THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM AND AFTER: The United Kingdom on the path to quasi-federalism? Presentation by Alan Trench Dalhousie University, Halifax 22 October 2014

Getting to the referendum A 2007 manifesto commitment for the SNP – qualified in their 2011 manifesto (‘introduce a bill’) – but politically inevitable with their majority ‘Legal, clear, (fair) and decisive’ v. ‘made in Scotland’ Terms agreed October 2012 – the ‘Edinburgh agreement’ – Conferred powers on Scottish Parliament to call referendum – One poll, one question (no ‘third option’) – By end of December 2014 – Regulation by (UK) Electoral Commission – incl advice on question – The Scottish Parliament franchise (residential qualification – no expat voting) but 16/17 year olds able to vote – Simple majority

The question – first attempt First attempt in 2010 draft referendum bill involved two questions: 1.The Scottish Parliament should have its financial powers and responsibilities extended as recommended by the Commission on Scottish Devolution. Do you agree with this proposal? [Yes/no] 2.The Scottish Government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1, the Parliament’s powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved. Do you agree with this proposal? [Yes/no]

The question as approved by Electoral Commission Should Scotland be an independent country? [Yes/no] Not much room for ambiguity But no mention of being ‘outside’ or separate from the United Kingdom Or of statehood (since Scotland is a ‘country’, even within the United Kingdom

Constitutional Preferences In Scotland,

Who ought to have the most say over how Scotland is run? (%)

Who has the most say over how Scotland is run? (%)

Referendum strategies: Yes side The SNP did well in 2007 and 2011 by splitting a vote for the party from a vote for independence: – its constitutional position was its least popular policy Expanding the ‘Overton window’ of what people could conceive And moving from ‘could’ to ‘should’ to ‘must’ Target of traditionally Labour, (ex) working class voters Grassroots strategy: local meetings and engagement – Lots of ‘ginger groups’ – Women for Yes, Business for Yes, etc – Relationship between Yes Scotland, the SNP and ‘Radical Independence’ movement

Referendum strategies: No side Divided campaign: ‘Better Together’ coalition of three parties, animosity between them Initial determination to draw clear distinction between ‘Union’ and ‘separation’ – ‘excluded middle’ strategy – Inherent in a Yes/No choice between two options, neither of which was what voters most wanted – Reluctance to talk positively especially about ‘more powers’ – Negative strategy was one thing they could agree on Problems with grass roots organisation – Danger for Labour activists of working alongside Tories – Bureaucracy/top heavy Ended up with mediatised campaign ‘More powers’ offers appeared late in the day, therefore seemed reluctant, half-hearted, made under pressure

Role of UK Government Largely played the game ‘straight’ (Michael Moore’s influence?) Respecting mandate for referendum ‘Scotland Analysis’ programme: informing debate about status quo and its advantages (and what would be lost with Yes vote) No ‘pre-negotiation’ of independence But did take sterling currency union off the table No preparation for Yes vote

Key events in the campaign Theatre of the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’, October 2012 Passage of Referendum bill, mid-2013, passed November 2013 Scotland’s Future white paper, published November 2013 Chancellor’s announcement on currency union, February 2014 TV debates between campaign leaders (A Salmond and A Darling) – 5 and 25 August Poll: 18 September 2014

The result Turnout: per cent (and boosted by late registrations) Yes 2,001, % No1,617, %

Where they voted

Who voted Yes Yes voters were: More male than female More in age groups (and majority in 34-44, 44-54) – older voters were strongly No SNP, Labour, or Lib Dem voters – not Conservatives – But 10% of SNP voters voted No! More likely to have decided how to vote in closing stages of campaign – No voters more likely to have decided a year ago Yes voters influenced by the NHS, disenchantment with Westminster politics No voters influenced by keeping the pound, pensions, defence Yes voters 3 points happier to tell people how they voted than No voters Yes voters much more likely to think issue only resolved for 5 years – No voters for much longer

How No won The referendum was No’s to lose. They came quite close to doing so. Pushing the ‘negative side’ of independence appears to have swung undecided voters their way as well as consolidating core vote. Also benefitted from ‘quiet Nos’ who didn’t want to talk about it (note late polls all gave No 53%, were 2 points out) No positive story: the positive one of ‘more devolution’ came in late, in way that made it easy to doubt credibility Had little answer to the late Yes surge, built on long-term grassroots ground-work, and different ideas about the sort of society Scotland should be

