Can it survive the Salmond surge?

Scotland and the Union:

Full report on The Times conference

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union2

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 non- exhaustive 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

Scotland’s Artists

Big beasts, opening salvoes and a badly needed debateBy Magnus Linklater

In the packed lecture hall of the Royal Society of Edinburgh last Friday, we heard the opening sal-voes of what is likely to be a long-running debate on Scotland’s con-

stitutional future. Judging by the rapt attention of delegates, and the barrage of questions that followed each ses-sion, it was one that was badly needed.

The Times conference was deliber-ately titled Scotland and the Union: What Future? because, in our view, that offered an alternative to the argu-ments that have tended to dominate the political scene since the stunning election victory of the Scottish Na-tional Party last May.

The arguments have largely been led by those proposing or op-posing independence. We felt there was something missing from that: the role of the union that has held these islands together for 300 years. Could it survive? Should it survive? And if it did, what shape would it take?

The day was led off by a keynote speech from the First Minister, Alex Salmond, and though naturally his

view is that Scotland would be better off outside that union, he emphasised the positive note his campaign intend-ed to take. “A positive campaign will always beat a negative one,” he argued, adding: “Scotland has changed, and changed for the better. The campaign for independence will stay on the high ground of vision and confidence in the future.”

The discussions that followed began, perhaps for the first time, to reveal the nature of the challenges ahead, not just for the nationalist cause, but for those articulating an alternative. Eve-rything, from the legality of Mr Sal-mond’s proposed referendum, to the future role of the Bank of England, relations with Europe, and the need to secure Scotland’s defences, was dissected by experts more concerned with the facts of the matter than with scoring political points.

What emerged as the day pro-gressed was that it would not be enough simply to restate old positions; that Scots wanted more from the de-volution settlement than they had yet been offered, in the shape of greater powers, an increased ability to control 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 deci-sive 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 alterna-tive 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 “inde-pendence-lite”.

Finally, we saw the “big beasts” of Scottish political life – Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Excheq-uer, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the for-mer 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

fundamental ideologies that separate the two sides: the conviction, on the part of the unionists, that the United Kingdom was a tried and trusted ar-rangement offering security and cer-tainty – and the argument, from the nationalists, that it was time for Scot-

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 dimen-sions.

Commercial View

Alex Salmond told attendees he believed that positive campaigning would always beat negativity. Picture: James Glossop

Future of the Unionthe times | 6th March 2012 3

By Mike Wade

A look of relief mingled with pleasant surprise crossed Nico-la Sturgeon’s face at the end of last Friday’s independence con-ference 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 audi-ence who packed into the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an institution founded at the zenith of the Enlightenment. Histori-ans seeking to explain the extraordinary flowering of genius in Edinburgh in the 18th century have, ironically enough, sug-gested 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 Dun-can Hamilton, a former SNP MSP, go-ing to head-to-head with two Scottish grandees of Westminster in a two-hour debate on the future of Scotland. In a pre-quel 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 ap-pointed as Defence Secretary and finally Foreign Secretary. Those, of course, were the days when Conservative MPs still out-numbered pandas in Scotland.

Mr Darling set the consensual tone of debate, and was as positive as any politi-cian could be, campaigning under a one-word cause: “No”. This issue of independ-ence, 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 for-mer 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 Parlia-ment, and though he declined to be spe-cific – “there is no agreement on the third way”— he appeared to be leaning towards

“devo max.” Strikingly, he echoed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and Mi-chael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, by repeatedly calling for an early referen-dum.

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 independ-ence; but the point of a democratic ref-erendum 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 independ-ence,” he said. “If it takes longer, because it is the will of the people, I am comfort-able about that.”

The SNP has its own areas of fuzziness. The “social union” – the mess of familial ties that links the cross-border communi-ties – is vaunted by the party as a guar-antee of good relations between Scotland and “RUK”, the Rest of the United King-dom. Ms Sturgeon explained that inde-pendence 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 iso-lation or separation. It is about Scotland taking responsibility and working with others for the future good of our country.”

Enlightened exchange anda touch of political steel

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, address-ing 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 repre-sentation on the Monetary Policy Com-mittee 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 disci-pline so we do not need them.” After all, she added, every year over the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament the administra-tion had balanced the books.

Ms Sturgeon’s other, eminently sen-sible, 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 be-fit 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 secu-rity. “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 ex-traordinary 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.

Alistair Darling advocated more powers for the Scottish Parliament and called for an early referendum Picture: James Glossop

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

Andrew Marr and Nicola Sturgeon

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union4

If the referendum is to be held in au-tumn 2014, the SNP has just two-and-a-half years to persuade the majority of Scots to back their vision of an inde-pendent 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 word-ing of the question and the method for collecting opinion have occasionally changed, we are able to illustrate the fluc-tuations 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, back-ing 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 inde-pendence 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 Assem-bly, 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 cre-ate 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 inde-pendence was relatively low, never ex-ceeding 25 per cent, coinciding with a time of internal ructions and poor elec-toral 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 co-incided 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 unsurpris-ing: Scots were still basking in the glow of the 1997 referendum where 74 per cent had backed devolution and the new par-liament was due to begin its work in 1999. Feelings of national pride may also have been enhanced by Scotland’s participa-tion in the forthcoming football World Cup, the first time the national team had qualified since 1990.

Famously, the former Labour cabi-net 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 ad-ministration 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 mi-nority SNP government in 2007, support for independence slipped, going as low as

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 parlia-mentary term has seen the issue rise up the political agenda. The political domi-nance of the SNP and of First Minister Alex Salmond since the election has al-lowed 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 par-ties in Scotland are going through a tran-sitional period, with each having elected a new leader since the 2011 election. Each party is also manoeuvring to adopt a nu-anced and distinct position on the consti-tutional 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 re-cent 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 govern-ment.

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 to-wards 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 of which way voters will turn.

35 years of Scottish attitudes to independence

1

Version 1 | Public (DELETE CLASSIFICATION) Version 1 | Internal Use Only Version 1 | Confidential Version 1 | Strictly Confidential © Ipsos MORI

Paste co-brand logo

here Support for independence – 35 year trend

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.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Sup

port

for i

ndep

ende

nce

(%) Introduction of the poll tax

in Scotland Devolution referendum

Scottish Parliament opens

Devolution referendum

SNP form minority government

SNP form majority government

Support for independence — 35 year trend

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

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.

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

John Collins celebrates after scoring in the 1998 World Cup Finals

By Mark Diffley, research .director at Ipsos MORI Scotland

Future of the Unionthe times | 6th March 2012 5

By Mark Diffley

Our most recent poll for The Times shows that judgements about future economic pros-perity in Scotland will be the key factors in deciding wheth-

er the electorate vote “Yes” or “No” in the independence referendum.

But views on personal prosperity, job security and economic conditions in Scot-land will not be the only referendum bat-tleground. Analysis of our polling since the late 1970s shows that there are other factors which will play a role in persuad-ing 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 be-gan polling on the issue back in 1978, sup-port for independence was below 20 per cent (14 per cent in March 1979). Within the first five years of a Conservative gov-ernment, support was around 25 per cent and by the late 1980s and early 1990s sup-port was regularly around 35 per cent.

This increased support for the national-ist cause was driven at least in part by the effects of the Conservative government’s industrial policy in the 1980s and, spe-

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

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 is-sues or by the tone he adopts.

The strategy of the Scottish govern-ment 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 independ-ence was not top of its agenda. Conse-quently, though it was a popular govern-ment, support for independence did not increase.

This changed when the parliamentary arithmetic gave the SNP an overall major-ity after the 2011 election and enabled the party to focus with confidence on the ref-erendum and develop its long-term strat-egy for winning it. This focus and strategy has led to a growth in support for inde-pendence, 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 national-ist 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 lev-els 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 major-ity. For those supporting independence in the lead-up to the referendum, this means that they still face a huge challenge in reaching that majority.

