Scottish referendum: morning after

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/may/18/scottish-referendum-morning-after-editorial

Version 0 of 1.

It was predictable that last week's House of Lords report on the constitutional implications of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum was brushed aside by David Cameron during his latest Scottish visit and simultaneously trashed by the Scottish nationalists. The prime minister said he does not want to concern himself with "what-ifs". Meanwhile the SNP, complaining that unelected peers could have nothing to say in a democratic debate, played the man not the ball in time-honoured fashion and ignored the substance of the report too.

This was a mistake. The report – from the Lords select committee on the constitution – is a serious attempt to look at some of the central legal and procedural implications of a yes vote. It also raises questions that could have a bearing on the way Scots cast their votes on 18 September. And while it is true that committee members are not elected by any voters and contain no SNP voice to vary the message (the party does not nominate peers), they nevertheless bring a lot of experience to their task – with four former cabinet ministers and considerable legal weight in the committee's ranks. They also took evidence from some formidably well-informed witnesses.

The committee's most eye-catching finding is that Scottish MPs should be barred from having a say in the UK's negotiations with the Scots following a yes vote. This would apply from the date of the yes vote through to independence day and would mean Scottish MPs could not be negotiators or have a vote in holding the UK negotiators to account. It is clearly the fair course, and the recommendation brings home some of the serious ruptures that would instantly follow from a yes vote. It also raises the prospect, in the event of a yes vote, of a scramble for Labour general election nominations south of the border from Scottish MPs who see their future at Westminster.

Politically, however, the report's most important conclusion is its assertion that the SNP's wish for a yes vote to translate into an agreed secession completed by March 2016 may not be achieved. The remaining UK is not bound by that aspiration. Moreover, while both sides have promised to negotiate in good faith, the scale of the separation task and the inevitable delays caused by a UK general election (and a possible change of government), plus the UK's duty to safeguard its own interests, all mean that the talks could take longer and possibly be much more difficult, in process and in outcome, than the sunnier version of events promoted by the SNP allows. All these may indeed be "what-ifs". They should certainly not be the decisive issues in the referendum campaign. But they are "what-ifs" that cannot just be dismissed. And they must inevitably weigh in voters' minds as they contemplate what to do in September.