constant theme: the SNP is the upholder of the post-war British welfare state. Only Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave voice to a more old-fashioned view, as might befit a lifelong member of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Despite the pleas of his nationalist opponents to accentuate the positives of his case, he insisted on pointing out the problems of “separation” – one of the words most hated by SNP supporters. It was Sir Malcolm who pointed out that Scotland might have to negotiate

entry to the European Union, and it was he who raised fears over national security. “We must never forget we are a small island off the west coast of Europe, in a very difficult world,” he said. “If you look around a the islands of the world – Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia – they are single states. If you live on a small island you have common interests in security, interdependence and developing your common interests.” He added: “Far from being artificial, or extraordinary or unnatural, a union was the most natural thing in the world.” There was never going to be agreement on such matters. But all agreed with Mr Hamilton’s summing up. ”This is a seismic moment in the history of the nation,” he said.

Andrew Marr and Nicola Sturgeon

The point of a democratic referendum is to let the people decide

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union

35 years of Scottish attitu

Three decades of polling data show the scale of the task facing the SNP if they are to win the referendum on breaking away from the UK

20 per cent in our November 2009 poll. Perhaps Scots thought that a nationalist government would do a sufficiently good job in representing their views without the need for separation from the rest of the UK. Since the election of a majority SNP government after the 2011 Holyrood elections, support for independence has risen. The promise of a referendum at some point during the current parliamentary term has seen the issue rise up the political agenda. The political dominance of the SNP and of First Minister Alex Salmond since the election has allowed the Scottish government to dictate the independence debate, contrasting themselves with a Tory-led government at Westminster overseeing a period of austerity which they say is damaging Scots. At the same time, all the unionist parties in Scotland are going through a transitional period, with each having elected a new leader since the 2011 election. Each party is also manoeuvring to adopt a nuanced and distinct position on the constitutional issue. All of this has meant that no clear leader from the unionist side has emerged to take on Alex Salmond and the SNP. Despite recent increases in support for independence, majority backing for the nationalist vision remains out of reach for now and an analysis of our polling reinforces the difficulty of achieving that goal. However, it is clear from all our recent polling that most Scots want further devolution, with our latest poll for The Times showing 71 per cent backing the concept of “Devolution Max”, devolving substantial new powers and tax-raising responsibilities to the Scottish government. Scots who currently tell us that they want more devolution but wish to remain part of the UK will be the key group in deciding the referendum. The challenge for the nationalists is to persuade this group to take the extra leap of faith towards an independent Scotland, while unionists must persuade this group that they can accommodate their hunger for greater autonomy without the need to break up the UK. Our polls in the next few years will be a crucial barometer Paste co-of which way voters will turn. brand logo

By Mark Diffley, research .director at Ipsos MORI Scotland

f the referendum is to be held in autumn 2014, the SNP has just two-anda-half years to persuade the majority of Scots to back their vision of an independent Scotland. An analysis of over 30 years’ worth of Ipsos MORI polling on the issue shows this will be no easy task. Ipsos MORI (formerly MORI) has been polling Scots on their attitudes to independence and devolution since 1978 and can track how views have changed over nearly 35 years. Although the wording of the question and the method for collecting opinion have occasionally changed, we are able to illustrate the fluctuations in support for independence over this period. What is most noticeable from looking back at the data is that, despite peaks and troughs where support exceeded 40 per cent or fell below 20 per cent, backing for independence has remained fairly constant, at least since the mid 1980s. In the 51 polls conducted since 1986, 39 showed support between 30 per cent and 39 per cent, while only nine polls showed support below 30 per cent and just three showed support above 40 per cent. This suggests that, although support for independence has grown significantly over the past few years, it does not necessarily represent a new surge in support, rather a return to previous levels of support, seen for example, during the 1990s. However, it is clear that support for independence is far higher than when we began polling in the late 1970s. On the eve of the first referendum in March 1979, only 14 per cent of Scots backed “a completely independent Scottish Assembly, separate from England”, although 42 per cent did back the establishment of a Scottish assembly as part of the UK. Of course, 52 per cent of Scots backed the provisions of the 1978 Scotland Act to create a devolved assembly, but the Act was repealed as support fell below 40 per cent of the total Scottish electorate.

In the early 1980s, support for independence was relatively low, never exceeding 25 per cent, coinciding with a time of internal ructions and poor electoral performance of the SNP: support for the party fell to 11.7 per cent at the 1983 General Election. It was not until the later years of the Thatcher government and, more specifically, the introduction of the “Poll Tax” in Scotland, that support for independence began to grow. In each poll between late 1988 and the mid-1990s, support did not fall below 30 per cent and reached 40 per cent in 1991 and 1992. This increase in support coincided with the collapse in support for the Conservatives in Scotland as well as growth in support for the SNP over this period (reaching 22 per cent in the 1992 General Election). The highest recorded level of support for independence came in our April 1998 poll, when 47 per cent of Scots backed “full independence for Scotland”. Given the timing of the poll, this is unsurprising: Scots were still basking in the glow of the 1997 referendum where 74 per cent had backed devolution and the new parliament was due to begin its work in 1999. Feelings of national pride may also have been enhanced by Scotland’s participation in the forthcoming football World Cup, the first time the national team had qualified since 1990. Famously, the former Labour cabinet minister George Robertson said that “devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”. Although that comment is now much derided, evidence from our polls in the first few years of a devolved administration suggested that, if not killed stone dead, nationalist sentiment was on the wane. For five years after December 1999, no single poll showed support for an independent Scotland to be above 30 per cent. Even after the election of a minority SNP government in 2007, support for independence slipped, going as low as

Support for independence – 35 year trend

Scots who currently tell us that they want more devolution but wish to remain part of the UK will be the key group in deciding the referendum

here 1

Support for independence — 35 year trend Support for independence (%)

60 50

Scottish Parliament opens

Introduction of the poll tax in Scotland

SNP form majority government

Devolution referendum

40 30 20

SNP form minority government

Data collected by Ipsos MORI (previously MORI). Fieldwork conducted face-to-face or by telephone amongc1,000 Scottish adults per wave. Please note, data from 1999-2008 comes from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, conducted face-to-face among c1200-1500 Scottish adults.

2011

2012

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

Devolution referendum

John Collins celebrates after scoring in the 1998 World Cup Finals

the times | 6th March 2012

Future of the Union

udes to independence Understanding the opinion battlegrounds where the country’s fate will be decided By Chris McLean, research executive, Ipsos MORI Scotland

D From World Cups to the Poll Tax, what changes voters’ minds? By Mark Diffley

by the introduction of the hugely cifically, unpopular “Poll Tax” in Scotland in 1989.

ur most recent poll for The Times shows that judgements about future economic prosperity in Scotland will be the key factors in deciding whether the electorate vote “Yes” or “No” in the independence referendum. But views on personal prosperity, job security and economic conditions in Scotland will not be the only referendum battleground. Analysis of our polling since the late 1970s shows that there are other factors which will play a role in persuading voters. History shows that voters can certainly be influenced by the political hue of UK governments and the effects on Scotland of the agendas they pursue. When we began polling on the issue back in 1978, support for independence was below 20 per cent (14 per cent in March 1979). Within the first five years of a Conservative government, support was around 25 per cent and by the late 1980s and early 1990s support was regularly around 35 per cent. This increased support for the nationalist cause was driven at least in part by the effects of the Conservative government’s industrial policy in the 1980s and, spe-

Such experiences continue to inform the strategies of the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, who is careful to avoid appearing to patronise Scottish voters either through his stance on the issues or by the tone he adopts. The strategy of the Scottish government will also be vital. When first elected in 2007, the SNP was keen to prove that it could effectively manage the Scottish economy and could be trusted to make decisions in the interest of Scots within the existing constitutional settlement. For this reason, and because the SNP was a minority administration, full independence was not top of its agenda. Consequently, though it was a popular government, support for independence did not increase. This changed when the parliamentary arithmetic gave the SNP an overall majority after the 2011 election and enabled the party to focus with confidence on the referendum and develop its long-term strategy for winning it. This focus and strategy has led to a growth in support for independence, though still some way short of majority backing. Other factors which help to explain support for independence are the events

happening at any particular point in time which may play to a mood of nationalist sentiment and pride. Polling evidence shows that support for independence was highest in April 1998 (at 47 per cent), a period between the successful devolution referendum in 1997 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament in 1999. It was also the last year in which the national team qualified to play in the football World Cup. This may partly explain the Scottish government’s preference for a 2014 ballot, a year in which Scotland will celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn and Glasgow will host the Commonwealth Games. It is also another Word Cup year. The key question going forward is whether the current rise in support for independence is the beginning of a shift towards a majority, or a return to the levels of support in the 1980s which will go no further. A look back at our polling over 35 years highlights that, even at times of unpopular UK governments and events which boost national pride, support for independence has fallen short of a majority. For those supporting independence in the lead-up to the referendum, this means that they still face a huge challenge in reaching that majority.

espite fluctuations in polling data, support for independence has been a minority view among the Scottish public for the last 35 years. Our latest poll for The Times shows that, although support is at its highest since the late 1990s, it is still some way from a majority position. In the next two years, supporters of independence and advocates of the union will be laying out their arguments before the electorate. But what does current polling evidence tell us about how likely members of the public are to change their opinion? The SNP will hope to use its dominance of the Scottish parliament and the popularity of the First Minister, Alex Salmond, in the polls as a strong platform from which to promote independence. It also gives them a degree of control over the referendum, particularly over the timing. The SNP’s preferred date in 2014 could see an increased sense of patriotism created by the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn and by high-profile sporting and cultural events. The potential impact on Scots’ attitudes should not be underestimated. Our highest recorded levels of support for independence occurred in 1998, following the devolution referendum and prior to the opening of the Scottish parliament. However, current polling evidence suggests a number of reasons for optimism in the unionist camp. Firstly, our data shows the “No” vote to be more solid than the “Yes” vote. Among Scots voters, 43 per cent said they had definitely decided to vote against independence, compared to 29 per cent who have definitely decided to vote in favour. A further 29 per cent of Scots voters are undecided or may change their mind. Even to achieve a slim majority, the SNP would have to convince almost all of those who have yet to make up their mind. A key problem for the SNP is that groups with the most entrenched opposition are traditionally more likely to turn out and vote. Those most likely to say they have definitely decided to vote against independence are older people and those living in more affluent areas. Both groups are the most likely to think that their personal finances would get worse if Scotland were to become an independent country. Their opposition appears to be driven by uncertainty over the economic impact of independence. The economy will be the key battleground in the campaign. Scots named this as the single most important issue in the forthcoming debates on Scotland’s constitutional future. Indeed, it was mentioned three times as often as the second most important issue, unemployment, which itself provides further indication of Scots’ uncertainty over the economic consequences of independence. Our latest poll shows that Scots are more pessimistic about the prospects for their personal finances and job security, as well as for economic conditions across the country, if Scotland were to become independent. So, while recent increased support for independence provides hope for supporters of independence, current polling evidence suggests that it will take an extraordinary reversal of opinion to secure a majority.

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union

‘People matter much more than politics’ By Peter Jones

cotland’s economic performance depends much more on the capabilities of its people than on anything its government can do with tax levers, leading economist John Kay told the conference. Professor Kay, a former member of Alex Salmond’s Council of Economic Advisers, also said that neither the Scottish government nor the parliament had the capacity to deal with all the issues that would arise with independence. Speaking at a panel session on the economic powers that might be gained by a Scottish administration following constitutional change, Professor Kay asked: “What is all the fuss about? I think that is actually quite a good question. “The reality is that the economic performance of an advanced modern state does not depend very much on its constitutional arrangements. It doesn’t even depend very much on its macro-economic policies. “It depends on the productivity and capabilities of its people, and the strength and vitality of its firms. And politics, very badly managed, is capable of messing that up, but it isn’t capable of doing a great deal, competently conducted, to help.”

Professor Kay contended that regardless of whether Scotland chose greater devolution or independence now, it would end up in the same place in 10–15 years as independence would entail negotiating away degrees of autonomy over tax, fiscal and monetary policies to achieve stability. “I think the arguments can be framed either way,” he said, “But for me the decisive argument is that I don’t believe the Scottish government or parliament has yet the capacity to handle all the issues which would be put on the table if we were to move quickly in the direction I have described.” Professor Kay said Scottish politicians had a number of economic powers which they had not used, adding: “All the policies which the First Minister described [at the conference] as advantageous devolved policies are policies which involved additional expenditure or reduced taxation. We have to get serious and make choices about it. “The recent Scottish government paper on corporation tax, in tackling the issues involved, in its best parts rose up to the standard of a rather bad undergraduate essay. There is no reason why Scotland should not acquire capacity to deal with these issues, but it has not yet done so.” David Bell, professor of economics at Stirling University, said that Scot-