35 years of Scottish attitudes to independenceUnderstanding the opinion battlegrounds where the country’s fate will be decidedBy Chris McLean, research executive, Ipsos MORI Scotland

Despite fluctuations in polling data, support for in-dependence 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 pub-lic 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 Sal-mond, 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 cul-tural 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 parlia-ment.

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 en-trenched 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 liv-ing 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 ap-pears 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. In-deed, 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 per-sonal finances and job security, as well as for economic con-ditions across the country, if Scotland were to become inde-pendent.

So, while recent increased support for independence pro-vides hope for supporters of independence, current polling evidence suggests that it will take an extraordinary reversal of opinion to secure a majority.

From World Cups to the Poll Tax, what changes voters’ minds?

6th March 2012 | the times

Future of the Union6

International Auctioneers and Valuers - bonhams.com/whisky

Whisky at BonhamsForthcoming saleWednesday 7 March at 11amEdinburgh

We are also currently consigning for our forthcoming whisky sale on Wednesday 27 June.

martin.green@bonhams.com0131 225 2266

‘People matter much more than politics’By Peter Jones

Scotland’s economic perfor-mance 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 Eco-nomic Advisers, also said that nei-ther 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 actu-ally quite a good question.

“The reality is that the economic performance of an advanced mod-ern state does not depend very much on its constitutional arrange-ments. It doesn’t even depend very much on its macro-economic poli-cies.

“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 re-gardless 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 de-grees 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 de-scribed.”

Professor Kay said Scottish poli-ticians had a number of economic powers which they had not used, add-ing: “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 is-sues, but it has not yet done so.”

David Bell, professor of economics at Stirling University, said that Scot-

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 in-dependent 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 fis-cal freedom.

Ben Thomson, chairman of Re-form Scotland, said that all polling showed Scots wanting some middle way which gave Scotland more con-trol over taxes and welfare, but none of the political parties, either at West-minster or Holyrood, were offering it.

Maintaining the UK was very im-portant, he said, but each level of gov-ernment – British, Scottish, and local – should be responsible for raising the money it spent.

Scotland 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 govern-ment 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 invest-ment 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.

Professor John Kay and Reform Scotland’s Ben Thomson

Future of the Unionthe times | 6th March 2012 7

7

Whatever the shape of your fi nances, we will build a fi nancial planto help you achieve your goals. Our expertise includes giving adviceon 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

A professional approach to wealth advice, shaped to you.

Towry, sponsors of

‘People matter much more than politics’ The lessons from history about our futureBy Magnus Linklater

Scotland’s leading historian, Professor Tom Devine, set the scene for the debate by re-minding 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 “semi-independence” 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 de-fined would have been in place genera-tions before the devolution of the 1990s.

All that came to an end with the Thatcher governments of the 1990s. The ancient balance of powers be-tween 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 pro-posed referendum on Scottish inde-pendence poses the most serious chal-lenge 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 peo-ple. But the unionist parties are unwill-ing 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 pragma-tism between the parties.

At best, that opposition seems quix-otic and is likely to result in many more Scots opting for the indepen-dence 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 pri-mordial. “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 over-generous 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 commer-cial 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 Con-stitution Unit, also said his views had changed – since the publication of the unit’s seminal book on Scottish indepen-dence, which had argued for a single-question referendum, and then a second vote to test the outcome of negotiations. He agreed that a multi-option referen-dum 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 of-fer to facilitate the referendum, either by legislating at Westminster, or by a sec-tion 30 Order under the Scotland Act.”

Although Professor Hazell had previously argued that the UK gov-ernment should stay out of the pro-cess, it would be hard for them to avoid issues such as the wording, the timing, who supervises the ref-erendum, whether there should be a second question, and whether there should be a second referendum. On the wording, the Electoral Com-mission would have a role. The Scot-tish government and parliament are not obliged to follow Electoral Com-mission advice; but the UK govern-ment might withdraw its support if they declined to do so.

Professor Robert Hazell

6th March 2012 | the times88

There are 460 practising advocates in Scotland, each of whom is a self-employed, 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 non-partisan 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 ‘safety-net’ 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

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.

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.

www.advocates.org.uk