Whatever the vote, humility is needed

Profound and probably irreversible changes in the relationships between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are a prospect to be welcomed, whatever the actual result of the referendum on Scottish independence next Thursday. Indeed it is the referendum itself, rather than the unpredictable result, that has brought this about. The Scots want to be masters of their own destiny, but only as far as is feasible in an inter-dependent world. A Scotland independent of the Parliament in Westminster would still, according to the expectations of independence-minded Scottish politicians, want to pool its sovereignty. It would want to join the United Nations, Nato, the Council of Europe and the European Union; share a currency with England – whether the English approved of that or not; and enter a host of treaty obligations with the rest of the United Kingdom on immigration, customs, policing, and so on.

The result would not necessarily differ much from what is on offer from the opponents of independence, namely the transfer of most of the Westminster Parliament’s remaining powers over Scottish affairs to Holyrood. That would include taxation and welfare but exclude defence and foreign policy. The principal issue in contention in this scenario is the basing of Britain’s nuclear deterrence in Scotland. Removing it to, say, Plymouth, would make no big difference to the moral issue; and in any event, current Nato policy provides for a nuclear guarantee.

But these are not the fundamental issues. These last few months, the Scots have experienced an awakening of political and national self-confidence that has been both impressive to see and a reproach to Westminster-based politicians. The Scottish National Party has risen on the same tide of disillusionment with London-based governing elites of Right and Left that has attracted many voters south of the border to the UK Independence Party. Labour lost power in Scotland through arrogance; the Tories were more or less wiped out because, since Margaret Thatcher’s day, they have treated it with little short of contempt.

So London’s reaction to the result on Thursday, whatever it is, must have a strong element of humility and contrition about it, not score-settling. The democratic principle that government is with the consent of the governed has been undermined by the Coalition’s economic, fiscal and welfare policies that appear to have been set in Westminster and Whitehall with scant regard for Scottish interests. Ed Miliband’s failure to capture the public imagination with strong alternatives has left the field clear for Alex Salmond’s vision of a more just and equal society.

Nevertheless, the line between brave and foolhardy will be hard to draw as Thursday’s vote approaches. The link to Westminster, Whitehall and the City offers the Scots stability, an anchorage in a stormy world; and the notion that independence can be both exciting and safe is highly optimistic. If the “yes” side wins, the prospects are daunting and uncertain. Has the case for such a gamble really been made? The Scots have to ask themselves whether the inevitable disruption is proportionate to any gain.

The circumstances of the 1707 Union of Parliaments were quite different, but it produced three centuries of friendship between former sworn enemies who have stood together in the face of horrendous challenges, including two world wars. The relationship between Scotland and England may have temporarily lost its way, but over the centuries it has not been one of endless one-way exploitation. It is a story of mutual enrichment, inspiration, solidarity and cooperation. Whatever the outcome now, the two nations under the one Crown need to find new political expressions of this very “British” relationship so it can continue, to the great benefit of each other and the wider world.