Thanks to Andrew Smith for this guest post. Andrew is a Scottish born communications professional in London. This article is a follow- on from this one. You can buy his debut novel here.
The YES Scotland campaign was launched two weeks ago by an array of actors, politicians and grassroots activists. Quite possibly the most significant long term development has been the launching of a new petition/ declaration in support of independence. The target is to achieve one million signatures in advance of the referendum and to use the list as a tool to contact and motivate activists.
The database will be very useful, although personally I think that setting a target of one million signatures was a mistake. This is not least because it is an incredibly ambitious target and after one week there were only 15000, half of which came within the first 24 hours. The focus on attaining one million signatures is misguided also because it assumes all supporters have internet access and would be comfortable giving their details to a central campaign office. It’s also a misleading indicator of the levels of support for the policy. The main reason for this is because despite not having a vote I am able to sign it from my flat in North London. There is no block on people with more than one email address signing it multiple times (for example I have 4 functioning email addresses that I use for different reasons.)
The campaign has chosen to launch with over 2 years left to the referendum because this gives more time to focus on building a strong grassroots movement. This is vital because it will have to be inclusive to be successful. The relationship between the YES campaign and the SNP will be very important in determining how successful the campaign is. The campaign has to be broader than the SNP, even if every SNP voter supported independence (which is not the case) then that would still not amount to a majority of the country (less than 25% of those eligible to vote.) The response has been to ensure that Patrick Harvie has played a prominent role and to invite traditionally ‘old labour’ figures as Colin Fox and Dennis Canavan. How important are these people? The combined vote of the SSP and Greens may have only represented 4.8% of the electorate last year, 4.4% of which was the Greens, but in a referendum where every vote counts their influence could be decisive. Will the public see it as a genuine cross party and community based campaign? Only time will tell, although I’m not convinced that stunts such as the hosting of a vote on Scottish independence in the Scottish Parliament (in which all but 3 of the votes in favour came from SNP MSPs) does a great deal to show the breadth of the movement.
This is why it is important that Yes Scotland keeps a level of autonomy from the SNP. This will be hard to begin with as it was primarily instigated and funded by the SNP and it will be a while before it is able to function fully as a campaigning body. In contrast the NO campaign has every reason to ignore Yes Scotland for now and treat the referendum as a choice between the union and the specific policies of the SNP. One of the key tactics has been to raise a lot of structural questions about an independent Scotland and until now the SNP response has been a combination of uncertain assertions and a reminder that most policy decisions will be made after the next election. The problem with this is that when the SNP make claims on issues that most people deem central to the referendum (currency issues and relationship with the Bank of England) then they can be seen to be speaking for the wider YES campaign, at least for the time being.
At the moment the NO campaign is still functioning as a very loose party political coalition as opposed to a formal and structured campaign. The reason for this is obvious; the referendum is a numbers game and if the unionist parties communicate with their own voters and keep them onside then they will win. In theory the unionist parties do not even have to attract a single new supporter to win the referendum; all that they have to do is inspire and mobilise the ones that they already have. In this sense they would be well advised to keep the approach that they already have and avoid the obvious pitfalls that would come from the three parties routinely campaigning together under an overtly unionist banner. By keeping the structure as a loose collection of party political campaigns that is complemented by individual endorsements from figures as diverse as Alex Ferguson and George Galloway and stunts such as the release of well timed survey data they can attack the SNP from all angles.
Closer to the time the NO campaign will need to formalise a bit more, but unlike the YES campaign there is no imperative to do that yet. The smart approach would be for them to delay this as much as possible and to avoid having the campaign defined by any one person. The argument they should make should be based on the fact that Britain means different things to all people and therefore there is not one overarching reason for the union aside from vague premonitions of unity. There is also no need for any formal NO campaign to take one united position on devo-plus or to wed themselves to the status quo, instead they should take the firmly non committal position that all of these points will be open for discussion as soon as the referendum is over.
So this is where I believe we are. We have seen the emergence of one formal campaign that desperately needs to prove its breadth and one informal campaign which is more likely to meet in Alasdair Darling’s flat than it is to meet in public. I would expect this to be the case for some time. Expect the YES campaign to organise more endorsements from well known women and members of the business community (who were far too few at the launch) and to start trying to develop the essential grassroots networks in every town across the country. The NO campaign will continue to focus on the economy as opposed to any particularly emotional arguments. If the NO campaign can paint Yes Scotland as being a front for Alex Salmond and the SNP as a group of naive fanatics then they can turn the campaign into a battle of misplaced hearts against sensible and realistic heads and they will be half way towards victory.
