Cameron: Running a pro-Union campaign? Or just running?
So, the big three UK parties have had their conferences, ending in each case with the big set-piece event: the speech from the all-conquering leader. Â Leadership speeches at conferences are big events, setting out the priorities of the respective parties for the coming year. Â Bookies take bets on what will feature (then stop taking them as soon as parts of the speech are leaked). Â If an issue makes it into the speech, chances are that is what you’ll be hearing about from that leader continuously until the following year’s conference. Â If an issue doesn’t make it, then its importance has been relegated, the leader not considering it a priority.
This year, obviously, the economy continues to play a large role in leadership speeches – indeed it was the focus of them. Â How to encourage growth, how to improve the fortunes of the economy, how to secure its recovery. Â All very important indeed – you can’t argue that the economy deserves its position as an issue of top importance to political parties.
What’s interesting – from a Scottish perspective – is that between the three leadership speeches, Scotland was mentioned only THREE times. Â Nick Clegg mentioned us only once, saying we need: “An economy for everyone: In Scotland, Wales, in every part of the United Kingdom.” Â Laudable sentiments I guess. Â David Cameron only mentioned Scotland in the context of our armed forces, and not specifically just ours: “In Afghanistan today, there are men and women fighting for Britain as bravely as any in our history. They come from across our country: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.” Â Ed Miliband also mentioned Scotland just the once, but not the country. Â Nope, he was taking a pop at Fred Goodwin in running RBS. Â Three leadership speeches, and Scotland mentioned twice – and then, only to emphasise that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister recognised that they were parts of the UK.
And what of this Union that each of these leaders have pledged to defend? Â Nothing. Â Sure, each of them mentioned the word union, but it was in relation to Trades Union, and if David Cameron’s pledge is to defend that kind of union, then I think I’ve walked into some kind of parallel universe.
Its funny – the day before his big speech, David Cameron announced on “Scottish night”(?) at the Conservative Party Conference that he had “one core belief” about Scotland – that the Conservatives “were a party of the Union”. Â Yet the following day, those sentiments did not appear anywhere in his set piece speech. Â In an interview with a Scottish political journalist, Ed Miliband said we have a “shared history” and a “shared common bond” with the UK and that “devolution had made the Union stronger”. Â But then he couldn’t remember the name of one of Scottish Labour’s leadership candidates (emphasising just how important that “common bond” between Scotland and the rest of the UK is, since he hadn’t bothered being briefed on it) and also didn’t mention either Scotland or the Union in his speech.
Look, I know party leaders will claim everything is important to them, and their speeches are limited in time, and thus they can’t fit everything they might want to into them. Â But for parties who recognise the threat to the Union posed by the SNP, and who are gearing up to defend that same Union, it seems to me just a little strange that neither merits mention in a 45 minute keynote address to party delegates. Â You can be sure that this slight will not have gone unnoticed by the SNP – and Alex Salmond will likely draw attention to this fact in his own conference speech in a couple of weeks.
The point is – are the UK leaders really serious about their defence of the Union? Â Because the evidence from their conference speeches suggests that defending the Union doesn’t rate highly upon their agenda. Â If they are going to win a referendum on the issue, that’s going to have to change.
This post isn’t supposed to be negative. Â What I’m trying to say is that the debate needs to be happening at the top levels. Â The parties need to engage with the issue of independence – and argue the merits of their case. Â Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. Â And as much as I’d be happy with the outcome should the pro-Union campaign continue to falter, I’d much rather the argument was won after a positive debate.
#1 by FDR on October 6, 2011 - 9:51 am
Look I really don’t understand this victim mentality that so many Scots have. If they had mentioned Scotland 10 times we would be complaining why not 11. These speeches also didn#t mention England alot or Wales or Northern Ireland. In fact only Europe was consistently dredged up and I would point out that all 4 home nations are in Europe.
