What’s the state of play with the #indyref? Today a guest roundup from Alasdair Stirling, who describes himself as cynical of politicians and believes that we should reject all authority which we cannot justify by reason, but believes that politics that delivers the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers can be virtuous.
With the launch of both the Yes and No campaigns we can now see an outline of the basic strategies with which the opposing sides of the debate will likely fight the referendum. For their part the No campaign seem to have adopted a Salmond/SNP focused variation of their tried and tested ‘Too Wee, Too Poor and Too Stupid’ strategy. Basically they are attacking Salmond (questioning his judgement, courage, associations and commitment to independence itself) and rubbishing any SNP plan or proposal for post-independence Scotland as wishful thinking and/or fanciful nonsense (because ipso facto Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid).
That the gods have blessed the No campaign with fortuitous timing is beyond question. The Jubilee and Olympics have provided a drum beat of ‘feel-good’ news pushing the United Kingdom and its most fundamental institution into every living room. Moreover, launching against a background of increasingly horrific ‘euro-catastrophe’ speculation cannot but have helped prepare a favourable reception for the ‘Better Together’ message. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the recent opinion poll swing against independence is solely due to the No campaign’s good fortune or a compliant media.
The No campaign has scored some very serious hits and deserves credit therefor. Whatever their merits, the SNP’s plans for an independent Scotland’s currency and financial regulation seem to lack detail and coherence, but more importantly the plans as set forth clearly rely on the rUK government agreeing to participate in the proposed arrangements. The No campaigners have therefore found it all too easy to assert that the rUK government will have no truck with the SNP’s plans, or if they do it will be on such terms as will render independence meaningless. The Yes campaign has not yet constructed a viable narrative against this assertion and, frankly, in the public mind the Nationalist plans and proposals stand guilty as charged: i.e. wishful thinking and fanciful nonsense.
Notwithstanding its initial success, the plain fact is that the No campaign has some serious vulnerabilities. It has chosen to focus on a definitive in/out of the Union decision with any plan or proposals for further or enhanced devolution reserved to the post referendum world. Objectively, this is a viable strategy, however the 1979 referendum has left a long folk memory of Westminster gerrymandering and broken promises. Despite the Prime Minister being open to further devolution and/or Labour and Liberal Democrat cogitations on further powers, the Westminster political establishment is very firmly rooted in the constitutional status quo, and No campaigners remain vulnerable to the charge that (absent a political threat from the SNP) Scotland will have no further constitutional change of any substance.
Perhaps not surprisingly, recent opinion polls have the Scottish Labour cognisanti licking their lips at the prospect of Salmond’s political demise and looking forward to a ‘post-SNP’ world with Labour’s political ascendancy re-established, the Tories returned to their rightful place as Scotland’s permanent minority opposition and the SNP “restored to what they ought to be, an eccentric fringe Party: somewhat less serious than the Greens but still a bit more coherent than the Liberal Democrats”. At the other end of the extreme, columnists such as Alan Cochrane and Iain Martin have already speculated on ‘Devo-Minus’ – perhaps half in fun half in earnest, but probably characteristic of a large slice of fundamentalist Unionist thinking.
These sorts of politically partisan objectives are becoming an increasingly vocal fringe to the No campaign, but seem to run counter to the core message of the very opinion polls that give their proponents such hope. Reading opinion poll runes is a notoriously uncertain science, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that these vocal fringes are driving the No campaign to ignore the only indications of the electorate’s preferences simply because an in/out option best serves their partisan ends. It remains to be seen whether the Scottish voters share Labour’s desire to kill off the SNP or are minded to give uber-Unionists licence to reduce the legislative scope of the Scottish Parliament. It is early days, but there is a real danger that it if the No campaign allows these partisan political objectives to dominate its mainstream campaign and message then it runs the risk of alienating itself from an electorate that is disinterested in politics and generally holds politicians in contempt.
The No campaign’s message – probably inevitably having decided to focus on a defence of the status quo – is relentlessly negative. It is all very well saying that you believe that Scotland would be viable as an independent country, but if your every pronouncement focuses on: Salmond’s failings, the SNP’s weaknesses and a host of (good, bad and indifferent) reasons why an independent Scotland is a non-starter you are running a negative campaign. Put aside the question of whether the electorate has any stomach for a relentless two year barrage of negativity, the No campaign may be making a serious mistake with this approach. It is an article of faith that No campaigners must publicly agree that Scotland could be viable as an independent country; what happens – how do they respond – if/when the Yes campaign presents voters with a viable and believable independence narrative?
