This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/scotland-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Scotland: the nitty-gritty of an ideal Scotland: the nitty-gritty of an ideal
(6 months later)
As with David Cameron's recent trip to Scotland to put the case for a Trident missile that has always been especially divisive there, the readiness of the chancellor to tread on to the unfamiliar political terrain of Scottish independence is a sign of confidence – confidence that the strength of the unionist cause will carry the day in spite of the unpopularity of the coalition in London. It is surely healthier that Westminster's principal players are getting involved – what would it say about the state of the union if they felt unable to? – and Mr Osborne raised one of many important questions about how independence would work, questions inevitably neglected until the fixing of the referendum date focused minds. The Treasury's document leaned too a little heavily on the scaremongering side.As with David Cameron's recent trip to Scotland to put the case for a Trident missile that has always been especially divisive there, the readiness of the chancellor to tread on to the unfamiliar political terrain of Scottish independence is a sign of confidence – confidence that the strength of the unionist cause will carry the day in spite of the unpopularity of the coalition in London. It is surely healthier that Westminster's principal players are getting involved – what would it say about the state of the union if they felt unable to? – and Mr Osborne raised one of many important questions about how independence would work, questions inevitably neglected until the fixing of the referendum date focused minds. The Treasury's document leaned too a little heavily on the scaremongering side.
The tactical temptation to highlight the parallel between a post-independence "sterling union" and the creaking eurozone is obvious enough: there's always mileage in fear. Like every other unionist on both sides of the border, Mr Osborne's immediate concern is winning next year's vote. But it just won't wash to imply that renewing the vows of an long-established monetary marriage is equivalent to the wedding of disparate economies. If independence arrived, what's left of the UK would have to negotiate around this new brute fact, as well as taking account of the reality that London would be powerless to stop a go-it-alone Scotland unilaterally retaining sterling – considerations which would encourage a more flexible stance than Mr Osborne was prepared to concede yesterday.The tactical temptation to highlight the parallel between a post-independence "sterling union" and the creaking eurozone is obvious enough: there's always mileage in fear. Like every other unionist on both sides of the border, Mr Osborne's immediate concern is winning next year's vote. But it just won't wash to imply that renewing the vows of an long-established monetary marriage is equivalent to the wedding of disparate economies. If independence arrived, what's left of the UK would have to negotiate around this new brute fact, as well as taking account of the reality that London would be powerless to stop a go-it-alone Scotland unilaterally retaining sterling – considerations which would encourage a more flexible stance than Mr Osborne was prepared to concede yesterday.
The deeper weakness revealed by the chancellor's tactics is a lack of strategic engagement with what happens after the referendum outcome he hopes for. Sadly, the failure to provide an alternative vision of a union that is sustainable into the future is a weakness shared with too many politicians from all of the anti-nationalist parties. Scottish Labour and its Tory and Lib Dem counterparts have all been thinking about fresh potential devolutionary steps in some depth, but until they can generate more interest from their English colleagues, they will struggle to produce a blueprint that makes sense for the UK as a whole, or creates the impression of permanence. Scottish Labour recently made a principled case for retaining benefits as UK-wide obligations. But the party that once boasted that devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead" now views devolution as an ongoing journey, "a journey towards true home rule".The deeper weakness revealed by the chancellor's tactics is a lack of strategic engagement with what happens after the referendum outcome he hopes for. Sadly, the failure to provide an alternative vision of a union that is sustainable into the future is a weakness shared with too many politicians from all of the anti-nationalist parties. Scottish Labour and its Tory and Lib Dem counterparts have all been thinking about fresh potential devolutionary steps in some depth, but until they can generate more interest from their English colleagues, they will struggle to produce a blueprint that makes sense for the UK as a whole, or creates the impression of permanence. Scottish Labour recently made a principled case for retaining benefits as UK-wide obligations. But the party that once boasted that devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead" now views devolution as an ongoing journey, "a journey towards true home rule".
The danger for unionism is that the nationalist tide is met with a run of unplanned concessions, without any real thought about where they are headed. Even if independence gets the thumbs down, legislation already passed will see further fiscal powers passed to Scotland in 2016; and the big three Westminster parties are considering plans that would transfer yet more power. If unionists on both sides of the border hope for something more than a pyrrhic victory in the referendum, it is time for them to start thinking about a constitution that could endure – and to explain where their journey will end.The danger for unionism is that the nationalist tide is met with a run of unplanned concessions, without any real thought about where they are headed. Even if independence gets the thumbs down, legislation already passed will see further fiscal powers passed to Scotland in 2016; and the big three Westminster parties are considering plans that would transfer yet more power. If unionists on both sides of the border hope for something more than a pyrrhic victory in the referendum, it is time for them to start thinking about a constitution that could endure – and to explain where their journey will end.
What with the Scottish Labour commission, this Treasury report and the SNP's hurried response, this may go down as the week when some of the nitty-gritty of the independence debate finally got an airing. About time too. The hope of the Better Together campaign is that the more the independence argument is subjected to detailed interrogation, the wobblier it will look. But the SNP's case and appeal increasingly rely on the sense that Scotland is hobbled by a Westminster that defines the national economic interest as by what happens in the City. Mr Osborne and his counterparts had better have something concrete to offer on this front. For their part, the Scottish Nationalists must do more to explain the wellsprings of growth for an independent polity. Green tech and IT? Or a low-tax, light-regulation entrepot for international businesses and footloose finance? That debate is one urgently needed not just in Scotland, but across the union.What with the Scottish Labour commission, this Treasury report and the SNP's hurried response, this may go down as the week when some of the nitty-gritty of the independence debate finally got an airing. About time too. The hope of the Better Together campaign is that the more the independence argument is subjected to detailed interrogation, the wobblier it will look. But the SNP's case and appeal increasingly rely on the sense that Scotland is hobbled by a Westminster that defines the national economic interest as by what happens in the City. Mr Osborne and his counterparts had better have something concrete to offer on this front. For their part, the Scottish Nationalists must do more to explain the wellsprings of growth for an independent polity. Green tech and IT? Or a low-tax, light-regulation entrepot for international businesses and footloose finance? That debate is one urgently needed not just in Scotland, but across the union.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.