I really don’t think counting how many times party leaders name drop a particular place is a good barometer of how serious they are about it. And I don’t think the Scottish electorare sit at home with a pad and paper and count how many times Scotland is mentioned either.
#2 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 9:55 am
They don’t have to because I did. It’s a service we provide here on Better Nation.
But seriously, are England or Wales or Northern Ireland planning a referendum on independence in the coming years as well?
This isn’t about a “victim mentality”. This is about the leaders suggesting that the Union is important to them, then forgetting to mention the fact that they are trying to defend it in a key set-piece political event.
#3 by James Morton on October 6, 2011 - 10:21 am
I have to agree with FDR on this, the number of times we’re mentioned isn’t really important. It’s the context thats important – and here it was clearly one of stressing that we are part of a union without putting it in qoutes and pointing fingers at it. This fixation on word count is a curious phenomenon in American political journalisim and one I think we need to avoid.
I think in the end, they are having a real problem defining a positive case for union and have decided on an approach to make less fuss about it.
#4 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 10:30 am
Did you read anything beyond the numbers bit? I agree with you – its not about times mentioned. But the fact that they didn’t mention “Scotland” and “the Union” together is surely indicative of where they are as a campaign to maintain the Union at the moment? And your final comment is what I said in conclusion – they need to engage with the issue and make a positive case. Making it a part of their leaders’ speeches would have been a first step.
#5 by ReasonableNat on October 6, 2011 - 1:33 pm
Two words: “disinterest, denial”.
#6 by Indy on October 6, 2011 - 10:17 am
I think you are being a tad unfair. Because suppose they did say something like “Scotland’s place in the Union is extremely important to us” that would open up a series of questions such as “How do you see Scotland’s future as part of the Union?” And they don’t have all the answers to that – yet. From the Tory point of view Murdo Fraser wants to rip up the Conservative and Unionist Party and start again. And from Labour’s point of view? Well they are engaged in a similar review and also engaged in some pretty deep soul searching not to mention a phenomenaly ruthless cull of councillors.
So I would tend to think that at this stage the party leaders were quite wise to say nothing much about Scotland, not least so they did not beg the question “Are you trying to influence the process in Scotland?”
#7 by Aidan on October 6, 2011 - 10:27 am
Yeah, I think it’s more that they were focused on fundamental transformations of British society – Dave Cameron (39) back to sending children up chimneys, the Gold Standard and pre-Ricardian economic thought, Ed on rebalancing power relationships towards the many, not the few.
There isn’t a live referendum, there isn’t even much of a debate going on. Both parties had speeches from their outgoing Scottish leaders and one might vote itself out of existence.
#8 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 10:27 am
Tomorrow I’ll write “Scotland should be independent” and you’ll find a way to disagree with me Indy. Apparently it doesn’t matter what I say, you disagree.
I find your point a bit unfair on me actually, since the three leaders HAVE continually said “Scotland’s place in the Union is extremely important to us†– any number of interviews with the daily press or the BBC support that comment. They just chose not to say it in the speech whereby they define their agenda. That’s of interest to me because it suggests that, while they keep saying it to the press, they haven’t – as you point out – worked out how to answer the difficult questions. That’s interesting in itself no? The key defenders of the Union – and they don’t know how to do it, so they’re keeping quiet at the moment. That’s a story.
#9 by Indy on October 6, 2011 - 11:32 am
Lol I am not disagreeing with you on purpose! And if you say Scotland should be independent I will agree.
And just to show I can agree with you I totally agree that “Leadership speeches at conferences are big events, setting out the priorities of the respective parties for the coming year.”
I don’t think Scotland is a priority for UK parties for the coming year for the reasons given.
Yes it’s a story but the story is what is going on in the Scottish parties. I do think UK party leaders are wise not to get involved in that and to keep a fairly low profile on the subject.