Finally and perhaps most importantly, the No campaign may be misunderstanding DevoMax minded voters. Poll after poll shows somewhere between 20-30% of the Scottish electorate inclined to support enhanced devolution. With independence and the status quo commanding only circa 30% of the vote, these are crucial voters. It is difficult to know what motivates them, but their inclination toward Devo-Max is characteristic of a broad phenomenon developing across Scottish society. The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey data suggests that Scots are transferring or have transferred their focus and trust from the established Westminster institutions to the emergent Holyrood ones. In this process, Scots do not seem to be driven by ‘Braveheart’ patriotism or narrow national identity; it appears to be a cold calculation based on growing confidence in the Scottish Parliament as the nation’s principal political forum and the institution that they most trust to further Scottish interests.
The No campaign’s in/out vote status quo strategy swims against this tide and they appear to be premising their campaign on the assumption that while DevoMax inclined voters may flirt with ill-defined notions of enhanced devolution, they remain at heart loyal to the concept of Britain and its Westminster-centred political institutions, and, if sufficiently scared of ‘Alex in Salmondland’, will follow their fundamental instincts and vote for the status quo. Most seriously, the reluctance to engage in the DevoMax debate and/or offer a reliable route to enhanced devolution leaves the No campaign having to rely on voters’ fears, and most importantly means that it is unable to articulate a vision for Scotland that appeals to the the hopes and aspirations of those voters currently ill served by the current Westminster focused political settlement, and who may see this referendum as the politicians’ opportunity to offer them the prospect of a better future.
As regards the Yes campaign, there are many failures and missed opportunities to consider. However, the first and (arguably) the most serious is the fact that the SNP’s plans and proposals for a post-independence Scotland aren’t even gaining much traction with committed independence supporters. A quick scan of the conversations on nationalist blogs shows that the policies that have had an outing – the pound, financial regulation and defence etc. – have not set the nationalist heather alight, to put it mildly. It is early days, but if the SNP aren’t really selling these policies to the thoughtful commentators of ‘Better Nation’, then the Yes campaign is in some serious trouble.
To be fair, these policies have a great deal more substance than their reception suggests. History tells us that a new state emerges by one of two basic routes and that the route taken does much to define the character of the emergent state and (in particular) its relationship with the demitting state. Where the route to independence is through a bitter armed conflict (e.g. America, Ireland and Algeria) a wide gulf opens up between the emergent and the demitting states and there tends to be little visible coordination and cooperation between the two after independence. Conversely, where a state emerges through a peaceful process of constitutional negotiation (e.g. Canada, Australia and New Zealand) there is a great deal of continuing cooperation between the emergent and demitting states.
In particular the emergent state often relies very heavily on its continuing use of the demitting state’s political, social and economic institutions until it develops its own arrangements. No campaigners have made much of the thought that this sort of post-independence continuity of institutions degrades the reality and/or integrity of an independent Scotland’s status. It is a poor argument (who questions the reality or validity of Canadian, Australian or New Zealand independence) but they are currently making it successfully, and unless the Yes campaign find a convincing narrative to explain the merits of such proposals these attacks will continue to damage their prospects of success. However, despite their troubles in this area, if the Yes campaign finds the necessary narrative the idea of independent Scotland continuing to share institutions with the remaining United Kingdom could very well receive a favourable hearing from voters: in particular from those inclined to a Devo-Max arrangement.
The SNP have made much of the virtue of positive campaigning; and in particular its role in their 2011 election success. Without doubting the merits of this approach, the ‘happy-clappy’ tenor of the Yes campaign so far suggests that many Yes campaigners may not yet really understand the nature of the battle to which they are joined (conversely, the No campaigners seem to fully understand what is at stake). Remember, history shows us that: American Loyalists had no place in independent America; Unionists had no place in independent Ireland; and the Pied Noir had no place in independent Algeria. At the other end of the spectrum, for the powers that be in London this referendum is effectively a ‘ballot box’ rebellion against the United Kingdom constitution and its institutions – and we all know what happens to the leaders and supporters of a failed rebellion.
Perhaps it is because the current generation of Nationalists have grown up in the softer accommodating world of devolutionist Unionism. Whatever the reason, Yes campaigners who (for example) complain of unfair media bias or those that make comfortable assumptions about Westminster’s future intentions very quickly need to come to terms with the ruthless and determined nature of old-school Unionism – if not it is a mistake that will likely cost them and Scotland dear. Yes campaigners should be very aware that, whatever their best intentions, there will be no shaking hands and letting bygones be bygones when the result is declared. This referendum is a very high stakes game, not only because it challenges the deepest foundations of the UK state but because the losers lose everything. Scottish Labour (and many in the mainstream Scottish media) may now be relishing the prospect of ‘cleaning house’ after an SNP defeat – but they know (all too well) that if the result goes the other way then as the cheerleaders of the former Union they will have no place in the public life of an independent Scotland.
Of course with the likely date of the referendum being 2014, we have seen no more than the campaign’s opening salvos and whilst both the Yes and No campaigns are already campaigning actively, the real action of the referendum is still in the strategic positioning around its process. Whilst many eloquent voices in the blogosphere – Gerry Hassan, Better Nation and the Burd – are calling for both campaigns to set out an inspiring vision for Scotland’s future and engage in a thoughtful discussion of their proposals, this understandable view perhaps misunderstands the importance of the strategic manoeuvring.
Low politics these manoeuvres may be (and they are certainly not inspiring), but it is impossible to overstate the importance of the Devo-Max second question. The Unionist parties have already come out firmly against it. This must be so, if Scotland were to vote for Devo-Max, such a vote would commit the Unionist parties to delivering a policy that they cannot, and will not, be able to deliver without the approval of the wider British electorate (either in a general election or single issue referendum) – which of course they may not do. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Unionist parties could sell proposals for further devolution to their English/Welsh and Northern Irish MPs before the current Scotland Act has bedded in and proved its worth. Accordingly, even if the Unionist parties are minded to deliver further devolution and could overcome these difficulties, it is unlikely that any proposal for enhanced devolution (the DevoMax second question) could or would reach the statute book until well after the 2025 Westminster election.
It falls therefore to Alex Salmond to carry the Devo-Max torch and keep the idea of a second question alive. From a Unionist point of view, this is simply to ensure that SNP get a ‘consolation prize’ in a contest that the Unionists believe that the SNP themselves know they cannot win. Unfortunately, this is a self-serving argument and doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. The evidence from almost every opinion poll suggests that Devo-Max would win the referendum by some distance. Why therefore does Alex Salmond want the Devo-Max question? The answer is that the SNP no more wants a Devo-Max question than the Unionist parties do. What the SNP wants is that the voters (and in particular the Devo-Max inclined voters) blame the Unionist parties for denying them the chance of voting for this constitutional arrangement.
We already know the No campaign narrative: ‘the UK can discuss further devolution after Scotland decides whether it is in or out of the Union’. As for the Yes campaign we can only guess, but it will likely run something along the lines of: ‘we tried to get Devo-Max on the ballot, but the Unionists prevented it so if you want Scotland to have further powers, independence really is your only option’. Of course, it is in this context that the SNP’s redefining of independence (keep the Queen and the pound etc.) starts to make sense. The SNP are gambling (but it’s probably a good gamble) that if denied the option on the ballot, Devo-Max inclined voters will cast their votes for an independence that looks remarkably like the Devo-Max arrangement that they wanted.
Getting rid of Devo-Max – and making sure the Unionists get the blame for it – really is the SNP’s only possible route to referendum success. When Alex Salmond floats the Devo-Max option or proposes a second question on the ballot, it is simply to force opposition from the Unionists (who reliably oppose the matter without thinking). All in all it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that the outcome of these Devo-Max and second question manoeuvrings will decide the referendum result. Neither side wants (or can live or succeed with) a second question, but whose ever narrative the Devo-Max inclined voters believe will likely pick up most of their votes and win the referendum.
The military historian and strategist B.H. Liddell Hart said: ‘The profoundest truth of war is that the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men.’ More simply put: ‘the man who runs the battle wins the battle’; and although and we are still in the opening ‘Phony War’ stages of the campaign, Alex Salmond is still very much running the battle. For all the No campaign’s early victories, these are just the opening skirmishes and the strategic initiative remains with Alex Salmond – it is still his referendum to win!
#1 by Indy on August 9, 2012 - 10:41 am
What I think is interesting about the analysis of the Indyref campaign is how few people have worked out that it’s a completely different electorate.
The SNP got into power by winning Middle Scotland – the people who vote. That is who we – as a party – have been focussed on for the past decade or so and it’s also who Labour are focussed on. On the basis of opinion polls these people are minded to vote No to independence but to keep the SNP in power. Support for the SNP has not really been dented by lack of enthusiasm thus far for independence.
But if we look at the electorate for the Indyref it is a whole lot bigger. Not simply because people won’t vote along party lines – as we know many Labour voters support independence and there are SNP voters who don’t – but because it is going to be a much bigger turnout than we have seen for any Scottish Parliament election. So the target voters are those who don’t normally vote. In some cases people who may not even be on the electoral register.
That explains some of the bemusement about SNP tactics like getting the Sun on board, Joan McAlpine’s Daily Record column etc. That’s not only about going after Labour voters but about going after people who don’t vote, full stop.
And it also explains why the SNP is frankly not all that bothered by concerns raised by people who are already committed to voting Yes about stuff around the monarchy, currency etc. When it comes to the point are people actually going to say I don’t like the SNP policy on the monarchy therefore I am going to vote for continued Tory rule? People may well say I am not going to vote SNP in future, I am going to vote Green or SSP. That is fine. The SNP does not exist to keep itself in power but to win independence by the quickest possible route.
But whatever approach people take to analysing the referendum campaign always remember we are looking at a likely 70 – 80pc turnout, possibly even higher. So the key voters are actually the ones political commentators know least about because they don’t normally vote. In socio-economic terms that translates as more likely to be working class than middle class, more likely to be young than old. Beyond that, women are key. It’s interesting actually that none of the commentators have picked up on what is being discussed among SNP members around the NATO issue. How does it play with women?
#2 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 1:16 pm
If I may expand of your final question. I edited out a section about the character of the refereddum electorate and in particular those who are in effect floating voters. I wasn’t just thinking about female voters (although I think that their vote will be decisive to the result), more I was looking at the character of the Devo-Max voter and what sways them between the Status Quo, Devo-Max and Interdependence. It is subject worthy of much consideration by all those involved in both the Yes and No campaigns.
#3 by Grahamski on August 9, 2012 - 11:22 am
A laughably jaundiced view of the state of play.
Still, not to worry, “..the strategic initiative remains with Alex Salmond – it is still his referendum to win!”
Of course it is, dear.
#4 by Colin Dunn on August 9, 2012 - 12:03 pm
Excellent article, thanks. But ‘disinterested’ in para 6? Uninterested, surely?
#5 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 1:18 pm
Yes, you are quite right – my mistake.
#6 by Cath on August 9, 2012 - 12:24 pm
“It’s interesting actually that none of the commentators have picked up on what is being discussed among SNP members around the NATO issue. How does it play with women?”
To me, the NATO debate seems like a win/win for the SNP. I’m a female member, and basically ambivalent. I’m very anti trident, but the new SNP policy is still “we will remain a member so long as we can get rid of Trident; otherwise we’ll pull out”. That seems fair and also makes it seem we have a strong hand to play with NATO. But equally, partnership for peace seems fine.
Trident is one of the key areas where the Westminster parties are well out of step with opinion (British as well as just Scottish, I think). Do we really want to be committing to renewing Trident while following austerity policies, selling of the NHS in England, hammering the sick and disabled etc?
The very idea that we’re having a debate – within the party and outwith – about whether an independent Scotland will be in or out of NATO, and which is the best way to get Trident off the Clyde is brilliant, because it means we’re all talking about a post-independence landscape. And that’s the real strength the Yes campaign has – it’s talking about possible different futures, while Better Together is trying to get us all to cling onto the past and a status quo people aren’t happy with.
If would probably be ideal if the SNP leadership won this particular debate, as that could get those who might be worried about an independent Scotland leaving NATO on board. Then a more radical left can also emerge that fights for anti-NATO and gives those who support that a strong voice. In an independent Scotland, the SNP would be likely to split or lose members to newly emerging independent political parties anyway, so it’s no real political loss to them. But either way, it’s getting people talking about the different future Scotland can have outside the UK, and on a very positive topic: one which only independence – certainly not any flavour of devo-max can deliver.