How Yes lost Yes did well in the (ex-) industrial West of Scotland (Glasgow and surroundings), but not well enough – Yes did poorly in the SNP heartland areas of NE Scotland Yes voters were ‘traditional Labour’ types, many disenchanted, many with little stake in status quo (no mortgages, savings, pensions) – Campaign lines about the welfare state particularly resonant with these voters – Many keen to say ‘I’m not a nationalist but I’m voting Yes’ BUT Yes fell into trap of believing their own energy, activity and ‘mood’ were enough – deceived much of commentariat as well Also believed 4-point lead in private polling just before the poll

‘More devolution’ Greater self-government within UK clear preference of plurality (often majority) of Scottish voters in run-up to referendum Always unclear what that meant in terms of powers: Scottish Govt already responsible for c. 65% of public spending in Scotland But focus on taxation and welfare – C. 60 per cent of voters thought these should be devolved – around same levels as health and education – SG funded by block grant from Westminster, minimal tax powers – No welfare competence – including spending power

‘Devo Max’ What the SNP was really seeking? – Set out most clearly in Scottish Govt 2009 white paper Your Scotland Your Choice Devolution of all non-sovereign functions: everything but defence, foreign affairs, currency and macro- economy Implies full fiscal autonomy: Scottish Parliament respon- sible for setting and collecting all taxes in/for Scotland – End to UK welfare state – Tax competition? What sort of a Union is one Scotland largely opts out of? - Immigration?- Business & financial regulation? - EU matters?- Pensions?

Delivering ‘more devolution’ First steps through Calman Commission (2009) and Scotland Act 2012 – Devolution of 10 points of personal income tax, same rate on all three bands (‘fiscal accountability’ – not about autonomy) – Due to take effect April 2016 – Plus two land taxes, on transactions and waste disposals to landfill – from April 2015 – No welfare devolution, minor changes to other functions ‘Devo Plus’ (linked to Reform Scotland) Institute for Public Policy Research’s ‘Devo More’ project 3 party commissions: Lib Dem reported Oct 2012, Labour interim report April 2013, final March 2014, Conservatives May 2014

The key Devo More proposals Intended to be union-reinforcing, not destabilising, and to work for Wales and N Ireland too if they wish Aim also to eliminate blame-shifting to Westminster Taxation: – Devolve all personal income tax – Assign 10 points (of 20) of VAT – Alcohol and tobacco duties? – Employers’ National Insurance contributions?? (payroll tax) Welfare: – Devolve Housing Benefit (problems with Universal Credit – Attendance Allowance (overlap with personal social services) – Operation of Work Programme (active labour market programme: but not out-of-work benefits) – Power to supplement UK-level welfare (spending power)

‘More devolution’ and the parties Lib Dems: – Devolve all personal income tax save personal allowance – Assign corporation tax revenues – No welfare devolution Labour – Increase devolution of income tax from 10 to 15 points – Upward but not downward differential increases of top rates – Preserve Barnett formula – Devolve Housing Benefit, Attendance Allowance, operation of Work Programme Conservatives – Devolve all personal income tax save personal allowance – Assign proportion of VAT revenues – Devolve HB, AA, power to supplement UK-level welfare

What happens next? Scottish politics I A bright future for the SNP Did well in 2007 and 2011 despite unpopularity of independence. – Success through valence politics verging on catch-all party Yes campaign connected to a large number of voters traditionally hostile to SNP. – Independence now more popular than SNP – was other way round. Huge membership surge post-referendum – Much energy came from outside SNP – Radical Independence/Commonweal movement

What happens next? Scottish politics II SNP can now reposition itself as broad party of the (centre) left – Though that will weaken its appeal to centre and right – How much to the left? Impact of new members Still most impressive party of government But must find a compelling constitutional position – Devo max arguments might have appeal especially if more- devo promises aren’t delivered Lib Dems: Likely to lose votes but not many Westminster seats – What happens when those voters look for a new party? And already down to core vote for Holyrood

What happens next? Scottish politics III Not good for Scottish Labour Already weak in membership (c. 15,000), organisation, ideas, leadership Convoluted, complicated and limited more-devo platform (‘devo nano’) Now likely to lose large numbers of votes to SNP Weakening it at both Westminster and Holyrood – And GB-Labour depends on S-Lab to bolster its Westminster position; what happens if it goes down to 25 Scottish MPs (from 40)?