#10 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 11:42 am
So we should expect Macintosh, Fraser and Rennie to run the pro-union campaign, and not Cameron, Miliband and Clegg? That for me seems to be a bit backwards. Surely if you want to defend the links with the Union and the benefits of working within a larger entity, it would make more sense to have the leaders of those larger entities running the show? If not, they’re conceding a symbolic defeat here: that their Scottish level parties don’t need the overriding framework of the UK parties to exist. If they do that, the smart question from independentists is “well, if their parties can exist independently of their UK structure, why can’t the nation do the very same thing?”. Seems to me, that’d be a difficult question to answer.
Anyway, sidetracking somewhat. I’ll concede that it might not be on the agenda for the coming year. But I think it probably should be. For them, irrespective of when the referendum is, the campaign should be starting now. The fact it isn’t suggests a big problem for the “Stay in the UK” campaign.
#11 by Indy on October 6, 2011 - 12:27 pm
Yes – absolutely, I think that the No campaign will be run by the Scottish wings of the UK parties and that is as it should.
After all, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg won’t even have a vote in the referendum. Why should they see it as their role to run a campaign for a referendum they can’t vote in?
It is a matter for Scotland to decide, not the UK as a whole.
#12 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 12:43 pm
Oh I agree on the latter point – its absolutely up to Scots to decide their constitutional future. That point has long been conceded by UK Governments!
All I’m saying is that could be construed as a symbolic defeat for the “Yes to Union” campaign out of the gate if their Scottish leaders are running the show. “We don’t need our UK parties, but Scotland needs the UK” sounds pretty weak to me.
#13 by Doug Daniel on October 6, 2011 - 1:06 pm
Dunno like, surely the people best placed to tell Scots why being in the union provides so many clear (and yet strangely invisible) benefits to Scotland are Scottish unionist supporters? The UK leaders coming up to tell us to stay in the union would be too easily characterised as the master telling the slave why he’s better off where he is.
#14 by Jeff on October 6, 2011 - 10:44 am
As you know Malc, I very much disagree with your points here.
I’m reminded of the ‘they’ll like us when we win’ speech from the West Wing. Cameron raging in his office – ‘Nothing from north of the border but learning to denounce Thatcher and hate Tories. Who do we see about that? Why do we in the UK have to take every Scot out for an ice cream cone! They’ll like us when we win.’
The main economic section very much affects Scotland, one shouldn’t need a specific name check to see that and, if we are four years away from the referendum, any of the party leaders banging on about why Scotland should vote No would not only be bizarre, it would be a gift to the SNP who would make hay out of it for the months to come.
#15 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 10:58 am
I don’t think you can have it both ways Jeff. You can’t argue that the UK government should lead the charge for the Union by calling an early referendum on a Wednesday then argue that they shouldn’t start campaigning for a No vote or risk an SNP backlash on a Thursday. Pick an argument and stick with it.
And in case you didn’t read my whole argument, my case wasn’t that Scotland should be a priority in their speeches. It was that if they are actually serious about defending the Union then IT should have merited a five second mention in a forty-five minute speech. The fact that it didn’t suggests its not a priority to them.
#16 by Jeff on October 6, 2011 - 11:31 am
I’m being perfectly consistent, thank you very much.
Cameron should crack on with the referendum soon as he is more likely to win it if so and, I believe, Scotland is being held back through delaying. That’s his call and he’s clearly made it.
Now, that’s patently not going to happen so Cameron can keep his union rhetoric on ice for a few years yet and, that issue aside, I se no reason why Cameron should be giving Scotland a special mention in a UK BAU speech.
I’d love to hear DC talk about Scotland for 45mins but he has bigger fish to fry.
#17 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 11:45 am
Well, I don’t think you are, but we’ll let that go.
I don’t expect the PM – or any other UK leader – to speak about Scotland for 45 minutes. You’re arguing with a straw man here. I expect a leader to lay out what he thinks is important in a key set piece speech. I know they all think the Union is important, because they’ve said so in other forums. The fact that none of them wanted to mention it in their set piece speech is interesting – and it is a story.
#18 by Stuart Winton on October 7, 2011 - 12:40 am
Jeff’s case for an early referendum is a pretty compelling one, but politically the problem at the moment is that organising a pro-Union campaign would be difficult because of the self-evident uncertainty about how it would be conducted.
That’s particularly so in view of the leadership issues with the Tories and Labour in Scotland – and the pro-Union campaign will presumably require input from both the UK and Scottish levels – which is thus perhaps why Cameron and Miliband don’t want to mention the issue unless they’re forced to, most obviously in an interview scenario.
Thus in effect neither side particularly wants to discuss the issue at the moment – the Unionists because how a campaign would be conducted raises too many awkward questions, and the SNP because the referendum and what’s meant by independence in particular raises too many awkward and as yet unresolved questions, such as EU membership, the euro and defence.
Hence it suits both sides to in effect skirt around the independence question, with the Unionists hoping that they can organise a more coherent campaign, and the SNP hoping they can formulate a winnable referendum while in the meantime hoping that increasing Scottish disillusionment with the Westminster coalition will help the whole thing along.
Of course, the bloggers and the MSM are having a field day with all this uncertainty, but I suspect the politicians themselves would rather it all went away until a more convenient time!
#19 by Robbie Pennington on October 7, 2011 - 11:39 am
I’m surprised anyone would think Jeff’s case for an early referendum to be “compelling”; I think it’s best described in his own words -“It’s sneaky, it’s tawdry, it’s downright duplicitous”.
#20 by Stuart Winton on October 7, 2011 - 9:51 pm
Thus in the context of politics it’s surely ‘compelling’, which in effect was I assume what Jeff meant.
#21 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 6, 2011 - 8:03 pm
As much as independence might be an issue on the Scottish political landscape, on addresses directed to all of the UK outwith Scotland, it doesn’t really register. I mean, does someone in Liverpool who’s going to suffer under Tory benefit cuts really care about Scottish independence? Does someone in Cardiff spend all their time thinking “what if the Scots secede from the Union?”?
No. The rest of the UK has its own worries, and its own set of problems to worry about at the moment. If it was a Scottish political conference, then I might have wondered why they didn’t mention the independence issue which does loom large on the Scots political landscape. However, as it’s addressing the concerns everyone within the current UK might have, no.
As much as Scots politics might revolve around the issue, I’m not expecting others to think too much about it. Come the referendum, I’d expect we will hear plenty. Until then, I don’t think being slighted by the fact that the three London-based parties didn’t mention Scotland really gets us anywhere. It does actually show up what I perceive as a certain insularity within Scots politics – as much as we like to think about Scotland a lot, the rest of the world might not really care too much.
#22 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 8:23 pm
The point I’m making isn’t about whether the rest of the UK cares about Scottish independence. Its more about whether political parties who claim that the Union is important to them are living up to their words. Of course the rest of the UK isn’t bothered about it. But these guys have 45 minutes to talk to the WHOLE country, not just Liverpool or Cardiff. I’d have thought maybe 5 seconds would have been dedicated to saying “Look, we want to improve the economy of the country – we’re a United Kingdom, and we want to stay that way” or something similar. 5 seconds. But it was omitted entirely.
And as far as your last paragraph goes, as I’ve said in countless comments, its not about being “slighted”. It was about the Union, and whether the leaders of parties gave it the prominence they suggested it held for them in previous interviews. Its nothing to do with being slighted – its about noting that the parties don’t give the prominence to the Union that they claim to.
#23 by CassiusClaymore on October 6, 2011 - 10:54 am
The problem for the Tories is that they are tone-deaf on Scotland and Scottish issues. They’re not malevolent – quite the reverse I suspect – but they’re a long way behind the times.
The only Tory who fully understands the ‘new normality’ in Scotland is Murdo Fraser – but it looks to me as though the Scottish Tories are going to commit suicide by electing someone else and continuing the current failed policies.