S Professor John Kay and Reform Scotland’s Ben Thomson land could not simultaneously be a high-tax, high-spend and a low-tax, low-spend economy. “But both stories seem to be going around,” he said. “And there are even some who think that Scotland can be low-tax, high-spend. There is no credible evidence to support that.” Professor Bell warned that an independent Scotland’s freedom to set taxes and welfare benefits would be limited, pointing out that European Union states, apart from the United Kingdom, were now signing a treaty

which in effect signed away their fiscal freedom. Ben Thomson, chairman of Reform Scotland, said that all polling showed Scots wanting some middle way which gave Scotland more control over taxes and welfare, but none of the political parties, either at Westminster or Holyrood, were offering it. Maintaining the UK was very important, he said, but each level of government – British, Scottish, and local – should be responsible for raising the money it spent.

cotland is already the third most prosperous part of the UK, said Alex Salmond, the First Minister - adding that, with a geographical share of the North Sea, it would become the sixth most prosperous country in the world. After a recession which had been shorter and shallower than in the rest of the UK, Mr Salmond said, the Scottish government was now trying to promote economic recovery with one arm tied behind its back. “With independence, I argue, we can do far more to promote prosperity,” he said. “If Scottish Water had the same relationship with the Scottish government as Network Rail has with the UK government, it could borrow now cheaply and substantially to promote very, very strong capital investment in the water network in Scotland. “We could adjust corporation tax, not to create a race to the bottom, but to give ourselves the fiscal edge that many small countries need, in our case to counteract the centrifugal forces exerted by London and the south-east.” The idea that airports in the north of England or Scotland could compete with London Heathrow with identical rates of air passenger duty was, Mr Salmond said, “total nonsense”, and Scottish airports would benefit with competitive tax rates that would have benefits “way beyond” the cuts in duty.

Whisky at Bonhams Forthcoming sale Wednesday 7 March at 11am Edinburgh

We are also currently consigning for our forthcoming whisky sale on Wednesday 27 June. martin.green@bonhams.com 0131 225 2266

International Auctioneers and Valuers - bonhams.com/whisky

the times | 6th March 2012

Future of the Union

The lessons from history about our future By Magnus Linklater

cotland’s leading historian, Professor Tom Devine, set the scene for the debate by reminding us that the story of the Anglo-Scottish Union over the last three centuries “has never been one of stasis.” Instead, it has evolved through adjustment, reinvention and pragmatic change. An era dubbed by historians as “semiindependence” lasted until the later 19th century, but as the prospects for Irish Home Rule loomed, the role of central government began to expand. Scottish interests were protected from the 1880s by the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. But for the outbreak of the Great War and the economic crises which followed, Home Rule as then defined would have been in place generations before the devolution of the 1990s. All that came to an end with the Thatcher governments of the 1990s. The ancient balance of powers between London and Scotland was upset by radical policies of intervention and rigidity. The new impetus towards de-

volution which followed could in large part be interpreted as an attempt to renew and re-establish that informal political equilibrium within the Union which had worked effectively since the later 18th century. Now, Professor Devine said, the proposed referendum on Scottish independence poses the most serious challenge to the Union since 1707. The polls tell us that the option of significantly enhanced powers for the Parliament within the UK state has currently the greatest attraction for the Scottish people. But the unionist parties are unwilling to have that preference recorded in the ballot paper in 2014, thus flying in the face of all the historical evidence of concession, compromise and pragmatism between the parties. At best, that opposition seems quixotic and is likely to result in many more Scots opting for the independence option. At worst, it is an affront to the democratic process by wilfully refusing to allow the Scots to vote in the way the majority would wish. Professor Vernon Bogdanor said the question of whether the Union would survive can only be answered by the Scots. The issue, he added, was fun-

damentally about identity, not about economics. Allegiance is not a matter of argument, but about something primordial. “Can you convince someone by argument that they are nor are not British?” he asked. “I doubt it.” Polling figures suggest that over 36 years, the SNP has lost a third of its support, while the unionist vote has grown. In contrast with Ireland which was inherently separatist, Scotland – as unionists believe – appears perfectly compatible with British identity. It is integrated into the Westminster system of government, plays a full part – some English people would say an overgenerous part – in the government of the UK. Decisions on Scottish domestic affairs are made by a Scots Parliament, answering to the Scottish people. All this reflects a high degree of commercial and industrial integration within the UK. When it comes to independence, the key point which must not be fudged distinguishes it from all alternative schemes of devolution, “devo max” and federalism. It has been obscured by the SNP idea of shared sovereignty, shared monarchy, shared social union, and shared currency union. But an inde-

pendent Scotland has no right to shared sovereignty. All it can do is to propose – it is up to the rest of the UK to agree. Professor Bogdanor said his own views on the referendum had changed. He now argued that a second question would be advisable. Professor Robert Hazell, of the Constitution Unit, also said his views had changed – since the publication of the unit’s seminal book on Scottish independence, which had argued for a singlequestion referendum, and then a second vote to test the outcome of negotiations. He agreed that a multi-option referendum would be justified, provided the voting system was adjusted and there was a follow-up referendum once the details had been negotiated. He accepted there were doubts about the validity of a referendum authorised solely by the SNP, and that there could be legal challenges which could go all way to Supreme Court. “I don’t think it is desirable for the courts to get involved in such an intensely political issue,” he said. “The only way to resolve those doubts is for the UK government to offer to facilitate the referendum, either by legislating at Westminster, or by a section 30 Order under the Scotland Act.”

A professional approach to wealth advice, shaped to you.

Whatever the shape of your finances, we will build a financial plan to help you achieve your goals. Our expertise includes giving advice on retirement planning, estate planning and investment management tailored to meet your needs. For professional, independent wealth advice, please call Bryan Innes on 01224 615085 or visit us at www.towry.com/contact

Towry, sponsors of

Professor Robert Hazell

Although Professor Hazell had previously argued that the UK government should stay out of the process, it would be hard for them to avoid issues such as the wording, the timing, who supervises the referendum, whether there should be a second question, and whether there should be a second referendum. On the wording, the Electoral Commission would have a role. The Scottish government and parliament are not obliged to follow Electoral Commission advice; but the UK government might withdraw its support if they declined to do so.

6th March 2012 | the times

The Faculty of Advocates has been in existence since 1532 and since then has played a leading role in providing access to justice for the people of Scotland. There are 460 practising advocates in Scotland, each of whom is a selfemployed, one-person business whose expertise is available to everyone in the country whether they are facing a criminal charge or the consequences of a divorce and family break-up. The essential point about the legal advice provided by the Faculty and individual advocates is that it is independent. Over the past few years advocates have appeared regularly before committees of the Scottish Parliament giving evidence on a nonpartisan basis on a wide range of legal issues. The National Library (Scotland) Bill is the latest example. The Faculty and the National Library have close ties first formed in 1925 when the Faculty gifted to the nation its non-legal collection 750,000 books, pamphlets and items of sheet music - to provide the foundation of NLS. Legal Aid in civil cases was introduced in Scotland in 1950 and in criminal

cases not until 1964. But for centuries before that advocates regarded it as their professional duty to appear without payment for those who would otherwise have gone unrepresented. This situation continued until the 1960s when Queen’s Counsel and junior advocates were appointed from what was known as the Poor Roll to represent free of charge anyone in a murder case who would be facing the death penalty. Even with the advent of legal aid many cases fall through the intended ‘safetynet’ and, although not a substitute for a properly funded legal aid system, the Faculty’s Free Legal Services Unit provides expert advice and representation in courts and tribunals in deserving cases which would otherwise go unheard. The Faculty of Advocates has always played a leading role in issues affecting national life in Scotland with an active programme of sponsorships supporting education and culture. At last year’s Edinburgh International

www.advocates.org.uk

Book Festival the Faculty sponsored ‘The End of The Union?’ a debate chaired by Magnus Linklater and featuring Sir Menzies Campbell QC, Michael Russell MSP and leading journalist Neal Ascherson. Against that background the Faculty was delighted to be able to provide sponsorship for The Times conference ‘Scotland and the Union: what future?’ Another of the Faculty’s national projects is the MiniTrial initiative. It is approaching its tenth anniversary and has performed a valuable service in teaching young people how Scotland’s unique legal system works. Dozens of state schools and more than 1,000 pupils have now taken part in a MiniTrial in which, guided by lawyers, they play the part of prosecution and defence lawyers, jurors and court officials. The MiniTrial has been adopted into the senior social education curriculum at Trinity Academy and is now is now being developed in Primary Schools.