IT is beginning to sound like a familiar phrase. Up at Faslane on Monday, Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond was asked about the future of Trident if Scotland decides to vote for independence in 2014. “We are not making contingency planning for a yes vote in the referendum. Were there to be a yes vote then all sorts of things would need to be reviewed, but we are not making any contingency planning for that,” he declared.
A few days earlier, addressing the House of Lords Economics Affairs Committee, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander was asked why English taxpayers would want to stand behind the Bank of England to enable it to be lender of last resort to Scotland. “We are not engaged in contingency planning for what would happen if Scotland voted to be independence,” Mr Alexander replied. The UK government built an underground bunker during the Cold War in case of a full-scale nuclear war. The Pentagon had drawn up contingency plans for an alien invasion of earth. But there are no plans in place at all in Whitehall for the very real possibility that part of the UK will decide to become an independent state in two years, say Mr Hammond and Mr Alexander.
Mr Alexander’s replies received short shrift at the Lords two weeks ago, with former chancellor, Lord Lawson, and ex-Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth both making their dissatisfaction felt. Lord Lawson declared it would be a “grave dereliction of duty” on the treasury’s behalf were it not to show exactly what would most likely happen after independence. So why isn’t Whitehall doing so? Plenty of theories present themselves. If the contingency plans propose a tough talking stance towards Scotland (“we’ll demand they keep Trident at Faslane or else”) London would soon find it accused of bullying Scotand into submission and running a negative campaign. On the other hand, if the plans set out a co-operative stance (“Sure, English taxpayers and the Bank of England will stand behind Scotland to lend if required”), they risk an explosion of resentment from south of the border. More than that, there is a general reluctance in the pro-UK camp to do anything that puts flesh on the bones of a post-independent Scotland. The general rule in politics – not to hypothesise on defeat – is being followed. Consequently, it appears Whitehall will restrict itself to a series of papers setting out its views on the strengths of the UK, and the question marks that would be placed over them in the event of independence.
The risk with this is that the “no contingency plans” line ends up frustrating more people than just their noble Lordships, and alienates swing voters who would quite like to know more facts before deciding which way to vote. Their reasons are understandable, but – especially if polls tighten – ministers who claim there are no contingency plans for something which looks pretty contingent can expect uncomfortable times ahead.