#1 by Allan on June 8, 2012 - 7:25 pm
A couple of things…
1) “why it is important that Yes Scotland keeps a level of autonomy from the SNP.” – Andrew has outlined several good reasons why the Yes Camp needs a bit of distance from the SNP government. The problem with that though is that some of the individuals mentioned have diferent visions of an Indipendent Scotland. Both Harvie and Fox favour a republican Scotland, and possibly one outwith the influence of Brussels. Salmond’s vision of a low tax Scotland will not go down well with Harvie or Fox. Reconciling those differences will be a must – given the attacks bound to be on their way from the No Camp.
2)”Expect the YES campaign to organise more endorsements from well known women and members of the business community” – I would have thought that the importaint thing for the Yes Camp to do would be to get their arguments right and out there. Already we have seen the deputy First Minister shown up on a BBC programme for not seeking the advice of the Office of the EU Commission’s President Manuel Barrosso regarding post Independent Scotland’s relationship with the EU, we have seen the SNP lambasted for their stance of adopting the pound as currency post Independence. The critisism I would make is that the Yes Camp haven’t really made any opening arguments about why they think Scotland would be better off Independent. Two weeks ago was an ideal opportunity to do this, instead we have a succession of celebrity endorsements that won’t have the needed effect.
#2 by Indy on June 8, 2012 - 8:23 pm
I would mainly like to see an end of silly game playing now and a bit of proper discussion.
Example – there is zero point in seeking an opinion from the EU Commission’s President Manuel Barrosso regarding post Independent Scotland’s relationship with the EU.
The EU Commission will not give an opinion because they do not give opinions on the internal affairs of member states.
This is a fact well known to everyone in politics, so when a politician brandishes a letter saying ah-hah you have never asked for an opinion (on something we politicians know you won’t get an opinion on) it is just a stupid gimmick. It is treating the electorate as though they were fools, trying to trick them into reaching a certain conclusion based on concealing the really pertinent information.
Our well paid (at our expense) political representatives could go on for the next 2 years like this – or they could not.
Personally I rather hope they grow up a bit and start to treat voters – if not their opponents – with a little more respect.
#3 by Doug Daniel on June 9, 2012 - 3:57 am
Indeed, that was cynicism of the highest order from Davidson, and I hope we get away from those sort of things, as it does not serve the people of Scotland to treat the issue with such contempt.
It must be said, Andrew’s post – certainly the latter part of it – is positively dripping with cynicism. The description of what the unionist side must do to win is almost the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory, considering the level of duping of the electorate it would entail. What sort of victory would it be if unionists fool us into voting against independence, only to have absolutely no plan what to do as a next step? Unionists absolutely need to be nailed down on what will happen IF we vote no, because there is no status quo here – Westminster panders to Scotland to a certain extent now because the threat of Scottish independence looms large, but if we throw that away without a promise (and not a Lib Dem promise) of what happens next, it’s open season for those in England who are “bored of moaning Jocks with their free prescriptions and free university tuition.”
This situation must be avoided at all costs. It’s time for the media to start upping their game here and ensure both sides are taken to task equally.
#4 by Indy on June 9, 2012 - 9:09 am
Exactly. Andrew’s bizarre assertion that those who believe in independence must believe in it for exactly the same reasons and want exactly the same policies for an independent Scotland is actually a fairly mainstream opinion amongst opponents of self-government, particularly in the media.
It’s as though we aren’t supposed to notice that the No camp are far more divided! There almost no consensus between them on anything.
#5 by andrewgraemesmith on June 9, 2012 - 11:11 am
I didn’t make that assertion. The point I made was that until more non SNP voices are raised then the debate in the media is between SNP policies and everyone who wants to keep the union. I wouldn’t suggest that even all SNP members, let alone voters, agree on everything.
#6 by Indy on June 9, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Sorry you did: “The problem with that though is that some of the individuals mentioned have diferent visions of an Indipendent Scotland. Both Harvie and Fox favour a republican Scotland, and possibly one outwith the influence of Brussels. Salmond’s vision of a low tax Scotland will not go down well with Harvie or Fox. Reconciling those differences will be a must – given the attacks bound to be on their way from the No Camp.”
There are as many differences between the different Unionistparties however on issues like Europe, taxation etc.Nobody suggests that they have to reconcile those differences though.
#7 by andrewgraemesmith on June 9, 2012 - 8:43 pm
look again, that was Allan’s response to me making the exact opposite point.
#8 by Indy on June 9, 2012 - 10:49 pm
Oh right sorry – I was actually replying to Allan, got my names mixed up!
#9 by andrewgraemesmith on June 9, 2012 - 11:15 am
Agreed, it was very cynical, but that tends to be the nature of political campaigning. I don’t see why there would ever need to be a united NO response on what would happen next. I assume they’ll be some vaguary where Labour say that if you vote NO then they’ll campaign for lots of extra powers and Lib Dems may say the same thing, although I would question the sincerity of this. One part of it will depend on who’s in government in Westminster after the next election, if it’s Tories then I would expect Labour to continue arguing for more powers with a bit more conviction than they would if it were Miliband.