We are now in the endgame. Anyone who wants to defend the Union should switch tack and embrace full fiscal autonomy.
That might save the Union, or a least defer full separation for a while. I don’t think anything else will, not leaset because no-one seems to be able to make a positive case for it.
I’d certainly happily vote for FFA as a second preference (first preference is for separation), and I reckon it would be a fairly clear winner in a multi-option referendum.
CC
PS I’m reclaiming ‘separation’.
#24 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 6, 2011 - 10:57 am
I think that, despite a little flurry of commentary after the Holyrood result in May, there is no great interest in the referendum amongst the populace south of the border. Once the referendum date has been set I can imagine a slightly greater focus on the union at that point.
Right now, each party leader had messages to give to their own members as well as providing some vision for the country. The fact that two of the three are in power thats just going to be a “steady as she goes” message from two leaders. And the 3rd had a policy for now but not the 2015 election. Which was confusing.
And I agree with Jeff – it would probably be counter productive to mention the Union at this stage because all it would give is Salmond and the SNP more national airtime.
#25 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 11:02 am
That, I think, is a more logical argument. But yesterday Jeff wanted them to take the fight to the SNP, so he gets no points for consistency.
I do agree that it would give the SNP and Salmond more air time on the issue. But the Union isn’t going to win the argument by staying quiet. Doing so only allows the SNP to claim the mandate for talking about the constitution. If you’re not playing offence, you are playing defence – and if they don’t start making a positive case soon, they’ll be so far behind by the time the actual campaign comes around that it’ll be too late for them to save the Union.
#26 by Don McC on October 6, 2011 - 11:25 am
Mmm – I’d maybe buy that argument, Douglas, if Goldie hadn’t delivered an entire speech describing how fat Salmond is.
As it is, Malc has a point. There’s certainly an impression that Dave & co feel that as an underling has dealt with the issue of Scotland, so there’s no need for the main man to talk about it.
#27 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 6, 2011 - 7:06 pm
And Goldies speech gets 20 second airtime. So not exactly part of the keynote conference message.
#28 by Alasdair on October 6, 2011 - 2:41 pm
Of course the referendum is a few years off yet, we might be getting hot and bothered about it but the Unionists won’t want to start the debate too early, after all, the longer the facts are mulled over the better the case for independence looks.
#29 by Doug Daniel on October 6, 2011 - 4:37 pm
The problem is the debate has already started, and the longer unionist politicians stick their heads in the sand, the more time they’re giving nationalists to get their case polished up. By the time they start taking it seriously, those on the independence side will have built up an airtight case which will be nigh on impossible to argue against.
Of course, I suppose another way of looking at it is that the arguments for the union are so flimsy that they don’t take much analysis to deconstruct, so they need to have as short a gap as possible before the referendum in order to minimise the time available to rubbish their arguments.
#30 by GMcM on October 6, 2011 - 4:00 pm
Maybe the three UK Leaders all realised that the most pressing concern for people at this time is the economy and how that will impact them.
The position of Scotland within the UK is not top of the agenda right now. Many may wish it to be but it isn’t for the vast majority of Britons and indeed Scots.
Tha SNP would do well to realise that fact also.
The threat to the economy is greater than the threat of Independence. That’s just my opinion though.
#31 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 4:43 pm
That’d be fine, were it not for the fact that each of the three leaders have made the case in different forums that saving the Union is incredibly important to them. My point is that that importance to them seems to have diminished between TV interviews and their leader’s speeches at conference. That’s all.
I absolutely agree that the economy is a pressing concern – but if there is no UK, where does that leave them?
#32 by Doug Daniel on October 7, 2011 - 9:23 am
“The threat to the economy is greater than the threat of Independence. That’s just my opinion though.”
That’s my opinion too, although that’s because I don’t see independence as a threat in the slightest. Quite the opposite, in fact.
#33 by Barbarian on October 6, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Nitpicking over how times Scotland is mentioned – or not – is trivial and a distraction from the real issues.
The unionist side are quite happy for the nationalist side to start moaning about how unfairly they are being treated by not being mentioned. It works for them since we return to the “Scotland wants this and we want it now!” approach, something I feel isn’t a powerful argument.
GMcM has a point about the economy. It may be harder to persuade people to go independent if the economy is shafted. High level figures could be positive, but it is down at individual level that determines how people may vote. If there is too much uncertainty them people will likely opt for the status quo.
#34 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Did you read the rest of the post, or did you just decide I was wrong from the outset?
If you’d read on, you would see the post wasn’t about Scotland being or not being mentioned. It was about the Union, and whether the leaders of parties gave it the prominence they suggested it held for them in previous interviews. Its nothing to do with being fairly or unfairly treated.
#35 by Doug Daniel on October 7, 2011 - 9:22 am
“It may be harder to persuade people to go independent if the economy is shafted.”
The UK economy is stalling. Another year or two of this, and I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine more and more people thinking “could Scotland really do any worse on its own?” Especially when they see the SNP seemingly being far more pro-active with far less power than the Tories, with their “we’re taking the right approach and the more times we say it the more true it is” attitude.
#36 by Indy on October 7, 2011 - 7:40 am
I think what Malc is talking about primarily is the scenario of UK party leaders saying to Scots the Union is terribly important to us but not saying anything at all about that to the wider UK party or audience.
And that is obviously the case – and it was ever thus.
As I have said, I think there are actually good reasons why UK leaders are not at this stage going to stick their oar in to the debate. And they will be advised by their Scottish wings what line to take on the Union/referendum once their Scottish wings have actually decided what line to take.
But it’s interesting that some people see pointing out the fact that the unionist parties only say the Union is important in Scotland as nationalist whinging because I don’t think it is that at all. And come to think of it, it’s only in Scotland that Labour, the Tories or Lib Dems would be called unionist parties in the first place. I don’t think people down south would recognise that terminolgy – and why should they in a sense?
Because the reality is surely that the continuation or otherwise of the Union is important in Scotland but not really that important elsewhere in the UK and that is reflected in the priority it is given at UK level.
#37 by Andrew on October 7, 2011 - 12:10 pm
Yes, it’s easy to look at this from a Scottish point of view. However, I don’t think Cameron chose not to raise the issue because he thought English viewers would be disinterested, rather it would be out of concern that they would be interested and raise a topic that is usually ignored in England. Despite other major issues to deal with, I’m sure that Cameron would have appealed to the Scots to back the Union (however briefly) if he didn’t fear the consequences of raising the issue.
Malc says that only Scotland is going to have a referendum in the next few years, not England, Wales or NI. That may be the case, but this United Kingdom has cracks right the way through it. Wales might not have a referendum in the offing, but they do have their own independence movement that could come in to play. We all know about NI’s issues. However, the biggest concern for Labour and the Tories is England. The Unionists might think they can continue to hold back the nationalist tide in the Celtic fringe, but there have been rumblings coming out of England in recent years and that could be a game changer. The last thing any Unionist wants (and especially the Tories) is for a widespread belief that England is ill served by the UK parliament and government. If England becomes so unsatisfied with the status quo that the big parties start to suffer an electoral hit, then the Union as it stands is over.
If Cameron, or whoever else stands up in front of a UK audience and tells the Scots how good they’ve got it and why they shouldn’t vote for ‘separation’, all that does is remind the English audience that we’re not ‘one nation’, the Scots are different, and the Scots are being encouraged to stay within the UK where they benefit from England’s largess. The Unionist strategy in England must be to pretend that there is no threat to the continuation of the Union and hope that their Scottish arms can successfully beat of the SNP and the yes campaign in a referendum.
#38 by GMcM on October 7, 2011 - 11:38 am
Just because the vast majority of people who comment on this site want to talk about independence and the referendum doesn’t mean everyone else should.
There are more important things going on right now and continually going on about independence in the eye of the current economic storm shows that the SNP are not in touch with people’s concerns.
I’ve stated this before and the more time goes by the more I’m convinced; the SNP are being distracted by their politics of grievance and independence and are not adequately focussing on what really matters to people.
I’m sure there will be a few on here would disagree with that but it’s ok – I have a new tin hat wrapped in kevlar 🙂
#39 by Doug Daniel on October 7, 2011 - 12:51 pm
I think you confuse the SNP with the wider independence movement. You rarely hear SNP ministers banging on about independence – they’re busy running the country. The SNP members commenting on this blog and elsewhere talk about it a lot, but those that are actually elected to Holyrood certainly are focussing on what really matters to people (although you’d do well to understand that independence really matters to quite a significant portion of the people).
Your comment seems suspiciously reminiscent of the school of thought that independence is all the SNP care about, and the SNP are the only ones who care about independence. Neither would be accurate. In what way is debating welfare reform and anti-sectarianism “politics of grievance”?
Many of us here may go on about it all the time, but in terms of politicians, the SNP have parked the independence debate until after the Scotland Bill has been thrashed out a bit more. It’s the unionists who won’t shut up about it.
#40 by Ken on October 7, 2011 - 2:33 pm
No. They (Ministers and MSPs) do bring it up quite a lot in the Chamber. There’s many a question during FMQ’s or a follow up statement from a backbencher along the lines of “Does the FM / DFM / Finance Secretary agree that if Scotland had full control over it’s financial / defense / borders / oil etc etc….”
And there’s nothing wrong with that – that’s the raison d’etre of the party. But to say they ‘parked the debate’ as in no SNP MSP mentions it is silly.
#41 by Doug Daniel on October 7, 2011 - 4:07 pm
There’s obviously a difference between parking the debate, and no one mentioning it ever. My point is that claims that the SNP are obsessed with independence at the detriment of everything else are unfounded. Who is it that keeps banging on about the referendum? As far as the government are concerned, the referendum will happen in the latter half of the term, and that’s that. It’s the unionists who keep going on about it and demanding we have it sooner.
#42 by Indy on October 8, 2011 - 8:31 am
Exactly – look at all the fuss there has been about the SNP appointing a civil servant to oversee preparations and the ridiculous complaints about civil service impartiality which apparently led to Iain Gray suggesting that the head of the civil service in Scotland had “gone native”. That is an extraordinary thing to say when you think about it isn’t it.
#43 by Malc on October 7, 2011 - 2:55 pm
Well, for a start, the SNP’s politics isn’t about grievance. Have a look at their electoral campaign this year and compare it to those of other parties, and then tell us which you think is the more positive? Pretty sure you’ll see that grievance doesn’t play a huge part in what they are trying to achieve. But maybe you’ll see what you want to see.
Let me state for the record (for about the fifth time). I recognise things like the economy are important to everyone. My post was pointing out that the 3 party leaders keep telling Scots how important the Union is THEMSELVES (in TV interviews, newspaper interviews – any chance they get). Except when they get a chance to talk to everyone on a grand scale, its suddenly not that important. That’s the story. I’m saying they’ve said its important previously, but then forget about it when they’re on a bigger stage.
I might as well be speaking Dutch.
#44 by Chris on October 7, 2011 - 12:06 pm
It will be a lot easier to run an anti-independence campaign than a pro-union one. Running a pro-union campaign puts the battle firmly in the territory that nationalists would dream of – i.e. are your British or Scottish?
But we are not campaigning between two directions to chose from, but between the status quo and a very large and irreversible decision.
Nationalists will need to put forward the benefits of independence and allow them to be subject to anything from scrutiny to ridicule. Those against independence will be a mixture of committed unionists, head-ruling-heart 90-minute nationalists and people who would be sceptical of arguments made.
The sceptics and 90-minuite nationalists are pretty much key and could be alienated by a unionist campaign of Britishness.