Veteran Thatcherite MP John Redwood turns his attention to the tricky question of 2015. The next British general election is due in May. If those resident in Scotland (including, incredibly, EU citizens who are not British citizens) choose independence for Scotland, it won’t happen until 2016. so what to do? The idea that the Scots should choose independence and have a say in the next Anglo/Welsh/Northern Irish government is grotesque. Given the Tory blunders of recent years that cannot be ruled out, but there’s talk now of postponing the next general election until 2016. Redwood has a different idea:

Given the narrowing of the polls and the sense of panic in some senior Labour statements, it is now appropriate to offer advice to the government of the rest of the UK in the event of a Scottish decision to leave. The first thing the UK Parliament should do is pass a short Act. This would say that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament will no longer vote on any matter not applying to Scotland, and will take no part in settling the response of the rest of the UK to Scottish withdrawal. It would also cancel the May 2015 General Election in Scotland. Current Scottish MPs would continue for their residual functions until the split of the kingdoms in completed. There is no need to delay the General Election in the rest of the UK. The new government for the rest of the UK should be formed from the winners of the election in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The remaining Scottish MPs would be excluded from calculating the majority and would not be eligible to be Ministers.

Interesting, and, I think, preferable to delaying the election, an approach that would leave Scottish MPs with a say in English matters that they should not have.

Over the Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Warner examines the currency issue. While he seems to overlook the complications possibly posed by Scotland’s desire to (re)join the EU (I looked at some of them here) he is right to stress this about Salmond’s ”plan” to keep the English pound:

Any monetary union with the rest of the UK is therefore certain to involve a high degree of continued fiscal and financial oversight by Westminster. Without such controls, monetary union would be unacceptable to the rest of the UK. But with such controls, it would be equally unacceptable to Mr Salmond. Independence would count for little if Westminster continued to dominate Scottish affairs. The Scots can have monetary union if they like, but they cannot also have Mr Salmond’s promise of welfare-max, otherwise known as socialism.

And for those looking for reassurance from the precedent set by the Czech and Slovak “velvet divorce,” this is well worth noting:

Debt is what renders parallels with the “velvet separation” achieved by the Czech Republic and Slovakia back in the early Nineties largely invalid. The two new countries started out with a common currency – the Czech koruna – but concern about the potential liability to the Czech Republic caused the currency union to be dissolved a few years later. This was achieved with little mishap because the debts involved were still relatively insignificant.
With Scotland, it would be a different ball game, which is why we can expect both Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to announce they are re-domiciling south of the border within hours of a Yes vote. Even if they thought it worth the risk of staying, the Bank of England would not. To forestall a run on the two banks, they would have to remain safely under the Bank of England’s wing.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard adds his trademark good cheer to the conversation, quoting a note from Credit Suisse “on the shock in store for Scotland if it chooses to break up our Union, and if Britain declines to come to the rescue. It expects: recession; deposit flight; 20pc devaluation; 5/10pc cut in wages.”

Meanwhile George Grant joins Jim Bennett in looking at defense:

For decades the SNP stridently held to an anti-NATO policy for Scotland on the basis that membership of a first-strike nuclear alliance would be incompatible with the party’s sincerely-held anti-nuclear posture. In October 2012, however, the SNP narrowly forced through a reversal of this position at their annual conference, leading to the resignation of two of their MSPs and deep unease amongst the party grassroots. Ostensibly, this shift was a response to “signals” from Scotland’s Nordic neighbours that an independent Scotland outside of Nato would present significant geostrategic challenges. As important, however, was pure electoral mathematics. To boos from party delegates at the October conference, the SNP’s defence spokesman Angus Robertson firmly reminded his colleagues that 75 per cent of Scots supported Nato membership and that they had a referendum to win.
And all of this is just for starters.

Also at the Daily Telegraph, Stephen Bush sticks up (sort of) for the idea of David Cameron hanging on to his job even if Scotland goes:

Just through asking around, it doesn’t feel as if a Yes vote is survivable for Cameron – but I just wonder: do we really want to send a signal halfway around the world that the appropriate reaction to a country or a region voting to leave in a democratic election is for the leadership of the larger country to be forced out? I’m not certain we do.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. On both a long and short-term view, much of the blame for a possible Scottish departure (and to reiterate the point I made in an earlier post, I am not opposed to the idea in the abstract) rests with the Labour Party, but it was Cameron who agreed to a binary in/out referendum (he declined to include a third possible option of “devo max”). It wasn’t the stupidest of gambles (I certainly didn’t expect that the polls would be where they are now), but it was not the smartest either (in the absence of a proper “federal” alternative, “devo max” in some shape or form was clearly taking shape anyway), and if it fails Cameron should resign. That he is already talking about doing otherwise is not only dishonorable, it also sends a message that Scottish departure would not be such a big deal. Some Scots will have noticed that.

Another blunder.