‘EVENTS, dear boy, events!” Thus spoke Prime Minister Harold Macmillan when asked what he feared most in politics. Recent days have seen the UK Tory Government holed beneath the water line by an unexpected education crisis. Tens of thousands of people have died in the Covid-19 debacle. A Brexit economic catastrophe is looming after Christmas. But never underestimate the wrath of the English middle class if they fear little Sophie or Montague has been denied their expected A-level passport to Oxbridge and the good life.
The import of the grand exam cock-up in England lies not in the career-shattering implications for Gavin Williamson, the former tableware salesman turned Education Secretary. Rather, the exam chaos down south exposes the terminal ineptitude of the Boris Johnson administration.
Boris is a showman who was chosen to see off the dull but dangerous Jeremy Corbyn and get Brexit done. With that job completed, the lazy Old Etonian was expected to sit back and enjoy the political ride. Alas, Boris’s singular managerial incompetence has been proved beyond all doubt.
This has deep implications for the British constitution and state. Without the pandemic, doubtless Boris would have blundered on happily. Brexit was always going to be a mess but the hedge funds who pull Boris’s strings had discounted this because they stand to make a mint gambling on the ensuing economic chaos.
At this point, events got out of hand, however. First the terrible dithering and even more terrible excess death toll caused by the coronavirus showed that Boris really is a fool and his Cabinet is a collection of dullards. Result: the Tory press started to feel worried.
Now, on top of this, the Williamson exam car crash threatens the English middle class in its family bosom. Witness the vitriolic press headlines in the Tory media directed against him. But Williamson is only a surrogate target. Everyone knows that Boris is in charge and Boris has been proved a liability.
This is where Scotland comes in. For the sudden loss of credibility of the Johnson administration in England has transformed the Scottish Question. Coupled with the surge in support for independence, and the dramatic rise in Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity ratings, the balance has surely swung towards the likelihood of a second referendum within a reasonably short timeframe – a referendum the Yes vote stands to win.
Until recently, I was convinced that Boris would block a Section 30 and a second referendum come what may. After all, if Scotland votes to quit the Union, Boris will go down in history as the man who destroyed the United Kingdom. He would then have to quit politics in ignominy to spend more time with his various families. However, by a curious quirk of fate, the various Tory Cabinet cock-ups in recent months have actually made a Section 30 more likely. Why?
Firstly, because Boris and the Tory Government have been seriously weakened by their serial incompetence and their room for manoeuvre is thereby limited. Secondly, because the SNP are flying high. Back in March, Alex Salmond’s acquittal seemed to presage a civil war inside the SNP and a crisis for Nicola Sturgeon. But since the pandemic, the FM’s empathetic and reassuring daily appearances – simultaneously on multiple TV channels – have made her a national icon (with a little help from Janey Godley). More so even than the emergence of a permanent, pro-independence majority, Sturgeon’s massive lead in the popularity stakes compared with any other British politician has assured the SNP of a likely majority in next year’s Holyrood election.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson warned that he can’t say no to indyref2 mandate
Once upon a time, the Tories had the option of contesting Scottish Parliament elections on non-constitutional (back to the “day job”) issues. But the FM has seized that high ground with her deft handling of the medical crisis.
THIS is what makes life truly difficult for an already much-weakened Boris. If the Tories are forced to fight the Holyrood elections on an anti-referendum ticket and then lose decisively, it will be impossible for Boris to reject a Section 30 order indefinitely.
True, the Tories could demand that the SNP also win a majority at the 2023 or 2024 UK General Election before granting another referendum, but they would be hard pushed to make that stand.
So what will they do? Already the thinking Tory press (The Spectator and the Financial Times) are touting the notion of a non-binary, multi-option referendum. Boris is a gesture politician and I think this might appeal to him. Offer the troublesome Scots not one but several options, in order to split and confuse the anti-UK vote.
It is time the national movement in Scotland prepared its defences against this obvious manoeuvre. The simplest “spoiler” is a multi-option referendum offering a) instant independence; b) home rule with complete fiscal autonomy; and c) closing down Holyrood and returning to a unitary UK Parliament.
This menu carefully avoids the shark-infested waters of federalism. The Scots can pack their bags or take a halfway house of funding themselves with the UK framework.
That might be enough to split off the new recruits to independence who are more “safety first” voters than radical independentistas. In a multiple-choice ballot, diehard Unionists might vote with the home rulers to thwart outright separation.
The multiple option approach also complicates the referendum campaign itself. There would be three, publicly funded referendum organisations, two of which would oppose independence.
They would have the weight of the media behind them. The home rulers would be fronted by ostensibly centrist Labour, LibDem and moderate Tory personalities, who would be safely insulated from the right-wing heidbangers in the “abolish Holyrood” camp. It might just confuse the issue enough to thwart independence yet again.
The other “spoiler” approach is to offer a genuine federal alternative to independence. We know that federalism is always the last-ditch proposal of the diehard Unionists (see 2014) and that they don’t really mean it. After all, the Liberals and later LibDems have been touting federalism for more than 70 years without lifting a little finger to do anything about it. Ditto Labour.
Yet, faced with the genuine, imminent threat of Scottish succession the Unionists might take the gamble. Besides, Boris Johnson could always use federalism as a way of saving his political bacon in England by offering the northern “Red Wall” regions their own federal assembly. He doesn’t actually need to deliver federalism, just bugger up the Scottish referendum.
The issue in Scotland is this: we must not be complacent that we have Boris cornered and the referendum is as good as won. Those of us in the indy camp who favour a Plan B are not unaware of the pressures on the Tories to accede to a Section 30. As I have explained, recent events have made this more likely than not.
But anyone shouting “I told you so” is making a fatal mistake. Boris and Co will still try to avoid a Section 30. For instance, by “delaying” the implementation of a Section 30 for three years to institute a Royal Commission on federalism. Then, if cornered, Boris will almost certainly insist on a multi-option referendum. We must prepare for such tactics – now rather than later.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel