The other day, the leader of a major nation threatened with dismemberment made a passionate plea for unity. He spoke to his fellow Conservatives, in the capital of the proposed republic, where his party has little support.
At the same time, one of his senior ministers warned the secessionists that they will not have the same passports and the open borders they now enjoy.
Here, then, was a deft use of the carrot and the stick in response to the prospect of a breakaway state, which in this case is a real, if unlikely, danger. The leader invokes a shared past and a bright future while bearing gifts.
At the same time, his minister trashes the secessionist claims.
Was Stephen Harper talking to fellow partisans about the aspirations of Quebecers? Was Lisa Raitt warning Pauline Marois of her delusions?
No, the leader was British Prime Minister David Cameron addressing Scottish independence in Edinburgh. Theresa May, his home secretary, was challenging Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, on his vision of an independent Scotland. Their collaboration illustrates how the U.K. is treating this threat to its unity. While Canada faces a new national crisis if the Parti Qu茅b茅cois is re-elected with a majority on April 7, Britain faces disintegration if the Scots vote to leave on Sept. 18.
Cameron puts it starkly: 鈥淪tay 鈥� or go. Stick with the U.K. 鈥� or walk away. If the Scottish people vote Yes in September, then Scotland will become an independent country. There will be no going back. There will be no second chances.鈥�
Cameron is refreshingly eager to challenge 鈥渢he outright myths鈥� of the Scottish separatists and to 鈥渢ake them on and take them apart.鈥� Unlike other leaders in this situation, who worry about giving offence, he is not afraid of allegations of scaremongering.
He noted that recent challenges to the secessionist catechism come from both the president of the European Union and the governor of the Bank of England, who are not 鈥減olitical puppets but serious, non-partisan figures.鈥� Mark Carney, for example, says the Royal Bank of Scotland might have to move its headquarters out of Scotland if it becomes independent because EU rules will not allow it to remain there.
From May comes more of the same, more sharply. She warns that Scotland鈥檚 immigration policies will bring 鈥渂order controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom. Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative border between our nations.鈥�
Cameron reminds us in Canada 鈥� who have been through this twice before, after all 鈥� of the artless honesty and uncompromising clarity that we will need from our national leaders in another referendum.
It is possible that this leadership could come from Harper, but his Conservatives are almost as unpopular in Quebec (five of 75 seats) as Cameron鈥檚 are in Scotland (one of 59 seats).
But Cameron is a compelling, congenial politician. And at least he joins a debate on a clear question on the future of Scotland, which is no certainty in a third sovereignty referendum in Quebec (even with the Clarity Act). Indeed, we can expect the same sophistry from the P茅quistes as the Scots.
From the sovereigntists, we already know, there are assurances on maintaining currency and passports. Boundaries? Debt? Assets? Territory? Minorities? No problem. Everything will take care of itself.
It won鈥檛. And when the day of reckoning returns, we will look upon the political landscape for a voice of resolve, with guile and grit, to speak the truth to the dream merchants. Maybe we can borrow David Cameron.
听
Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.
