Ding ding, round two, Darling’s missed opportunity…

Could we see a “Yes” vote without a debate that covers the true consequences?

The second debate crystallised everything that is wrong with the debate so far. Darling needed to concede clearly that the UK as it is, does not work for Scotland. That devolution needs to go further. Instead he allowed Salmond to bang his drum and use anti-Tory sentiment to argue a case that a “Yes” vote is the only way to address these concerns. Which meant that the real consequences of independence never saw the light of discussion.

From Salmond’s attacks over NHS privatisation to job creation powers in Scotland, Darling should simply have said “You’re right we need more domestic control, but you are trying to underplay the powers already available to the Scottish Parliament in an attempt to fool people; and you’re trying to suggest that independence is the only way to address these problems. It is not. ‘Better Together’ is not a ‘No thanks’ for things to stay the same, we do need to devolve more control over domestic policy to Scotland. What we don’t need to do is spend time finding money to build warships and war planes. Unless you like the sound of that Salmond?”. He should have spoken to Westminster and been ready to detail further devolution powers for Scotland to address these concerns. He should have neutered Salmond’s entire argument over domestic policy.

He also got the currency debate wrong this time. By reiterating the request for a Plan B he implied that Plan A has legs, if they could get it. He didn’t make the point clear enough that Plan A is nothing better than devo-max, so why as a nationalist would Salmond want that? It will mean fiscal policy would still be controlled by Westminster. Yet, Scotland would be liable for all the other costs of independence — defence, border controls, pensions, etc. He made having a Plan B look like the answer, when all he was really trying to do was highlight that Salmond lack’s a clear plan at all.

Darling needed to shift the focus of the debate onto policy areas that make no sense devolving to the Scottish Parliament — currency, the central bank, government borrowing, defence, border force, intelligence, the civil service, government funded scientific research, etc — and all the benefits that pooling these brings. More importantly, there are all the cultural consequences to separation that no one is talking about:

• Lots of people have English and Scottish ancestry, especially on the border, will they get dual nationality? Is it fair to force all these people to feel that way about their ancestry?
• If tax rates are different, will arbitrage across the border force the border to become stronger making free movement more difficult? Will they end up needing to stop people from being able to do booze runs?
• Will we need to spend a lot of time dividing up art and antiquities between all the national galleries?
• Will the rest of the UK shun the Scots for shunning them?
• Will it be easy to get married either side of the border?
• How about child adoption across the border?
• All my Scottish friends eat Cheddar as their staple cheese, will this need to classed as a foreign cheese by Scottish supermarkets?
• Should tourist shops in London sell shortbread, tartan and bagpipes?
• How about the Red Phone Box, the Busby, the Bobby on the beat? Who owns those?
• Should the BBC show the Edinburgh Tattoo in England? Although turning it on its head, should it even be held there? It is a UK and common wealth military tattoo. Should it move south of the border?
• More importantly what about the BBC itself? How does it continue to serve Scottish viewers?
• The military is massively intertwined having fought WW1 and WW2 together to defend and define this island. Scottish regiments are some of the most respected in the UK military. Do we really need to separate this combined force just to get trident out of Scotland? Will it likely remain combined operationally any way?
• If the Scots force the UK to disarm trident. Can the UK keep its seat on the UN security council? Will that weaken Scotland’s global presence as the small neighbour of a weaker UK?
• Will less Scottish influence in Westminster reduce trade investment in Scotland by the rest of the UK? Will Asia and Europe become the focus?
• … think for a while and the list just goes on and on…

These are the real consequences of independence. The debate did not ask people whether they have considered these consequences. The domestic policy short comings of the existing Scottish Parliament is something both sides agree on, even though Salmond tried to imply otherwise. Greater devolution is already in progress. Such a shame that Darling allowed Salmond to whip up a fervour over domestic issues that are either already run by the Scottish Parliament, or are in the process of devolving further.

We should view the responsibility we have in this decision in the same way that we would as parents who choose to divorce. We assume that it is easy to create a list of possessions that can be divided, but ask any child in that process and they won’t care about the Playstation. Their lives will be marred by the destruction of all those intangible benefits — the positive role model of united parents, forgiveness, talking through problems, trust, reliance, confidence, respect, the value of positive family memories, shared jokes and yes not getting on at times. This is what we shatter for our own children and future generations.

Further, divorce always changes the perceptions of friends. They learn things about you that make them like you less. In this context the rest of the world. Financial markets are already moving as a result of what we are doing, but the impact to trade and soft power as a result of the divorce of brand-Britain should not be underestimated. Especially as a “Yes” vote is the tip of the iceberg, it will lead to a landslide of public statements in the coming months that simply can’t be taken back — and that will mar our relationship forever, and that with our children and friends.

Scots, I leave you to consider your reaction to two scenarios. You discover that new people have moved into your street: In one they are English, how do you react? In the other they are French, how do you react now?