#7 by Commenter on August 9, 2012 - 12:31 pm
I wonder if the importance of the second question issue isn’t a little over stated. Once it is resolved and put off the table, the question of ‘who’s fault it is that there isn’t a second question’ will fade as an issue, IMO.
I believe that the most we’ll see from the No parties is vague promises of further devolution (NB: only if the yes vote in opinion polls rises far enough) the delivery of which will be contingent on electing that party in 2015. i.e: they’ll be manifesto commitments at the very most. Actually as I write that I doubt even that will happen.
On the progress of the Yes campaign, I hope I’m not still going to be saying “well you know – it’s early days yet” when it’s 2013.
#8 by Steve on August 9, 2012 - 12:55 pm
But what happens if the SNP introduce a Bill with two questions (without the necessary powers being devolved), who does that benefit politically?
#9 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 1:33 pm
I read with interest the legal argument that Lallands Peat Worrier thrashed out online (as far I I am concerned Jim Wallace is simply rehearsing LPW’s argument). It has the merit of being coherent but, in my view, neither its originator (nor Jim Wallace) have addressed the problem that Section 101 of the Scotland Act 1998 presents to the argument. In summary, this section requires that any Act of the Scottish Parliament be interpreted as narrowly as is necessary to bring it within the Parliament’s competence.
#10 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on August 9, 2012 - 2:03 pm
Cutting to the quick, the losers will be out on their ears….it will be revivifying, virtual “revolution” or the kowtowing, reactionary status quo. There are no rules in this game. Imagining that this battle for Scotland will not be to the death is wishful thinking, and dangerously equivocal to boot. Leave the legalistic nonsense to the opposition hirelings. We neither recognize their worldview nor their court. The world awaits.
#11 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 2:55 pm
I agree that it is a very high stakes game, but I am equally sure that whatever the outcome Scotland will be a poorer place if we adopt a ‘no rules’ approach.
#12 by Iain Menzies on August 9, 2012 - 11:15 pm
‘Their court’? I may be wrong but i rther assumed that any legal challenge to the referendum would at least start in the Court of Session….which unless every history book i have ever read was a liar is a Scottish Court.
#13 by Grahamski on August 9, 2012 - 2:33 pm
“We neither recognize their worldview nor their court. ”
I shudder to think, but who is ‘we’ and what court do you refuse to recognise?
#14 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 3:46 pm
The men that tipped tea over the rail of a ship into Boston harbour recognized British worldview or court – success crowned their endeavour and legitimatized their actions. Scottish Nationalists seem to have chosen to progress their aims by constitutional means (much as Canada, Australia and New Zealand did), but that is not to say that constitutional nationalists either agree with the British/Unionist worldview. I would be horrified were the current constitutional debate to move from words to arms, but I do not (for instance) recognize the legitimacy of the UK Supreme Court and draw your attention to an article from the very treaty that the No Campaign wishes to retain “ And that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions shall have no power to Cognosce Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same” and this provision remains law today.
#15 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 3:46 pm
Sorry: no British worldview or court
#16 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on August 9, 2012 - 5:55 pm
You reinforce my point. “No rules” is perhaps rather hyperbolic. But we should certainly not be held in thrall to the “contitutional machinations” of the agents of the status quo. If there are to be “rules” let them be of our own making.
#17 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on August 9, 2012 - 6:07 pm
As someone whose mind works from the general to the particular, I fear through legalism and constitutionalism we may well lose sight of the goal. Freedom first and last. I do not care what the Unionists think. I just expect them to do their worst.
#18 by gavin on August 9, 2012 - 2:40 pm
As a supporter of Independence, I can easy persuade myself that all the stuff about currency or the Monarchy will be resolved AFTER Independence. I would not envisage the Monarchy being relevent for long and would think Scotland would float a new currency ( since we would have little say in Sterling ) as soon as the Market confidence would allow it. My problem is getting there in the face of some nasty media bias. I would still go for a second question. If Indy, fine. If Devo-Max, that would empower the Scottish Government to negotiate repatriation of powers from the UK to Scotland. Would Westminster co-operate in this? I doubt it, they enjoy their hegemony too much, and that would trigger a new referendum, to be held immediatly. That to me is the route to Independence, one step at a time.
