George Osborne's High Noon approach to Scotland will backfire

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/george-osborne-approach-scotland-currency-union

Version 0 of 1.

The last few days may turn out to be defining moments in the Scottish independence referendum. George Osborne has ruled out a currency union in the event of Scottish independence. José Manuel Barroso, outgoing president of the European Union, added to the frenetic atmosphere by saying that it would be "very difficult if not impossible" for all 28 EU members to accept Scotland as a new member.

Alex Salmond responded to Osborne and Barroso today in Aberdeen, talking of the perils of "campaign rhetoric" defining the anti-independence case. We now seem to be in a different political age from just over a week ago when David Cameron's message was that the union was the "greatest partnership in human history".

The chancellor's robust intervention, rejecting any notion of a currency union, has been interpreted as a response to polls showing increased support for independence but might equally have been a response to another kind of independence, that of the Bank of England. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, delivered a balanced speech on currency union at the end of January in which he outlined the limitations on Scottish autonomy that would result from a currency union. But he made it clear that it could be made to work.

There is a serious debate to be had on monetary policy in the event of independence but it is unlikely to occur this side of the referendum. There are supporters of independence who are uncomfortable with the limitations on autonomy that currency union involves but campaign needs have prevented a full and open debate of late. A mixture of expediency and pragmatism has led the Scottish government to its adopted position.

The chancellor's speech is part of the overall UK government strategy evident from the outset when it rejected a third option on the ballot paper. The choice it wants voters to carry in their minds as they enter the polling booths is between only two clear, polarised options. Currency union blurs the binary choice. Independence must be portrayed in fundamentalist form, not some soft-focused option that will involve considerable continuity even if that means ruling out a policy that would make more sense in practice.

There are a number of dangers in this strategy. The first is credibility. The chancellor's refusal to answer questions on the impact of his position on the economy of the rest of the UK cannot be sustained for long.

The massed forces of the Westminster establishment have pronounced but that could be counterproductive given how its political classes are seen in Scotland (and the rest of the UK). Where are the voices of other parts of the UK? How do the north of England and other English regions outside the south-east find a voice? Are there ways to stop this becoming a non-dialogue between two governments and elites, which leave most of the people of Britain frozen out?

If a future UK government were to find it impossible to negotiate on these issues, the north of England would surely suffer. There is evidence of border economic effects but these are not absolute and the north of England now has much to fear if campaign rhetoric becomes public policy.

These heightened claims coming from London will leave a legacy. The weekend's news reports suggest that the Better Together campaign accepts that there has been at least a short-term backlash that does not fit with claims that this would be a "game changer". If the strategy is to force Scots to remain in the union by suggesting that London will do its utmost to make independence unworkable, it will leave a sour taste.

Many of these interventions beg the question of what sort of union it is where George Osborne with Labour and Lib Dem backing can lay down unilateral terms. The language, and even more than that the attitude, came over as not exactly helpful to grown-up democratic debate.

Whatever the outcome of the September Scottish vote, Osborne has dealt what could come to be seen as a significant blow to the union of the United Kingdom that he so passionately believes in. All of this has to be seen as part of the long-term crises of British unionism: from the patrician unionism of Macmillan and Home to the High Noon unionism of Osborne is a huge, perhaps, irreversible shift.