Whichever way the Scots vote on Thursday – and at the moment it’s too close to call – the old Union is dead. Even if the Noes win, a constitutional settlement that is supported by only 51% of the people of one of the component countries of the United Kingdom is only surviving on life support.
Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, in a last-ditch attempt to save the Union, have jointly offered a major constitutional change with more devolution. Tinkering with a constitution is like removing one strut from the Eiffel Tower, you can’t stop with one piece. Why should Scottish Westminster MPs vote on English income tax? Before you know it, you are revising the entire structure.
That in fact is my eccentric reason for hoping for a No vote. It would force a proper constitutional house-cleaning in the United Kingdom. There would be a good chance of getting rid of the mumbo-jumbo about Crown privilege behind which unaccountable agencies like GCHG can shelter. The museum-piece House of Lords could be replaced by a Council of Nations like the German Bundesrat, with blocking powers on matters affecting the autonomous sphere of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The catalogue of human rights in the Human Rights Act could be raised, as everywhere else in the civilised world, to its proper level as a constitutional, not merely legislative, guarantee.
George Monbiot, the always interesting and often infuriating Guardian pundit, argues the other way. He thinks that Westminster is so corrupt and plutocratic that the Scots need independence to have a chance of clean democracy. Besides, he hopes that the shock and example would trigger an English movement for real constitutional reform.
Whatever, the impact on England has approximately zero weight in the decision of the Scots. The nationalists have, it is now clear, not done their homework on the economic impacts, especially the currency question. That’s being charitable. See Mark Carney, Paul Krugman, and Simon Wren-Lewis on this. The No campaign, led by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, has concentrated on the large economic risks. True enough, but by abandoning the terrain of emotional identification to the Yes side, they have defined the choice as one between the reckless courage of Wallace and the dour calculation of the Duke of Queensberry in 1707. Not surprisingly, men favour Yes and women No.
But what flag-waving appeal could have worked? Part of the deal for the Scots in 1707, after the failure of their own colonial venture in Darien, was to join in England’s imperial and commercial expansion, for glory and profit. They were not cheated on this. Scots played a quite disproportionate part in the British Empire, from its trading-houses to its battlefields. Glasgow became the shipbuilder to Empire. Hong Kong was created by Scots. But that’s gone now. Cameron can still offer occasional battles to the shrunken Scottish regiments; his oath of vengeance on ISIS was not just theatre. But generally, Britain is now just another peaceful European welfare state, cultivating its gardens like Candide. There is no wider vision or ambition to stir Unionist blood, not even building Europe, an unpopular project. So why can’t Scotland be its own cosy welfare state like Denmark or Slovenia? Catalans and Basques are asking the same question, with potentially graver consequences for Spain.