#19 by Alasdair Stirling on August 9, 2012 - 3:54 pm
I have to say, that your view (laudable though it is) is an example of the ‘happy-clappy’ tone of the Yes campaign that I mentioned.
#20 by Alex Grant on August 9, 2012 - 3:22 pm
And what about a scenario where the coalition splits and Cameron thinks he is going to lose power? Might there be a form of devomax deal offered prior to 2014 to get rid of Scottish Labour MP’s once and for all?
#21 by Alasdair Stirling on August 11, 2012 - 1:01 am
Sad to say, this is a rather ‘happy-clappy’ view of Unionism.
#22 by Peter A Bell on August 9, 2012 - 5:34 pm
Excellent analysis. Particularly with regard to Salmond’s second question strategy (My own thoughts http://bit.ly/MJITsH). But it really is time people learned to differentiate between the SNP and Yes Scotland.
#23 by Zachary on August 9, 2012 - 6:35 pm
…unlikely that any proposal for enhanced devolution (the DevoMax second question) could or would reach the statute book until well after the 2025 Westminster election.
Truly a frightening thought if independence were to be rejected! Can you elaborate on this a little more? Why so long?
#24 by Alasdair Stirling on August 11, 2012 - 12:47 am
Scotland Act 2012 in-force 2014 -> Referendum Autumn 2014 -> Westminster Election 2015 -> Scottish Election 2016. Assume that after a No vote the Unionists are minded to consider further devolution. Given that the following two years are ‘busy’ and it is likely require that the provisions of the current Scotland Act are working, it is only reasonable to assume that they will want approximately 5 years of data. It is unlikely that they will be much interested in discussing enhanced devolution with the 2020 (UK) and 2021 (Scottish) elections looming. Therefore if there is to be a Calman Mk2, it will be brought together only after the 2021 election say, 2022. Calman Mk 1 took 2 years to report, so it is likely that Calman Mk2 would report circa 2024. Once again, assuming a schedule similar to Calman Mk1, the outgoing UK government draft a green paper that would form part of the 2025 manifesto with the next Scotland Act hitting the statute books circa 2027. Obviously it could be done much faster, but post a No vote it is unlikely that the Unionists will see much reason to hurry things along.
#25 by David Smillie on August 10, 2012 - 9:46 am
You mention ‘the ruthless and determined nature of old-school unionism’ and the inability of some Yes campaigners to come to terms with this. I wholeheartedly agree with you. A few months ago I posted a piece on the possible intentions of the UK govt to retaining the nuclear facilities on the Clyde in the event of Scottish independence. The reaction to my speculations was ferocious and took me aback. I was accused of being a troll, and it was implied that I was some kind of British government agent. My conclusion from this episode is that there is a serious level of naivety in the independence camp, and a wilful blindness to the kind of hardball that I believe the UK govt is capable of playing. One respondent snootily informed me that Scotland would own the nuclear weapons post-indendence ‘by default’ since they would be on our territory. Frankly, this kind of thinking is crazy. Independence supporters need to start living in the real world where realpolitik is the name of the game.
#26 by Alasdair Stirling on August 11, 2012 - 12:51 am
Yes: one only has to view Ian Davidson’s recent NewsNight outing to see the true character of old-school Unionism. It is difficult to believe that such people will be much inclined to consider any further devolution of Westminster’s power. To believe otherwise is naive!
#27 by Grahamski on August 10, 2012 - 9:56 am
“But it really is time people learned to differentiate between the SNP and Yes Scotland.”
The Yes Scotland is a front campaign comprising of SNP supporters and a tiny band of wild-eyed trots, disgruntled ex-MSPs and a Labour Party member dedicated to creating a separate Scotland which is wholly funded and controlled by the SNP.
The SNP are a political party dedicated to creating a separate Scotland.
What is there to differentiate?
#28 by Peter A Bell on August 10, 2012 - 10:45 am
Although emanating from the very lowest layer of what now passes for “Scottish” Labour activism, this nicely illustrates the colossal failure of comprehension that also permeates that once great party’s highest echelons as well as the entire anti-independence campaign. “Sottish” Labour’s response to their 2011 election defeat was to withdraw behind a barrier of denial where they have remained ever since – speaking to no-one but themselves; talking about the need to change while utterly convinced that it’s the voters who have got it wrong; and greeting every failure of their abysmal leadership as a magnificent triumph.
