In promising a new way of doing politics in the United Kingdom, David Cameron early yesterday morning pitched his response to the Scottish vote primarily at one audience, the English. Yes, he congratulated the Scottish unionists, and promised a rapid negotiation of new powers for Edinburgh.
But the meat and novelty of his speech was in his reaching out to England's voters. The reforms that Scotland's Yes campaign have won – let there be no doubt, they were not on offer before the campaign – will have to be mirrored in democratic change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he promised . . . but particularly England.
The No vote may have saved the prime minister's skin politically, but the Tory English back benches are in uproar over the last-minute concessions he has promised the Scots. Both the enhanced powers and the promise of maintaining the generous terms of the Scottish financial settlement have added fuel to the raging fire fuelled by Ukip over Europe – the issues of Scotland and the UK's future in the EU are intimately intertwined. Cameron's Yes victory by no means gets him out of the woods.
And such is his concern at an English backlash that the prime minister promised twice in his short speech that English reform must take place “in tandem with, and at the same pace as” the settlement for Scotland.
Ukip gloating
That is no mean challenge, given that the Scots have been promised legislation by the spring, and it also raises the prospect of the issues becoming fodder in next year’s general election campaign – Ukip will revel in Tory and
Labour
embarrassment over the nature of the concessions to the Scots and Labour’s reluctance to give up its Scottish MPs’ voting rights.
Scotland’s vote. England’s revolution. In truth, though the Scots will gain significant new powers to add to those Edinburgh already enjoys, it is south of the border that the real political earthquake will happen, potentially the most profound and qualitative changes to the constitutional order since Ireland broke from the union.
Cameron yesterday was not specific about how he proposes to address the “West Lothian question” – the blatant unfairness of Scottish MPs voting on legislation affecting only England, made yet more unfair by the new proposed devolution of powers, while English MPs are denied that right on Scottish legislation. But any way he does address it will mean radical changes in the way the UK organises politics.
If the reform is confined to Westminster, will it mean two types of votes, and for governments, particularly Labour ones, the possibility of being both in a majority and a minority on key questions? Or will it perhaps mean an English chamber within the Commons?
Or does it mean the creation of devolved assemblies in the regions with powers to match one or other of the different devolution regimes in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast? In other words, moving towards that taboo notion of British politics, a federal UK? It’s worth noting in passing that in Cameron’s carefully drafted speech all he suggests for Northern Ireland is getting the present arrangements to work, while in Wales merely implementing a few changes already in the pipeline. The North’s parties will hardly be satisfied with such a minimalist position.
Meanwhile, with the Scottish vote out of the way, UK politics can now resume its European war of words, with the mainstream parties also perhaps doing well to learn the lessons of a campaign not unlike that in prospect in an EU referendum, in a sense a dress rehearsal.
We are likely again to see – particularly if the Tories are re-elected and Cameron, as seems likely, endorses a renegotiated settlement for Britain with the backing of Labour and the Liberals – the Westminster establishment parties pitched up against an outsider alliance led next time by Ukip, backbenchers from those same parties, and a motley collection of left and nationalist groups.
Democratic challenge
As Irish voters will recall from the first Lisbon and Nice referendums, such a match may initially look an easy win for the establishment. And in agreeing to a referendum, London politicians clearly thought the same of Scotland.
But such campaigns can be deflected by a strong prevailing anti-politics sentiment and emotional messages about sovereignty that are countered only ineffectively by complex, largely negative, unsexy arguments – however true – about interdependence and the benefits of working together. Oh, and warnings of dangerous economic consequences.
In Ireland such arguments prevailed only the second time. Twice. In Scotland they won out. But just. In an EU referendum, only one thing is certain, it will be a bloody and difficult campaign.
psmyth@irishtimes.com