rUK tries hardball

With the Scottish referendum on independence now just over six months away, the pro-Union side (the "rest of the UK", or rUK as it's becoming known) is starting to talk tough.  Prime Minister Cameron, whose name shows his strong Scottish antecedents, has made an emotional plea for a "no" vote, arguing that the UK is much stronger together.  Most of the other arguments, however, have focused on economic and financial issues, possibly in recognition of the Scots' reputation for being canny with their money.

Chancellor George Osborne stated flatly last week that Scotland would not be allowed to keep the pound if it voted to leave the UK, a message quickly echoed not only by the other main party leaders but also by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney -- who has, of course, had a ringside set for two independence votes in Quebec.  The SNP government in Edinburgh waved this threat away, pointing out the huge costs to rUK businesses if the common currency vanished, threatening to reject their portion of the shared national debt if Scotland were booted out of Sterling, and all the while quietly relying on the backup possibility of adopting the Euro.

But not so fast with that!  In an unexpected intervention, EU President Barroso cautioned that it would be very difficult for an independent Scotland to "jump the line" of existing EU applicants and gain quick EU entry, which would require all of the existing members (including rUK) to agree.  Since Scots are generally much more pro-Europe than their southern neighbours, it's hard to see the EU actually booting them out, but the threat has now been uttered.

And finally we hear from none other than Gordon Brown, unlamented on both sides of the border, with a warning that Scots would lose their UK pensions if they were to secede.  He argues that the national insurance fund that currently pays the pensions on both sides of the border would have to be split up, with rUK maintaining the lions' share.  The smaller Scottish fund would be much more volatile and potentially less adequate than the current pooled arrangement.  This is a cunning argument, given that older voters tend to turn out at the polls in much larger numbers than the young -- though whether this proves to be the case in a referendum, rather than a routine election, remains to be seen.

Watching all of this unfold from Canada is fascinating.  In the two Quebec referenda one got the uncomfortable sense that the Ottawa government was at the mercy of events, reluctant to weigh in too heavily on the side of federalists within la Belle Province.  Evidently UK politicians have no such qualms. One interested spectator is undoubtedly Quebec Premier Pauline Marois, who is angling to hold an election in the next few weeks, with the hope of setting the wheels in motion for yet another referendum after that.

A defeat for the Scottish Nationalists in September would undoubtedly put a crimp in her plans, and might also put some backbone into the Ottawa government.  But if the Scot Nats win -- and Alex Salmond is one of the most appealing politicians in the UK, whatever you think of his main policy platform -- then all bets will be off on this side of the Atlantic too.