LONDON LETTER:Scots could leave things as they are, choose a little or a lot more devolution, or seek a full break with London, writes MARK HENNESSY
IT SEEMS like just yesterday.
In the eyes of Scottish Nationalist Party leader Alex Salmond, Scotland, Ireland, Norway and Iceland would form an Arc of Prosperity that would be the envy of the world: proud, rich, successful, and, most of all, free.
Norway is still rich. Iceland is bankrupt. Ireland struggles, while the Scots, who have witnessed the destruction of their once-proud reputation for financial caution and probity, have become more cautious about seeking life on their own.
None of this has stopped Salmond, who this week published a White Paper that favours an independence referendum, but which would also consider putting forward a multi-pronged question to voters.
Under such a proposal, Scots could leave things as they are with the decade-old devolution settlement; choose to have a little bit more, or a lot more of devolution; or, else, choose a full break with London.
So far, Salmond, who runs a minority government in the Scottish parliament in Holyrood, has received zero support from the Conservatives, Labour, and, most importantly in this case, the Liberal Democrats.
Indeed, he has little chance of getting any of them to change their mind to back the passage of referendum legislation, so the question arises of what Salmond – who is always articulate, and usually cute – is up to.
Opponents, particularly those in conservative Edinburgh, which has seen thousands of highly paid banking and legal jobs disappear, say Salmond should deal with the problems that exist, rather than dreams. For him, the two are inextricably linked.
The publication of referendum plans achieves a number of aims: its reassures his Highlands and Islands pro-independence supporters that the flame still burns, and it potentially embarrasses the other parties if the public judges that they are being denied a voice.
He needs some distractions. Firstly, he is no longer an Opposition voice but one who leads a government, even if it is one that has to negotiate on every single vote that goes before Holyrood. Business gets done, but at the price of exhaustion.
Just this week he sacrificed his education secretary, Fiona Hyslop, who had performed poorly, when faced with the threat of a vote of no-confidence from the Liberal Democrats that he would have lost.
Up to now, Salmond has argued that the loss of any minister at the hands of political enemies would provoke the collapse of the government, but, in the end, this was not a price he was prepared to pay.
Meanwhile, tax transfers from London, now standing at £34 billion (€37.6 billion) a year, are likely to be cut in coming times by a Conservative- controlled House of Commons, leaving him as first minister threatened with carrying the can for cuts he cannot control.
Equally, the SNP has had a few bad by-election results, most recently in Glasgow North East, when the party once again showed it has no relationship with urban and often very poor Scots.
Besides the recession provoked by the banks, Salmond has to cope with major, long-lasting economic problems: the excessive role of the public sector in the economy, and the plethora of 30-odd local authorities that can make Scotland difficult to govern.
And there is poverty, which Scotland has more of than most other parts of the UK – a problem that is reflected in the distressingly high number of swine flu deaths there provoked by underlying illnesses and unhealthy lifestyles.
Independence has for Salmond been the central purpose of his political life, and one that he has little intention of abandoning – regardless of declining support among the public at large for a full divorce from London.
If independence is not possible for now, it does not mean that further gains cannot be made, particularly if the effects of Tory rule next year – should it occur – make Scots more rebellious when they come to vote in the Holyrood elections 12 months later.
Devolution is popular in Scotland with all of the parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats, who may yet be persuaded to rejoin a Holyrood coalition with the SNP, as they have done twice before.
If brought back into the tent, the Liberals may not change their minds about opposing a referendum next year, but it is possible that they would agree to push for more devolution afterwards.
Under Salmond’s next-best option, Scotland would opt for full control over tax and spending, leaving the British government in charge of currency and monetary policy, along with foreign affairs and defence.
If the SNP can make the gains it claims it will in next year’s House of Commons election, which could give it the balance of power, Salmond may yet be in a position to demand more devolution – if not separation – from Cameron.
Though a unionist, Cameron has many in his ranks who would not be sorry to see the Scots put further distance between themselves and London – particularly if it could be in a way that would copperfasten Tory control south of the border.