What happens next? Scottish politics IV Better outlook for Conservatives Strongest and most coherent more-devo programme Effective leadership Possibility of becoming strongest pro-Union party if Labour collapse? – But how to attract centrist votes? ‘Unionists’ (protestants) did that when religion was a major cleavage. It now isn’t. Willing to move to centre ground? How could Tories form/enter government? Alliances with both Labour and SNP very problematic.

What happens next? Constitutional processes and debates Step 1: the Smith Commission Membership from 5 main parties in Scottish Parliament To come up with ‘heads of agreement’ by end November for more devolution Draft clauses by 25 January 2015 Inclusion in 2015 UK General Election manifestoes (electoral mandate), bill from new government The first time ever that all parties have been engaged in the same process with the same remit What position/role will SNP play? Scottish Parliament will need to consent to any bill. When? How will it vote?

What happens next? Constitutional processes II Step 2: Cabinet committee on devolution Despite name, concerned with ‘English votes for English laws’ at Westminster Announced by Cameron as part of post-devolution package on more powers for Scotland Supposed to work to same timescale as ‘more powers’ (but needs to deliver actual change by April 2015 – not just draft clauses – to handicap a possible Labour govt) A Conservative issue opposed by Labour, limited support from Lib Dems Intended for ‘English lobby’ on Tory back benches, and to outflank UKIP

What happens next? Constitutional processes III Step 2: Cabinet committee on devolution cont’d But English are unhappy and something needs to be done EVEL not straightforward technically (what’s an ‘English law’? Financial implications given how Barnett works?) And governability issues if there are different majorities in England and Great Britain as a whole There are essentially two variants of EVEL – ‘Soft’: English MPs only voting, at certain stages – e.g. committee or report stage – ‘Hard’: English MPs only voting on all stages of legislation relating only to England – including 2 nd and 3 rd reading Both Conservative policy (Clarke Democracy Task Force) and McKay Commission recommended ‘soft’ version.

What happens next? Constitutional processes IV Step 3: Wales bill Currently before Parliament Measure of fiscal devolution for Wales, like Scotland Act 2012 Controversy over lockstep, to be removed in Lords Cttee stage Question of what happens to Silk Commission Part 2 recommendations – notably devolution of policing, energy schemes

What happens next? Constitutional processes V Step 4: Northern Ireland Recognition of past/flags/parades: lack of progress through Haass. Rows over welfare reform Corporation tax devolution – still under debate Step 5: A constitutional convention Long advocated by Welsh First Minister and other Welsh interests, Commons PCR Cttee Now adopted by UK-level Labour Problematic: remit, timescale, composition, mandate? At best could be stalling tactic; at worst, break up in disarray

A sort-of federal future for the UK? For Scotland and Wales, the ‘self-rule’ side of a federal system is conceivable and not that far off For N Ireland, it’s harder because of the consociational elements of the Belfast Agreement, and role of UK and Irish Govts in assuring that England is a major obstacle to any moves toward federalism – Symmetrical regionalism has no popular support – But England is so big as a whole it would distort, perhaps destroy any federal system The ‘shared rule’ side is even more difficult: – Lords reform has to be a key part – And also implies changes to role of the Commons, the UK Cabinet and civil service that have been avoided so far

Some conclusions The UK has plunged itself into a new era of constitutional mega-politics The problems are made worse by – General disenchantment with Westminster – The way Scottish politics is changing: high levels of debate, engagement and expectation – The relative unfamiliarity with constitutional politics of Westminster politicians – Their unstrategic approach: both in sense of being concerned with short-term tactics and party advantage – And failure to take a UK-wide view

Some conclusions II Cameron has made this messier and more complex by putting England, and EVEL, on the table as well – Blatantly party-political, in way most of UK Govt devolution/ referendum policy under the Coalition has not been – Antagonism between Labour & Conservatives makes any deal very hard to achieve The ‘Scottish issue’ is likely to come back – particularly if there is a referendum on EU membership – Dream scenario for SNP: England votes against, Scotland votes for, SNP in govt and holds referendum to leave one Union in order to stay in the other

Read more on the Devolution Matters blog: