Unit 1: Democracy - One Nation for Scotland?

Scottish independence: the other One Nation debate!

In Edinburgh the question was not the division between the rich and the poor, but the division between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Do we live as one nation or two? That question has dominated the party conference season. It returned with a vengeance on Monday, but not in a form that Benjamin Disraeli would have expected. In Edinburgh on Monday the question was not the division between the two nations of the rich and the poor, but the division between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

The signing of an agreement between the UK and the Scottish governments on the terms of the independence referendum is a milestone. Both sides appear ready to accept the outcome. It would feel more historic if the vote were going to happen any time soon, rather than in 2014. But the vote will be the first time that Scotland has voted on its national status in the democratic era. It may lead to the further splintering of the UK. It would change the lives of everyone in these islands.

There is no doubt that the Scottish people voted for this process to begin. By handing the Scottish Nationalists a majority of seats at Holyrood last year, they put the future of the union unequivocally in the arena.

Spain and Canada have been amazed at how ready the UK government has been to facilitate such a move. At a time when Catalan and Québecois separatist feeling is running high, Madrid and Ottawa have not been so relaxed as London is here. The UK government deserves credit for this approach. It is the democratic path. But it may look like reckless overconfidence if Scotland votes yes. Don't underestimate this moment. Monday's agreement between David Cameron and Alex Salmond is not the end of the phoney war, however. There will be plenty more phoney between now and autumn 2014. But the terms of combat for the future of Britain have now been set. They are, broadly speaking, the right ones. Both sides deserve some credit for the readiness to compromise. A few weeks ago, it looked as if a deal might not be done, with Mr Salmond in particular posing as a leader who could ignore the UK and the law. The deal means that the referendum will have a firm legal basis. It will be crafted in Scotland with British authority. This was essential. Without such a basis, the possibility of legal challenge to both the referendum and the result was very real.

The constitution has been followed, but in a politically practical way. Both sides have won something in the trading between the Scottish secretary, Michael Moore, and the deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. But it is Mr Moore, and behind him Mr Cameron, who have come off best. Restricting the referendum to a single question – an independent Scotland or not? – removes the possibility that independence might win by a wafer-thin majority while further devolution – which may actually be what most Scots want – was overwhelmingly endorsed. That would have been a recipe for political confusion. Having a single question deals with that.

All the current polling shows that the single question – whatever its eventual form and whatever the franchise terms – will go the way of the status quo. That is why Mr Cameron signed on the dotted line. But the result is certainly not a done deal. The mood will change over the next two years. And the current polling also shows that the Scottish Nationalists remain Scotland's dominant party, at least in the Holyrood context. Mr Salmond signed off partly because he is a gambler and partly because he thinks he will be returned as first minister in 2016, whatever the result in 2014.

Two years is too long to wait. But the deal is done. There is a rich debate to conduct now, not just in Scotland, about the best constitutional arrangements for these islands – and not least about the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds in the process.

On Wednesday, the Liberal Democrats will make some proposals. At the weekend Mr Salmond addresses his party conference. Let us not prejudge the unfolding argument, but let the guiding star of it always be the best way of securing the good of all, just as it should be in that other One Nation debate.