New breed of Unionist says Westminster must simply say No

Since Tony Blair’s devolution settlement, a cross-party consensus has been, for the most part, accepted among traditional Unionists. It takes for granted that shifting ever more powers to Holyrood is the most effective strategy for quelling nationalist sentiment. But there is now a concerted effort to take on the SNP not by increasing devolution, or adopting federalism, but through a gradual degradation of their powers.

Fundamentally, this new contingent of radical Unionists point to a major imbalance in the British constitution. The United Kingdom must be the easiest country in the world from which to secede. they say. They believe that breaking up the country shouldn’t simply require a majority in a devolved election, and that independence referendums shouldn’t take place every half-decade.

If that is to be the new norm it is an argument against pooling UK resources at present. As one Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) put it: “Sturgeon is relying on a multi-billion pound bailout from the UK government. It is rightly doing that on the basis that Scotland isn’t going to leave the Union as soon as the financial crisis is over.”

It is illegal for the State of California, the fifth largest economy in the world, to secede from the United States, a country established seventy years after the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland. In Catalonia, the separatist threat was culled not through constant referenda, but by Madrid putting its foot down, going as far as to convict the politicians who attempted to conduct an impermissible referendum.

The Scottish Parliament is the radical Unionists’ primary target, for it has given the SNP a power base from which it can behave as both as an incumbent government and an insurgent movement. On coronavirus, Nicola Sturgeon is able to take credit for the successful parts of the UK response, while blaming Westminster for the rest, say critics.

Their solution is for Westminster to abandon the consensus of ever more devolution. This would be achieved in the first instance by ending the transfer of new powers, and then by gradually watering down currently devolved powers.

Henry Hill, assistant editor of the influential ConservativeHome website, characterised this as a Churchillian task for Boris Johnson.

“After two decades of appeasement, Unionism needs to organisationally re-mobilise and intellectually re-arm. Having come to power as the triumphant commanders of a political insurgency, his Vote Leave-based Downing Street operation now has to wage a counter-insurgency operation against perhaps the most effective campaigning machine in British politics,” he wrote.

Hill and senior Conservatives point to Downing Street’s refusal to budge on the Internal Market Bill as a sign that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are adopting radical Unionism. It is indeed illustrative of the ideological shift in the Conservative party that, on this matter, Theresa May and David Livingstone partially conceded to the SNP’s argument.

Conservative MSPs who previously said the Internal Market Bill would create a “power-grab crisis” are now firmly on Downing Street’s side of the fight. The former Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, also appears to have adopted a more robust  approach.

In an article in The Times on the Unionist approach following the 2014 independence referendum, she said: “We wanted the country to come back together and we were, if you like, interested in showing ourselves to be bigger people than them. That was, morally, the right thing to do, but tactically it was a mistake. A huge strategic error in fact”.

Davidson added that she is “not as depressed as a number of unionists seem to be right now.”

This may be because Johnson, who has privately consulted her on recent polls showing a majority for independence, has doubled down on his pledge to refuse a second referendum. In seeking to veto, he will have cross-party support. Sir Keir Starmer has promised to oppose a second referendum under any circumstances.

There are some in Westminster who think such a move would trigger a backlash among the Scottish electorate, but this may be based more in groupthink than statistical analysis.

A Conservative MSP told Reaction: “45% of people in Scotland are unwaveringly in the Unionist camp. . . They will agree with Boris. It might even rally then round the Conservative flag.” Indeed, a poll last week showed that independence was seventh in the list of priorities for Scots, behind education and the economy.

Radical Unionists will then have more than a decade to solidify the Union, runs the theory. There will be pressure on the Prime Minister to not just level up, but tie up the country – to reinforce British identity by bolstering national institutions, and reshaping present ones.

Perhaps the Bank of England could be renamed the Bank of the Union, for instance. Downing Street has already proposed a new Shared Prosperity Fund to replace investments from the EU, which would allow the government to place visible reminders on projects in Scotland that the money has come from the taxpayer via the Treasury in Whitehall, not Holyrood.

The ultimate goal is to remove independence via referenda as an option for any separatist group in Scotland, and thus for Wales too. With Johnson seemingly increasingly on-side, this may be the beginning of an era of de-devolution.