Time to be smarter and bolder against threat of Nicola’s grievance politics

IF YOU’RE struggling to keep your New Year’s resolutions, spare a thought for Nicola Sturgeon, who is resolved to get a second independence referendum out of a Tory government in the next 12 months.

Since inheriting the SNP leadership from Alex Salmond in 2014, Sturgeon has been forced into a series of increasingly ludicrous tests, pledges and rhetorical formulas to string along her impatient support base.

Theresa May said no. Boris Johnson said no. Brexit is happening. Sturgeon is all out of excuses. What will she pivot to next and will her grassroots finally lose its patience?

There will not be a second, legally binding referendum on independence in 2020. But she can only stall for so long. Soon it will become clear she cannot deliver and will urge her troops to focus on winning a mandate at next year’s Holyrood election. She will do this with little regard to her claims already to have a mandate.

Mandate

The truth is she doesn’t have a mandate and cannot obtain one. The constitution is reserved to Westminster and winning a Holyrood poll on a pro-independence manifesto is no more a mandate for a referendum than securing victory on a platform of removing Trident from the Clyde would be a mandate for that.

Bottom line: Scotland will not be leaving the Union, or even voting on it, in 2020. But that is no reason for complacency in Sturgeon’s opponents, not least because the SNP looks set to dominate Scottish politics for years to come.

One day, there may be another Prime Minister like David Cameron who is foolhardy enough to concede a referendum. Fresh thinking and political steel will be needed to see off the Nationalist threat.

The future of the Union depends on four factors: economics, identity, politics and the constitution. The UK Government must entrench and enhance the economic benefits of the Union to Scotland.

Currently, those advantages include participation in the world’s sixth largest economy, access to the UK single market, sharing in the UK’s global footprint and trading clout, and receipt of the block grant from the Treasury. It is important the UK retains its competitive edge as it leaves the EU and the Government would do well to put the UK single market on a more definitive footing.

But the most direct route to strengthening the economic ties of the Union is through the block grant.

Treasury allocations are decided by the Barnett Formula, a funding mechanism that assigns Holyrood a population-based percentage share of spending in England on matters devolved to Scotland. In theory, this means spending rises down south result in more money north of the Border. The reverse is also true. Although Westminster’s pro-spending consensus is in full swing, Barnett is at the mercy of a future austerity programme. Devolved powers on income tax make Holyrood’s budget susceptible to similar spikes and drop-offs elsewhere in the UK.

To end this precarity and reinforce the Union as the source of Scotland’s prosperity, Westminster should consider shifting to a formula of Barnett Plus. This would supplement the existing population-based metric with an additional allocation calculated according to need.

Put simply, Barnett Plus would mean that overall funding for Scotland must increase year on year and, when the grant is set to fall, a top-up payment is allocated that reflects Scotland’s distinctive social and economic needs.

Unlike the block grant, the supplement would not be at the Scottish Government’s discretion to spend and would instead be targeted at areas of high deprivation and demographics most in need – for example, extra investment for single-parent families. Not only would the Union come to mean ever-increasing investment in Scotland but, in prioritising spending, the UK Government would again be involved in day-to-day funding decisions in devolved matters. Economics are not all that matter. As Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the SNP’s 45 per cent base have taught us, it is not enough to win the economic arguments because the debate is also one over identity. The Nationalists are at an advantage because their message is so temptingly simple and emotive: Scotland is a nation held back by another nation and must break free to prosper.

The Unionist argument – which begins with history, takes a detour to explore solidarity, then stalls on talk of pounds and pence – is altogether more unwieldy.

The SNP has captured Scottishness and annexed patriotism to its own narrow political purposes. Sturgeon uses her governmental platform to promote separation. Removing her from office, or at least depriving her of a secessionist majority at Holyrood, must be the primary objective of all Unionists.

Decline

Given the decline of Labour, the Tories must broaden their appeal by championing fairness, opportunity and public services. The Lib Dems will have to reassert themselves as the voice of progressive, environmentally conscious Scotland.

Finally, and most controversially, Westminster will have to reckon with the flaws in the devolution settlement that have allowed the SNP to turn Holyrood into a daily campaign rally for independence.

There are deft ways to do this without handing the Nationalists another grievance. For instance, a new Scotland Act stipulating Scottish parliament resources may only be used to facilitate business on matters devolved to Holyrood and that Scottish Government spending must relate to subjects on which the Scottish parliament has legislative competence.

Reforming Holyrood will meet noisy opposition but it is vital to stop the ratchet effect that tugs Scotland closer and closer to the exit without a single vote being cast. Nicola Sturgeon can gin up fire and fury but, in the end, Boris will decide and she will abide. That is no excuse for Unionist complacency. Downing Street and those who value the Union must become bolder, smarter and more industrious in its defence.