YES campaigners have claimed history shows when Scots fail to vote for more powers, they face a Westminster backlash.
The claim, based on materials drawn from Cabinet papers released under the 30-year rule, is part of Yes Scotland's attempt to counter arguments that independence would create an uncertain future. Instead, they are pointing to the doubts and downsides of voting to remain in the Union.
The papers show that in 1980, the year after the referendum majority in favour of devolution failed to gain the required 40%, Scottish Secretary George Younger was forced to fight draconian cuts to the block grant.
Although he was partially successful in blocking swinging cuts, he was forced to agree to cuts higher than what would have applied under the Barnett formula.
On coming to power in 1979, the Conservatives began cutting public spending, including a £256 million cut to the Scottish allocation in line with Barnett.
But the following year, John Biffen, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced to Cabinet that he intended singling out Scotland for additional cuts of £150m annually over the next three years.
He claimed a new Needs Assessment Study indicated Scotland should lose £300m a year, but he was only proposing half that. "I do not propose an extra reduction in the programme for Northern Ireland this year, but I suggest an extra reduction of £150m in planned Scottish programmes," he told Cabinet.
Mr Younger appealed directly to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: "I need hardly explain to you what a disaster any move of this sort would be for our whole political position in Scotland.
"To do it within 18 months of the referendum and at a time of the highest unemployment since the war would be very hard to justify. My own credibility if I were to agree to such a proposal would be gravely weakened both with public opinion and our own Party supporters."
In a memo to other Cabinet members he said: "I see no reason why the Scottish Office should not make its full contribution to the economies we all have to make.
"However, to go even further by discriminating against Scotland only would be to invite political disaster and I cannot agree to it."
Political opponents would see this as "a deliberate act of policy directed against Scotland", which he would be hard put to justify let alone defend.
Mr Biffen offered to reduce the cuts to £90m in the first year and then £140m in each of the next two but Mr Younger continued to resist, saying of the funding formula: "To abandon the arrangement now, only 18 months after the referendum which had led to the withdrawal of the devolution proposals, would destroy the Government's credibility in Scotland."
He offered just £10m in additional cuts, which the Cabinet "reluctantly accepted" provided he looked for further savings, which he was willing to do if this was possible "without compromising the political considerations."
A Yes Scotland source said: "As we know from these Cabinet minutes following the 1979 referendum, Tory Ministers in London had no compunction about penalising Scotland with draconian cuts to our budget.
"Westminster wasn't working for Scotland then, it isn't working for Scotland now, and there is no reason to believe Westminster would work for Scotland if we remained stuck with the current system."
A Better Together spokesman said: "More grievance and division from the self-styled positive campaign. Someone ought to tell Alex Salmond that his politics of hope bunkum doesn't appear to be taking hold at Yes Scotland."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article