Completely cut off from reality in their little bubble, they simply cannot see that Scottish politics have changed. Instead of addressing the new reality, they expend all their energies frantically tilting at their own caricature effigy of Alex Salmond while the electorate looks on in increasing disgust and despair.
Look at the facts. Scotland’s people look at their government and see a bunch of fairly capable people doing a reasonable job under difficult circumstances. “Scottish” Labour looks at the democratically elected Scottish Government and sees usurpers of their divinely ordained right to power.
The people look at the Tory UK government and see an imminent threat to every principle of social justice they hold dear. “Scottish” Labour looks at the Tories and sees an ally who they hope will help them re-establish what they regard as their rightful hegemony in Scotland.
The people look at the constitutional situation and decide that their interests are best served by the further empowerment of their Parliament. “Scottish” Labour looks at the constitutional situation and sees only that it’s own interests are best served by denying the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and insisting upon the supremacy of Westminster in all matters.
Out of touch hardly begins to cover it.
#29 by Colin Dunn on August 10, 2012 - 11:04 am
“The Yes Scotland is a front campaign comprising of SNP supporters and a tiny band of wild-eyed trots, disgruntled ex-MSPs and a Labour Party member dedicated to creating a separate Scotland which is wholly funded and controlled by the SNP.”
And, of course, their views are less real than those of unionists?
It’s ‘comprised of SNP supporters’ or ‘comprises SNP supporters’ by the way 😉
#30 by Colin Dunn on August 10, 2012 - 11:08 am
The YES campaign run by Blair Jenkins is likely to add an interesting further dimension to the debate. There’s little doubt that the unionists’ campaign efforts to smear Salmond and the SNP are successful to some extent, portraying a vote for independence as a vote for the SNP, so the decision to spin off the YES campaign as a separate non-party campaign is an interesting one.
Although it’s possible this was always a long-term plan of the SNP anyway, I suspect that it’s more likely that they realised pretty quickly that their own YES launch hadn’t started very well and that the relentless anti-Salmond campaign was having some effect. A shrewd move, then, to step back from the official YES campaign, and a brave one too.
The difficulty for unionists now is how to combat this move. No doubt they are considering how best to smear Blair Jenkins and his team, but this is a risky tactic due the campaigns robust emphasis on it’s non-party political stance. Having said that, they’ve been pretty ruthless in branding and reviling ALL supporters of independence as cybernats, irrespective of their political allegiance or conduct, so we may just see a continuation of that scorched-earth tactic despite any damage it may do to their future prospects post Yes/No.
#31 by Peter A Bell on August 10, 2012 - 2:34 pm
It has always been envisaged that there would be non-party political campaign organisations – just as there have been in previous referendums. In the Scottish Government’s consultation paper, Your Scotland, Your Referendum, these are referred to as Designated Organisations.
“…I suspect that it’s more likely that they realised pretty quickly that their own YES launch hadn’t started very well…”
This makes no sense. There is only one Yes Scotland campaign and there was only one launch. Although, of necessity, the SNP had to be heavily involved in getting the organisation going, it was always intended that Yes Scotland would be run independently of the party.
I blame the media for the confusion. They persist in conflating Yes Scotland and the SNP for the simple reason that, as you note, politicians/parties are much easier targets for the kind of smear tactics which constitute the principal part of the anti-independence effort.
#32 by Colin Dunn on August 10, 2012 - 10:20 pm
“This makes no sense. There is only one Yes Scotland campaign and there was only one launch. Although, of necessity, the SNP had to be heavily involved in getting the organisation going, it was always intended that Yes Scotland would be run independently of the party.”
If that’s the case, then I’m puzzled. Why launch before Blair Jenkns was appointed? As it was, the launch looked (or was spun very well by the unionist press) like an SNP affair. The appointing of Blair Jenkins some weeks later then tends to look like a rethink.
#33 by Craig Gallagher on August 10, 2012 - 2:54 pm
This is a great article, one that is balanced and considerate and underlines the fault-lines for both campaigns heading into the proper campaigning season the next year will be.