#10 by Allan on June 9, 2012 - 11:28 am
I think i’d said before that a successful “No” vote would be something of a phyrric victory for “Scottish” Labour. A policy vacum that is being masked by their relentless pessimism about Independence. Doug has rather interestingly highlighted another facet here in that “Scottish” Labour’s past campaigns have been centred around being able to protect Scottish people from the cuts.
What protection will “Scottish” Labour be able to offer if they are willing to side with the Tories and spike fiscal autonomy while the Torries are plotting other nasty punishments for having the temerity to rais our voices.
#11 by Indy on June 9, 2012 - 9:57 am
Anyway, to address the point of the article. This is not actually going to be a completely online campaign as you seem to think. The online/social media aspect of it is important but it’s not the basis of the campaign. We are not looking to get a million people to sign online. Much of it will be done the old fashioned way with a printed document going round the doors or with a stall on the high street.
So we can immediately identify the people who are already in – those who sign – the people who are definitely out – those who tell us to get back to from whence we came and never darken their door again – and most importantly those who haven’t decided. The more information we have on them, and what factors will influence how they vote, the better.
Of course there is a data protection issue here. When you log someone canvassing for the SNP and they give you their phone number/email address you are recording that information on behalf of the SNP. In the Yes campaign it is a different organisation, hence it has to be recorded via the Yes website because they, not the SNP, control the data. And it also of course means that it’s open to everyone to join in. You don’t need to be in the SNP or Greens or SSP etc to be part of this. Labour members can join in. Anyone can.
#12 by ianbeag on June 9, 2012 - 10:18 am
In the economically straitened time we are in and where we are likely to remain for a long time under the status-quo, is it not the case that the most compelling argument that the YES camp can make is a well argued economic one – that Scots would be better off financially is we have control over our own resources?
#13 by andrewgraemesmith on June 9, 2012 - 11:22 am
I would change that to ‘COULD be better off financially’ as it really depends on what policies are pursued by the government of the day.
#14 by ianbeag on June 9, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Agreed
#15 by Longshanker on June 9, 2012 - 11:57 am
Very interesting read Andrew.
I agree that the Unionists don’t really need to do much more than put in an occasional counter offensive to keep the Independence minded within the camp of the already convinced.
A united Unionist camp really would be a big turn-off.
I’m undecided and would prefer to see an option of devo plus/max/lite/whatever, because I really only see potential disaster arising from independence at this moment in time.
So far, nothing the SNP have done has changed my stance one bit.
Patrick Harvie, on the other hand, should indeed get more air time. I found him the most convincing by far on the televised Big Debate. Several of the points he made only entrenched my belief in the need for change.
Salmond, however, in certain areas is looking like Thatcher/Blair lite.
It’s why the accusation raised against him of ‘independence vanity project’ is becoming entrenched in my perception of him and the SNP.
#16 by Indy on June 9, 2012 - 10:56 pm
What makes you think that you can get devo max/indy lite/whatever it is by just thinking you want it?
Power concedes nothing without a demand.
#17 by Chris on June 10, 2012 - 11:30 am
I think you are absolutely right on this. Possibly another reason for calling (sometime) an independence referendum without popular support might be a tragic error.
There is so much scope for improving the way Holyrood raises and spends to give it greater accountability without the duplication of institutions.
#18 by Aidan on June 9, 2012 - 1:11 pm
The point about policy (and this applies particularly to things like monetary policy) isn’t so much about what it would be, obviously that’s a matter for the government of the day after independence, it’s about how the post-independence decision making structures would work – changing those is, of course, the main meat of the independence campaign.
#19 by Chris on June 10, 2012 - 11:26 am
I still don’t see why the No side needs to put forward an alternative vision, the NO camp appears to be broader than the yes camp and expecting a coherent vision is not a reasonable request and, of course, would allow the SNP to yet again present opposition to independence as a Tory-Labour front. Surely the onus is on the people proposing change to make their case and let everyone else make of it what they want. You’ll get the vision when we have elections every two or three years for people to chose. That will still carry on despite the referendum, that has yet to be called.
If the Yes campaign or any of its constituents had done the hard work of (a) getting popular support before calling the referendum and (b) painting a coherent possible vision of what an independent Scotland might look like, then there would be at least something to oppose.
Instead we continue to have more muddle and pish from “Sterling Zone” to “Alex ‘more British than the British’ Neil” wanting Scotland to not join the euro, rejoin the pound; maybe – or maybe not – leave NATO, lose Trident, or maybe lease it out, join the Nordic Council, keep the DVLA and the Bank of England, but lose the BBC.
You’d think after 70 years they would have got this sorted before calling a referendum (let’s half this for Alex Neil for his time spent in Labour and the SLP). The Yes Campaign has the advantage of being able to present a vision of something different. Given that they seem unable to do so in a coherent manner, and given that they will be calling the referendum, it is bordering on the absurd to expect the No campaign to do what the Yes campaign haven’t done.