The Courier & Advertiser (Angus and Dundee)
I feel there is a script here from which we are not supposed to deviate
THE LOVE of politics for its own sake can be odious. The referendum “deal” scheduled to be struck today in Edinburgh by the Prime Minister and First Minister A lex Salmond reeks of horse-trading, or rather of what comes out of a horse.
A t the Tory conference it was publicly claimed that negotiations had been successful. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the Prime Minister would drop in to Bute House for just a coffee and blether. But both Mr Salmond and his Finance Secretary have been coy on that point. Could that be because they are keen for the “deal” to be seen to be made in Scotland?
It would make a clean sweep. A n election in Scotland won outright, a consultation conducted on terms set by the SNP and now a referendum and franchise designed and controlled by Holyrood – which is controlled by the SNP at every level. I get the feeling that there is a script here from which we are not supposed to deviate.
John Swinney was careful to say that the Scottish Government wants a referendum that is agreed by everybody and a result that is accepted by everybody, which sounds fine. Except for the fact that “everybody” has not had a role in this apart from the unimpressive “national conversation” of distant memory.
If “everybody” had truly been involved, we might have had the second question which opinion polls suggest is strongly supported, namely more powers for Holyrood short of completely severing our links with Westminster. Mr Cameron and his allies shot down that option, again for political rather than objective reasons.
Of course the agreement, should it be forthcoming notwithstanding all the fancy footwork, will not be presented crudely. Noble compromise will be wheeled out to justify both the proposed single question on the ballot paper and the extension of the voting qualification to include a younger age group. I’m not so sure that it is really all that noble.
It is unwise, of course, to judge others by yourself. So I set aside the rather vivid mental images I retain of myself as a finicky teenager whose grasp of politics was, let us say, unformed. It is embarrassing to admit, but I was usually most impressed by the last person patient enough to share their views with me. A nd of course I felt the full flush of idealism.
There is nothing wrong with excited idealism as such but it’s generally the better for being knocked about a bit. Who does not say later in life “I would have acted differently if I knew then what I know now”?
Perhaps age has withered something in me. So who am I to fret that teenagers might be susceptible to pressures that adults can better resist?
A fter all, there are 16 and 17-year-olds that I wouldn’t trust with a toasting fork let alone a vote, but that is true of plenty of 20-year-olds as well.
It is argued that if a 16-year-old is mature enough to join the army, marry and pay tax then why not vote as well. Fair enough, make that a qualification. Grant the vote to any 17-year-old who has faced the Taliban or a wife or (phew) both.
A nother justification is that the practice of casting a real vote dovetails in neatly to the teaching of modern studies in school, the duties of good citizenship, etc. Personally, I rather resent a historical decision on the future of my country being incorporated into a real life exercise for adolescents to practise good citizenship. Surely it is worth more than that.
A nd now what? Two years in which we bicker among ourselves (again) about a constitutional construct that no-one really knows how and whether it will work?
These are not the ideal conditions in which to fight a prolonged recession. I may be a minority of one on this (I am resigned to it) but I think I know what matters more in the long run.
Students of political warfare may have noted that Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond do have one thing in common: they both have to change majority thinking.
The First Minister has to swing his electorate behind the idea that Scotland is better off detached from the rest of the UK. Mr Cameron is thirled to the unpopular policy of budget deficit reduction.
The difference is that Mr Cameron has Boris Johnson snapping cheerily at his heels whereas Mr Salmond reigns supreme. Viewed that way, it is an unequal contest.