One observation I would make is on the issue of Yes Scotland/SNP/Independence supporter naivety, vis-a-vis the breathtaking cynicism of Westminster/Unionist advocates. We have already seen evidence of this, with Iain Davidson’s unequivocal statement that Parliament in London feels it alone holds the right to grant further powers to the Scottish Parliament, and that it fiercely defends its supervisory right to any and all actions by Parliament in Edinburgh.
I wonder, though, what the Scottish electorate will make of that. One of Canon Kenyon Wright’s principle themes throughout the Devolution campaign in the 1980s and 1990s was on the principle of Scottish popular sovereignty, and the idea that the unlimited power of Westminster over Scotland was undesirable and needed correction. Since it was the Scottish Constitutional Convention (of which Iain Davidson was a member, ironically) that drafted the manifesto that became the Scotland Act, I would think that argument, that conception of sovereignty is embodied by the very existence of the Holyrood Parliament.
In keeping with your assertion (correct, I believe) that Scots are increasingly inclined towards Holyrood handling their affairs, I think the hardball tactics of Westminster will profoundly alienate many Scottish voters from the No cause. The SCC and Kenyon Wright also spoke a great deal about rejecting the old political culture of Westminster when fashioning their new Parliament, something that – in fits and starts – Holyrood has delivered on. I believe that aspect will prove to be crucial on the Devo-Max issue. Yes Scotland will point to Westminster bully-boy tactics and strike a chord with voters who find them profoundly distasteful.
#34 by Alasdair Stirling on August 11, 2012 - 12:59 am
One of the key points that I was trying to make is that the Yes campaign has to find a convincing narrative. This is not the same as having a good argument – indeed there if often no relationship between the argument and the narrative surrounding it. The build-up of Margret Thatcher prior to the 1979 election is a good case in point. The idea that as a housewife ‘handbag’ economics gave her an innate understanding of how to manage the economy sold well to working class voters who had grown up in households where the mother ran the family finances. It was nonsense of course, but it sold well. The Yes campaign desperately needs a simple and attractive narrative that touches a chord with the electorate.
Pingback: Scottish independence/separation: constitutional wrangling meets international law oversight? « basedrones
#35 by Chris on August 11, 2012 - 12:24 pm
The No campaign doesn’t need to fight dirty as the lead is so overwhelming. Why else put “housewives’ favourite” Alistair Darling in charge rather than a more feral John Reid, etc?
Apart from non-existent threats to the national institutions such as the football team, rugby team (if only…) and banknotes, there is not much on the horizon that looks like a game-changer. So a manufactured constitutional crisis is a reasonable option.
Of course the hard work would be to persuade people of the case for independence and have thought through the answers to basic questions like currency before calling a referendum.
The Yes campaign reminds me of Hibs before this year’s cup final: lots of celebrity endorsements, up against a dull establishment, knowing they are probably going to be hammered, but still going for it as they won’t have another chance for 10 years. Then losing 5-1.
#36 by Chris on August 11, 2012 - 12:41 pm
Devo-max sounds great because it sounds like a compromise to some and a best of both worlds to others.
As a compromise I would be willing to consider it if it gave the parliament more powers especially on raising and lowering taxation so that it had more responsibility for the economy as a whole. If we could replace the council tax with something fairer, if we could make strategic tax decisions e.g. make cases for investment knowing that the tax streams would bring more income.
If Devo-Max just became all the worst nonsenses of independence (500-odd government departments duplicated) with none of the actual advantages of independence the I don’t see many people voting for it.
My main concern is that the terms of a 2nd question will be set by supporters of independence rather than by anyone who actually wants Devo-Max. So it is likely to be Indy-minus.
Hidden in all these questions is the murky question of Oil revenues. With even SNP MSPs confusing – possibly deliberately – the difference between the value of oil reserves and the royalties that could be earned on them, there is much uncertainty. However despite all the visionary talk of a New and Fairer Scotland, etc, a lot of support for independence is from people who want the ‘oil money’
For those people it is not about better services or fairer Scotland it is about getting more for less. If Devo-Max is presented as a ‘best of both worlds’, you-get-to-stay-in-the-UK-but-keep-the-oil-money then it would have a superficial base attraction. Of course this is well outside the powers of a Scottish Parliament to deliver, especially if the people had overwhelmingly rejected independence so had no bargaining chip.