Another guest, this time from Andrew Graeme Smith, a London-based Scot who works in the PR industry. He grew up in Edinburgh and studied at Dundee, and you can read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.
Well, the battle lines have been drawn and the campaigns are about to properly kick off as we enter the longest and most important three years in Scottish constitutional history. All that stands between Scotland and independence are the matters of public opinion and a NO campaign that will involve a bag of dirty tricks and mud-slinging tactics that will make the scrutiny of a US Presidential campaign look like a walk in the park.
By day I work for a PR firm and spend lots of time working on campaign strategies and plans for a wide range of clients, so it’s with a professional hat on that I’ve been thinking about what form the NO campaign will take. On one hand they’ve already rejected most of the advice that I would have given them (The Tories should have elected Fraser, Labour should have elected Macintosh and both parties should have tried to embrace and shape the meaning of devolution-max) which leads me to expect that they’ll do the exact opposite of what I suggest, and then hopefully they’ll stand no chance of winning whatsoever!
One interesting aspect of the last few weeks has been the obvious divisions across the NO camps, but in some ways this makes perfect sense because nobody can have a monopoly on the idea or reasons why people might wish to vote NO. While it’s fair to assume there will be a nominal umbrella campaign for a NO vote it will probably only be used for letterheads, posters, adverts and the odd speech. There is unlikely to be much of a focus on a formal campaign because, as the recent discussions about the role of Alistair Darling show, the unionist parties know that they have utterly nothing whatsoever to gain from entering a presidential campaign against Alex Salmond.
This leads to my second point. If we are to believe the recent social attitudes survey then simple math dictates that the unionist parties don’t need to win over any new converts in order to win the referendum, all that they have to do is ensure that their own supporters turn out and don’t vote the wrong way, this stands in stark contrast to the YES campaign which can’t win the referendum without winning over new voters. This means that the approach of the unionist parties will almost certainly be very insular and will be directed almost entirely at their own supporters in a bid to ensure that they don’t vote yes.
Which leads me to my final point: the individual and collective campaigns will be incredibly negative. There will be some patriotic talk about World War 2 and the wonders of the NHS, but that won’t be enough to make them feel confident of victory. What they will probably do is make sure that the SNP are attacked from all angles in a bid to destroy their credibility in the eyes of their own supporters. This tactic has already been used over the last few days as we have seen the SNP fending off accusations from all angles, the assumption behind this strategy isn’t that the electorate will all want to drape themselves in Union Jacks, the idea will be to conflate the concept of independence with the specific policies of the SNP and the assumption is that if people don’t feel entirely confident about SNP economic policies then their doubts will lead them to vote no.
The history of referendums in Britain show that cross party campaigns can be very popular, and the recent AV referendum has shown that promoting negative messages and appealing to people’s inner doubts can be very popular (how about “she needs a new cardiac facility NOT an independence referendum” for a new slogan?). The AV campaign is an interesting case study because the NO campaign managed to get 2/3 of the vote in Scotland, and as the polling data shows it was only really once the negative advertising and the big political beasts had been unleashed that the NO campaign began to really establish a lead. In the case of AV people were being asked to vote on a reasonably inconsequential change – just imagine how much scare-mongering will be done on something as major as independence.
If the referendum has more than one question then almost everything I’ve written will be invalid (and possibly the topic for a future article) as the middle option will change the nature of the debate and pull both campaigns out of their comfort zones. I would expect that if there is a FFA option then the NO campaign will probably try to run a positive and more formal campaign that’s based more on the Make Poverty History type of model than anything that I’ve outlined. If this is the case then I would expect it to be presented as a conversation between civic Scotland about the future of the country balanced with some whining about the Nationalists being on the sidelines. Equally, all of this is conjecture and speculation and may well prove to be wrong, regardless, I would be keen to know everyone else’s views.
#1 by Doug Daniel on January 17, 2012 - 1:39 pm
There are big differences between this and the AV referendum. As you say, it was a reasonably (I would say completely) inconsequential change, which meant it was hard for people to truly feel passionate about it. If you’re not passionate about your cause, you’ve already lost. No one wanted AV before the referendum (no party, no voter, nobody), and the only people who wanted it at the time of the referendum were those who actually wanted PR – no one wanted it as an end in itself. All the passion was on the side of the “no” campaign, who dreaded the idea of their cosy little set up being upset. On top of all that, the AV referendum was very much seen as a sop to the Lib Dems, a party who had just criminally betrayed those that voted for them (although if they’d paid any attention to Nick Clegg’s rhetoric before the election campaign, it would have come as no surprise to them that he is a right-winger), and many people saw defeat in the AV referendum as a big two-fingers up to them.
Compare this to the independence referendum. We have a fairly massive change, so it is far easier to get people interested in it. There is no end of passion, because for some it is their whole reason for entering politics in the first place, be they politicians, activists, bloggers or just committed voters. Independence is an idea, not a voting system, and so people can come up with their own magical ideas about what it could and will bring to Scotland. Independence is not just about the SNP, but even though it is their referendum, they are so incredibly popular – particularly Big Eck himself – that there is no danger of people voting “no” en masse just to see the look on Eck’s face, especially as it’s far too important a vote for that kind of silliness.
Obviously there is passion on the other side too, but it’s nothing like the passion we have on the “yes” side – a quick dip into the blogosphere since last Sunday shows a level of excitement and creativity in the independence camp that already feels unstoppable. No doubt it’ll tail off a bit eventually – I don’t think anyone could keep this up for over two and a half years – but it’ll keep reappearing bigger and better every time something new comes to the debate. Already it feels like the tired old unionist arguments are being blown out of the water on an almost daily basis – subsidy junkies? BOOSH! Can’t use Sterling? BOOSH!!! Investors are being scared off? BOOSH!!! BOOSH!!! BOOSH!!! At this rate, the referendum will have been won before we’ve even set an exact date.
#2 by Doug Daniel on January 17, 2012 - 1:54 pm
I love forgetting to close italics tags…
#3 by Iain Menzies on January 17, 2012 - 3:44 pm
I agree with you when you say that one of the differences between this and the AV ref is that people seem to like wee eck (for the life of me i cant imagine why).
But there are two points to this, one is that im not convinced that wanting to give the Lib Dems a kicking was as big a factor as you imply. From my memory (as someone who followed what was going on but not religiously) the No side just ran a better campaign.
The other is that i dont see wee eck as being a huge plus for the independence side come the ref. Granted he isnt shit, in my weaker moments i would even say that he is broadly competent however, and this might just be me, last may i i dont remember independence playing a huge part in things, I felt there was a feeling that there would be a referendum, somehow, so it was a non-issue.
Infact i would argue that there is a better comparison to be made between independence and the Euro (in the context of the UK joining or not) in that for all Hague in 2001 (?) did the keep the pound bit the Conservatives couldnt get any real traction from that issue…because there would be a referendum.
Add to that I have yet to see a poll that gives independence an absolute majority. yes maybe a point or two ahead but not over the 50% mark. But ive seen plenty that show support for the Union above the 50% mark. So a vote for the SNP wasnt a vote for independence at the last election, at best (worst) it was a vote for a referendum. Which is not a small part of why I (raving unionist loon that i am) gave one of my votes to the SNP last May.
#4 by Indy on January 17, 2012 - 4:36 pm
I have to confess I went into the polling booth determined either to abstain or spoil my AV ballot paper. But I ended up voting No just to annoy the Lib Dems. I’m not proud of that but there you go!
#5 by Iain Menzies on January 17, 2012 - 5:02 pm
There is nothing to be ashamed of in annoying the Lib Dems 😉
#6 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2012 - 1:23 am
I did the same, or rather my mum did on my behalf because I was offshore at the time. I’m not in the least bit ashamed, because the AV referendum was a sham – asking the electorate to vote on something that there was absolutely no appetite for, and leaving out PR. How dare they? Especially as at the exact same time they were saying an independence referendum would be too expensive (oh how times change…)
Actually, having said that, I might have managed to convince her to spoil my ballot to show my utter contempt for the question, thus refusing to dignify it with an answer. See, it was such a meaningless vote, I’ve forgotten already.
Anyway, this is partly why the devo max question has to be asked, or at least debated until civic Scotland sees that it’s an unworkable stop gap. This referendum must not present the voters with a false choice,like the AV one did. No one must say “where’s the devo max choice?” in the same way that we said “where’s the PR choice?”
#7 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2012 - 1:56 am
For someone who puts so much faith in opinion polls, it’s interesting you’re choosing to ignore the fact that Salmond has approval ratings that no other political leader in the UK could even dream of coming close to achieving. True, a vote for the SNP wasn’t a vote for independence, but a vote for Labour/Tory/Lib Dem wasn’t a vote for the union. It’s well known that there is a sizeable minority of support for independence amongst Labour voters, and every Lib Dem with a voice on the web (except one) seems to have decided independence is the way forward (or at least the better of the two likely options).
(There may have been some exaggeration in a couple of bits there…)
Anyway, no one is going to vote for independence because of Alex Salmond, so his popularity is not an asset in that sense. But as I say, it means no one will vote “no” just to spite him, which people did do with Clegg/AV.
Incidentally, just wait until people have had a chance to discuss what they think devo max should actually consist of, getting themselves in the mood for change of some sort, and eventually struggling to think of anything that would be best left to Westminster. You’ll start seeing your opinion polls moving dramatically to one side… 😉
#8 by Allan on January 17, 2012 - 6:56 pm
Ah but the plebicite won’t be won on the Macblogosphere, it’ll be won by getting people to vote who have never heard of “Better Nation”, “Labour Hame” or “Lallands Peat Worrier” (let alone “Dispatches From Paisley” – wee plug there). BOOSH!!! will have to be a daily event and be written well enough to capture the imagination of the public at large…
#9 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2012 - 2:05 am
Now that people are starting to properly focus on the realities of independence, we’re seeing a surprising amount of articles in the media that are actually helping debunk some myths. There’s been quite a lot rubbishing the subsidy junkie myth, which even politicians no longer try to peddle. So there is stuff out there beyond the Macblogosphere – we just need it to move on to broadcast media. Sunday saw the currency debate go from “we’ll block you from using Sterling” to “yeah okay, we can’t actually stop you, but I’ve made up a whole bunch of other rubbish excuses” in a matter of hours on TV.
Over two more years of this – the truth will out.
#10 by Allan on January 18, 2012 - 7:43 pm
I’d hope so Doug. The past week on Newsnicht has been awful with indepth analysis of what Harris did and what McAlpine meant. No offence to the guy’s but does anyone think that the current presenters of Newsnicht Scotland need to up their game.
I might have said this before (somewhere) but i reckon that the BBC should sign Ponsonby from STV to front Newsnicht…
#11 by M G on January 17, 2012 - 1:39 pm
I certainly feel the press are trying to push the ‘Devo max’ option.The not so subtle” what the majority of voters want”etc. Interestingly,I have never been polled,questioned,asked to contribute and I have never spoken to anyone who has regarding the ‘surveys’.
Again,if people hear this often enough it obviously becomes the accepted view,the norm
The one thing that must.nt be allowed to happen is for the media to set the Agenda as the ‘no’ campaign would have their ’12’man .
#12 by Dr William Reynolds on January 17, 2012 - 2:17 pm
The referndum is not about simple maths(fortunately).The yes and no groups are very close and both are minoritys.Hopefully,we will get a level playing field and the Yes campaign will be able to persuade the dont knows,and some of the present no voters to vote yes.The situation is not as simple as just getting your(assummed) supporters to turn out and vote the right way.While I am sure that the no campaign will be negative,I am quite certain that the Yes campaign will be positive.Recent evidence also indicates that the situation is very fluid and could go either way.
The heading for this article is very biased towards the writers own preference.Since many readers of this site(including myself) will work for a Yes vote for our children and grandchildren,it is a pity that the writer did not choose a neutral heading that reflected the content of the article.I assume the content was about his ideas about how to get a no vote.
#13 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 2:40 pm
Hi William
I am in favour of a YES vote, the title is a play on the Manic Street Preachers song ‘If you Tolerate This Then Your Children Will be Next’ and was meant as a play on the potential for scare-mongering.
The maths point is more that the YES campaign cant win without bringing in new people, wheras the NO campaign need to keep their voters rather than bringing in new ones, that’s one of the key differences between the two campaigns
#14 by BM on January 17, 2012 - 3:30 pm
It’s also a slogan from the Spanish Civil War, used to recruit overseas men into the International Brigades of the Spanish Republic, in the fight against Franco and his Nationalists. It’s extremely politically charged.
As a side note, has anyone considered the negative campaign for independence? After all, if we don’t vote for independence now, then the Tory’s might use that vote to remove powers from the Scottish Parliament, and scupper our right to self-determination in the future. Oooooh!
#15 by Alec on January 17, 2012 - 4:50 pm
BM, we passed like rubber ducks in the bath there with the one about negativity. Not entirely unrelated to the providence of the piece’s title, and linking to the choice of illustration which associates the author’s opponents with the British Empire, what of Douglas Young’s opposition to military service against the Nazis?
Out of interest, Andrew… if you’d remain in London as long as Scotland were part of the Union, on independence, would you return?
~alec
#16 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 5:37 pm
Hi Alec
I moved to London for work reasons and because I like the city. My partner lives in Scotland so I am back and forth regularly and spend my Christmases in Edinburgh. I love London and have no intentions to leave any time soon, however I also love Scotland and I spend a fortune on train tickets, so if the circumstances were right personally and professionally then I wouldn’t rule out moving back (not until after the Olympics though!!!) This applies before and after independence, I don’t see the union as any factor in why I live in London and on whether or not I would move back up north.
#17 by Alec on January 17, 2012 - 6:15 pm
And you’d accuse others in London of trying to direct domestic Scottish affairs from afar!
Are you at least registered to vote in Scotland?
~alec
#18 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 6:51 pm
I don’t think I have accused anyone of trying to direct domestic Scottish affairs from afar, I also know that it’s something I have the power to do anyway :p
I’m registered to vote in London, however I don’t think that excluses me from having an interest and an opinion on what happens in Scotland, being as it is my home, I come and go regularly and I spent 24 years up north.
#19 by Alec on January 18, 2012 - 1:06 pm
If you aint one of those who describe Scottish MPs as being members of a specifically non-Scottish legislature (e.g. London instead of UK Parliament), I’ll take it back.
As for your desire to continue living and working in the Great Wen, surely you can see my point about someone who avails himself of the social and economic benefits of full citizenship in one territory which he’d seek to withdraw from members of an entire population who through design or neccessity cannot move to this territory you like so much?
~alec
#20 by andrewgraemesmith on January 18, 2012 - 8:30 pm
I dont see Westminster as being inherintly any more biased against Scotland than it is against the North East of England (who didn’t vote for the Coalition either) but that’s not directly relevant to why I support independence anyway (which is more of a point about localising decision making and the contrasting differences between a traditional centralised social democratic state vs an increasingly more traditionlly liberal one) The article was not about this anyway and was more to do with how I anticpate the NO campaugn being run,
If your point is that because I live in London I shouldnt have an opinion on Scottish affairs then I can see it, but I disagree. As I said, my family are Scottish and live in Scotland, my partner is Scottish and lives in Scotland and I spent the great majority of my life in Scotland and may be back again someday (although at present I am up roughly once every 3 weeks anyway). In terms of the social and economic benefits of Scotland, if you mean things like free prescriptions then I am very glad people in Scotland have them, even if I don’t.
Just to clarify, I moved to London for work reasons and am happy to stay here, however if personal and professional reasons lead me back to Scotland in the future then I would certainly not be upset.
#21 by Alec on January 17, 2012 - 3:34 pm
So, Andrew, you created an exercise in tilting at the windmills you think are in the No camp?
One thing which I hope is consigned to the dustbin of history by March 2012 at the latest is the hackneyed term “negative”.
~alec
#22 by cynicalHighlander on January 17, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Type your comment here
We could have a campaign and referendum for an EDIT button. 🙂
#23 by James on January 17, 2012 - 4:47 pm
If you can tell us how logged-in users can institute an edit button, let us know. Those who get moderated will remain moderated, mind 😉
#24 by setindarkness on January 18, 2012 - 11:54 am
I favour a two option referendum, EDIT or DELETE
#25 by James on January 18, 2012 - 12:20 pm
I’ll vote for whoever offers me Command + Z in real life. Tap tap. The last five minutes didn’t happen. Magic.
#26 by Dr William Reynolds on January 17, 2012 - 3:09 pm
Pleased to hear it Andrew,thanks for the clarification.I should have noticed the indicators that are now obvious.
I do agree with your suggestion that the Tories should have elected Fraser and Labour should have elected McIntosh as leaders.I was totally amazed that they didn’t.
#27 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 5:31 pm
No problem, to be fair the pun only works if you’ve heard the song and if not then it could easily lead people to read the post in a different context.
I used to sit on a Board of Trustees with Murdo and I was shocked when the Tories chose not to vote for him, he had identified their problems and while I wouldn’t ever vote for his party he’s someone I rate highly and I respect.
#28 by JPJ2 on January 18, 2012 - 9:04 am
It is worth reading his comments at Tory Hoose today-more sensible than his wet-behind-the-ears reader on Devo Max.
#29 by BaffieBox on January 17, 2012 - 3:15 pm
Absolutely agree Andrew on two points: 1. the “Yes” campaign needs to attract support while the “No” needs to retain support and 2. the “No” campaign will make undermining the SNP and Alex Salmond a major objective.
For these reasons, the SNP need to lay the foundations of a campaign that can grow organically (or “viral” in social media parlance) and beyond their control. The wider and further this campaign goes, the less chance it has of being undermined if the SNP or Alex Salmond lose their way somewhat during the campaign. There is a long time before the referendum and the SNP have responsibilities that go beyond running a “Yes” campaign – for example, by 2014 they will be half way through a second term in office and they have already taken legislative bites that have undermined their credibility (sectarian legislation is one). Decoupling the larger campaign from the party allows it to grow bigger and better than the party can manage, but also ensuring any damage is limited should the SNP become embroiled in smearing.
This campaign goes way beyond any political party – it’s important the SNP lay the foundation of a campaign but let the Scottish people build a winning argument for independence. We all have a part to play.
#30 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 5:18 pm
Agreed 100%, this is something i was thinking about writing a follow-up article on (although i would urge you to do so as you’ve argued it far better than i would!!!)
The reason is simply because not everyone agrees with SNP policy, but independence could happen with or without SNP policies. Not everyone who votes SNP even wants independence (my parents for example) so the YES campaign needs to be far wider than those who already support SNP.
There are also some who could be persuaded to vote YES who don’t agree with SNP policy at all (especially on issues like gay marriage, sectarianism bill, shutting Faslane and other contentious issues) and could become alientated from the debate by silly statements about who’s ‘anti-Scottish’ (I know that this was out of context but it will be used time and time again) and boasts about how much SNP membership has grown (which cements the debate in party political terms).
Constitutional issues should not be party political issues, which is why there needs to be an active YES campaign that is independent of SNP. 2 and a half years is a VERY long time in politics, we’ll all remember how Blair walked on water in May 2001 but by December 2003 was somewhat less popular, my point isn’t that this will happen to Salmond, but it’s not inevitable that the SNP will continue growing and can only keep getting more popular.
#31 by Alex Buchan on January 17, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Andrew thanks for a very good contribution. Everything seems to hinge on whether there are two or three options. Reading blogs and newspaper articles it’s clear that the UK government is briefing journalists and others that their prime objective is in stopping that third option appearing on the ballot.
I’m not sure why you say at the start that they probably won’t listen to your advice, because you then proceed to describe what’s already obviously happening; they are already putting these tactics into operation. What most nationalists who comment on this blog and others are not taking on board is that the SNP is going to be out gunned and outnumbered in almost all debates on the issue because the unionists comprise 3 out of Scotland’s 4 main parties. It will make it even easier to pursue the strategy you’ve identified when there appears to be a consensus amongst the other political parties and attacking and the SNPs policies from all sides and sowing doubt in the electorate. It will make it very difficult for SNP spokespersons to get their message across.
The reason that the unionists want a quick campaign is because they are very confident they will win. Devo max isn’t so much an alternative outcome as most people seem to think, rather it is an alternative strategy. If instead of fetishizing independence, we were to focus the discussion on how to advance Scotland’s interests and leverage, then it becomes much more clear that devo max would be considerably more effective than a NO vote however, slim.
#32 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 5:03 pm
Thanks Alex
At the moment I feel that the NO campaign is developing that way by default rather than by design. I don’t think there has been much coherant thought behind it thus far, and that’s why there are so many clumsy threads (such as the Harris resignation which I would have mentioned if I had written the article yesterday rather than over the weekend).
I totall agree that inevitably the NO campaign will get more coverage as the election comes nearer (the party political divide could see 3 talking heads for every 1 than the YES campaign puts up) and of course if you keep flinging different angles and arguments then some of them will stick, again this come back to my central point, if all unionist parties get their voters to vote NO then they will win. This is a dangerous strategy in some ways but also negates the need to come up with some broad defenition of what modern unionism is (especially because it will mean something different to all people).
#33 by Indy on January 17, 2012 - 6:06 pm
I think the majority of the pre-referendum groundwork – the voter ID etc – will be done by the SNP in the next 1.5 – 2 years.
When we get to the referendum campaign proper I agree it will be very important to have a yes campaign which is not simply the Scottish Government. And I think the SNP will put in a lot of work between now and then trying to win over as many people as they can from “Civic Scotland”. I think that will be a top priority and there will be a huge charm offensive underway. So basically if you are a Scottish opinion-former I think you can expect to be contacted at some point and asked out to dinner by the SNP!
#34 by Indy on January 17, 2012 - 6:10 pm
I pressed the button too quickly there. What I was going to say is that I think there will be some difficulties for the No camp doing the same thing.
Because if, for example, you have Labour peeps trying to nobble the trade unions to campaign for a no vote and you simutaneously have Tories trying to nobble business leaders there is obvious scope for conflict there.
And there is also the fact that during this oeriod the 3 anti-independence parties will be competing against each other politically on a day to day basis as well as during the local government and European elections.
It will all just be a lot more difficult to hold together.
#35 by Craig Gallagher on January 17, 2012 - 5:03 pm
I think you are grossly overestimating the degree to which the SNP will be “outgunned and outnumbered” in this campaign. Alex Salmond has been running the table since May, despite there being more anti- than pro-independence parties in Scotland (although not really if you consider the SSP along with the SNP and Greens…)
There is also a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, mainly through the huge number of SNP MSPs, but also because of the two Greens and Margo MacDonald.
Frankly, I don’t regard the other parties in Scotland as at all critical to the campaign. The contest has already moved beyond Scottish Labour, who now look as if they’re at the beck and call of the Prime Minister. The SNP also have huge electoral momentum behind them, and with the complete collapse of the Lib Dems across the UK, the irrelevance of the Tories in Scotland and the perennial shallowness of Labour’s policy agenda, where are the credible attacks on the SNP going to come from?
To my mind, they can only come from a respected private citizen in favour of the Union, or from Westminster, and the latter is counter-productive in and of itself.
#36 by Andrew Graeme Smith on January 17, 2012 - 5:27 pm
The problem with this is that you are conflating independence too much with the SNP. There are lots of reasons to attack the SNP (sectarianism bill, gay marriage, cuts to local services, fees for Enlgish students, the plan to cut corporation tax, policy on Europe etc are some of the ones that some people use – not that I agree with all of them) and even then you have to consider that electoral support for SNP does not equate to support for independence (for example, my parents voted SNP but will probably both vote NO).
I don’t think politiciains will be all that important to either campaign, but if the NO campaign can communicate effectively with their own supporters and members (a big ask in itself) then they stand a good chance of winning the vote. The SNP in contrast need to communicate with not just their own supporters, but also with people who support opposition parties and people who at present support them but would vote NO.
If this becomes a debate about SNP policies as opposed to the issue of independence then it will be far harder to win over voters.
#37 by Craig Gallagher on January 18, 2012 - 4:01 am
The problem with your reply is that I think you are conflating the politicians with their policies too much, in that I feel you think I am saying people who voted for the SNP will be the ones who vote for independence. That isn’t what I said, I emphasised that the SNP have controlled the political agenda up until now, which is having an impact on what questions are going to be asked and when the referendum will be held.
I don’t agree that politicians won’t be important in this campaign, of course they will. Who else is going to be front and centre in an argument for independence but the SNP? I accept there will be prominent actors from other walks of life but I don’t see politicians as principle campaigners as in any way contradictory to an effort to gain support outside of their core vote. I agree that the YES campaign has more to do, but I don’t think the SNP is incapable of doing it just because their policy positions might alienate a few people. That’s a Labour argument, voting no because you dislike the Nationalists. This is about more than that, and I have faith the Scottish people will treat the issue of independence with the gravitas it deserves.
#38 by andrewgraemesmith on January 18, 2012 - 8:35 pm
Sorry I think i misunderstood your point, thanks for the clarification and sorry if I misrepresented you. I agree with most of what you say. However I suspect there may be a proprtion of the soft vote that may be swayed by other policies, although I would hope not as the referendum should stand head and shoulders above petty party politics.
On the politicians front, I don’t think many politicians on an individual level will sway the public, with the exception of Salmond and possibly Darling I don’t see the others as being major factors for or against, although having said that I may well be wrong, as there does appear to be a jump in YES polling since Tory intervention, which is possibly pushing people into the YES camp (although thats not the reaction they would hope for).
#39 by Alex Buchan on January 17, 2012 - 5:33 pm
You seem to be speaking a totally different language from that of ordinary Scots. This is a very serious bread and butter issue for most Scots, who, by the way, are not politically aligned; as the volatility of the Scottish electorate amply demonstrates (majority for Labour in 2010, majority for the SNP in 2011). For this majority TV debates and reports will be their main engagement with the campaign and they will be principally interested in how it is going to affect them and as I say (and Andrew concurs) the SNP will be out-numbered and out-gunned on most occasions. What people keep trying to deny is that this referendum is for the SNP to win, not for the NO camp to loose. The onus is firmly on the SNP. People will stick with the devil they know unless they can be assured that the alternative will be better for them that’s a tall order.
#40 by Craig Gallagher on January 18, 2012 - 4:06 am
But is it? It’s already happened once against all the odds, and while lightning doesn’t usually strike twice, it hardly makes it less likely.
As to your main point, I don’t know if I can accept that most Scots are non-political. That isn’t the same thing as them getting most of their opinions from debates and the news. People can still have strong political principles even if they come from such direct sources.
The people who deny that this referendum is for the SNP to win are confident that when the issues are put on the table, as they surely will be when the consultation gets under way a week tomorrow, it will be hard to defend the Union when there are so many other alternatives available to us as a nation through independence. It’s a position I am more inclined to back, and I therefore don’t share your belief that people will stick with the devil they know. I think the Scots, if they’re properly informed about the choices available to them, will choose the option most advantageous to their personal circumstances, and I firmly believe that will be independence come autumn 2014.
#41 by andrewgraemesmith on January 18, 2012 - 8:38 pm
This depends on the wider economic context, if Britain is in recovery (very unlikely) then people may not want to risk it, and if we are in total doom and gloom then people may not want to risk it getting even worse (both of these could work for the YES campaign too if you simply turn the statements around.) Unemployment in Scotland is now higher than the UK average, there will be a school of thought that says this makes the case stronger, a school of thought that says it makes it weaker and a school of thought that says hurry up with the referendum. What impact do you expect the economy to have?
#42 by Alex Buchan on January 19, 2012 - 12:17 am
As you say the UK economic situation could swing it either way, but I tend to think that difficult times make people more cautious. It was thought that the 2008 financial crash with the role that bankers had would favour socialist parties but this hasn’t happened in Europe. There is a view that if the Coalition follows a right wing agenda on public spending, and welfare, that this could be a major factor in boosting the yes vote, but I think it depends. If there is widespread organised resistance, in England, I think it could reignite the ‘sons of Thatcher’ image and play well for the yes vote. But the problem is that the SNP government will also have to introduce cuts so this might complicate the picture. On the Scottish economy, the SNP likes to present itself as doing a better job that the UK government. If they can achieve the impression that they are managing the economy better than the UK government this will obviously help but it’s unclear the extent to which any of these things will impact, but I think you’re right; risk will play more heavily on people’s minds than possible opportunities.
#43 by Indy on January 17, 2012 - 4:34 pm
This is obviously the way they see it and what they will try and do but they have a major problem on their hands in my view in that staying still is not really a safe option and that is what the Tory/Lib Dem/Labour grouping are presenting.
They are so certain that Devo max (or whatever we call it) is an SNP trick that they are talking themselves into the position of defending the status quo. But the status quo is probably the least popular option. Most people want some kind of change, some forward movement, some progress. Maybe not full independence yet but they want something different for Scotland.
So boiling it down, in some senses the debate has been firstly about either staying still or moving forward – the SNP has won that. Then secondly it’s about how far and fast we want to go. For people who identify with the change side of the debate – and that’s the majority in my view – if the only change on offer is independence they are actually likely to vote for it, especially as we have 2.5 years to chip away at the scaremongering myths. We have 2.5 years to normalise something that most people probably – right now, at this point in time – would quite like to vote for if only we can provide the reassurances they need.
#44 by Topher Dawson on January 17, 2012 - 6:21 pm
What’s worrying me is that if the vote is No, there will be no more incentive to Westminster to extend devolution, and the Tories will feel free to roll back the Barnet formula as some backbenchers are already trying to do. The unionist parties will have endured 3 years of argument with the SNP and may be minded to take some revenge.
In other words the consequence of a No vote would send a chilly wind north and whatever Labour promise in the way of more devolution would just be a pious hope.
Although this is a possible negative argument for a Yes vote I hope we in the SNP don’t use it, because positivity has worked well so far. I would really like to hear some positive defence of the union but I haven’t heard it so far.
#45 by Alex Buchan on January 17, 2012 - 6:47 pm
But if the SNP don’t mention it and it happens the SNP may well get a kicking when it’s down. People may well say that the SNP government brought it on themselves by overplaying their hand. This is IMHO why Alex Salmond is making sure that devo-max is retained as an option, though others will claim he’s going to ditch devo-max and it’s all a cynical manoeuvre to out flank the unionists. I sincerely hope that this slur on Alex Salmond is not true.
#46 by Allan on January 17, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Why not? After all if you call the Westminster government on it, they will be less likely to go through with their “plans”…
#47 by Allan on January 17, 2012 - 7:24 pm
I would imagine that the “No” campaign will centre around what Clinton identified as “It’s the Economy Stupid!”, ie on the argument that Scotland can’t go it alone and that they would be forced into the EU (and then the Euro).
Firstly on the economy, while the figures look as if Scotland Ltd could be a go-er (on the current tax set up mind – which the SNP are not keen on, in particular with the Corporation Tax rates) it very much depends on which way you look at it. The SNP’s problem is that the idea that Scotland spends more than it generates has traction among the voters. What doesn’t help the pro-independence camp is the drip feed of what “indy” would call “Oh Scotland is too poor” stories. You can’t imagine that Blair’s ferocious communication’s team would have let this continue without some sort of rebuttal. Yet the drip drip goes on. Scotland’s economy post independence will the defining issue of the referendum, so don’t be surprised if the No campaign is built on those foundations.
The other part the No camp will target is the currency issue, especially as Salmond has not (to date) been clear about entry to the EU. In short, I don’t think that the use of the Euro (for an Independent Scotland) is not as popular as the SNP/the Yes camp seem to think it is and will be a factor in people’s decision to vote no. If there is to be no early entry to the EU, or no entry unless there is a referendum, then we need to hear plan B.
#48 by Indy on January 18, 2012 - 4:41 am
The thing with that aspect is that this is for real now – it’s not an imaginary debate. So although the No camp might love to say Scotland will be put out of the EU and have to re-apply and that could take years etc they will have to deal with the reality or be completely undermined and made to look like liars if the yes side wins and what they have predicted fails to occur.
And that would be what happened with that particular scenario. In practical terms how could an independent Scotland be put out of the EU? Would all the various EU rules and regulations suddenly cease to apply? What about EU nationals living in Scotland – would they have to be deported as they had suddenly lost their right to residency? And vice versa – would all the Scots living and working in other EU countries (including the Scots working for the Commisson/European Parliament) have to be deported? That is just not practical and it ain’t going to happen.
So the No side will have to bear that in mind. Their arguments won’t just have to sound credible, they will have to BE credible because they may well be tested in reality.
#49 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2012 - 3:36 pm
“The other part the No camp will target is the currency issue”
They’ve already started bringing it up, and they’ve had to change their rhetoric already. Gideon started off by saying he would refuse Scotland entry, only for the SNP to point out that as Sterling is a fully convertible currency, there’s nothing that can be done to prevent Scotland using it if we want. So quick as a flash, it’s onto the next excuse. “Err, yeah okay, but England will be Scotland’s biggest business competitor blah blah blah”.
Most unionist arguments are utter rubbish and very easily exposed as such. It won’t be long before people just stop believing anything they say, which is why if they want to win, they’d better get their stories straight and figure out exactly WHY they want to keep Scotland in the union, and then just be honest about it. But that won’t happen, because the truth is it’s a completely irrational position.
#50 by Ben Achie on January 17, 2012 - 8:42 pm
A cracking post, Andrew. I remember 1979 well, the promise made by Lord Home, and the fact that devolution was put back for a generation. The problem the unionist parties currently have is that they know Devo-max would get overwhelming support, and the practical difference between that and full independence is negligible.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/cartoon/gavin_mccrone_this_time_it_s_us_who_have_to_decide_1_1992076
#51 by Barbarian on January 17, 2012 - 8:54 pm
I’ve had to read the article quickly, as I have techy stuff to do elsewhere this evening, so apologies if I screw up!
On AV, it failed in my opinion because it was poorly sold. In addition, it meant a substantial change from what people are used to, and that is one of the major issues that the “Yes” camp are up against.
I study history as a hobby – mainly military – and do not confess to being a expert by a long shot. However, in history, time and again it shows when people are offered an alternative to their current situation, unless they are desperate, they will stick to what they know.
Support for independence is not overwhelming, and remains steady, despite the meteoric rise of the SNP. True, things may change, but as pointed out in the article, the unionists have learned to stop attacking Salmond. What they will do (are doing) is focusing on the policies.
The legal status of the Referendum is also being attacked, and again it could undo Salmond. I think this will end up in court. Who is going to pay for the SG’s legal fees? Added to this is the insistence that 16/17 year olds get to vote. It’s so obvious why he wants their vote – free university education. But he won’t le them vote in the council elections. Nor can they stand for election as a politician.
The biggest danger for the SNP has to be their policy on Europe. It has already forced Salmond into being defensive. The credit ratings have dropped; Greece is a basket case, as is Ireland. Yet Salmond wants to take Scotland into the heart of Europe. He is stuck with this policy since if it changes, he will be accused of making a u-turn. Cameron arguing with the EU might make good headlines with political opponents, but it appears it was popular with the majority of people polled. The main argument is why should our taxpayers bail out someone else? Europe has always had a negative press in the UK, so why the SNP think it is a great idea to get deeper into another union is of concern.
Most of the policies presented by the SNP are sound, but there are still major gaps that will have to be dealt with. And any holes will be ruthlessly exploited.
#52 by Allan on January 17, 2012 - 9:19 pm
Nah, that looks a fair enough synopsis Barbarian, especially the part on Europe…
#53 by Angus McLellan on January 18, 2012 - 12:57 am
Europe is important. It could be even more important than you’re suggesting.
Let’s take a step back. This an interesting article but it ignores the fact that there are at least two major audiences for the Unionist message. There’s the intended target, people in Scotland. But there are also enough people in England – and elsewhere – who’ll hear it that it will have an impact there, even if the intended messages get lost in translation.
We need only look at the success of the subsidy junkie message in England to see the law of unintended consequences doing its thing. Opinion in England no longer accepts the Union as axiomatic. That’s a huge change and not something that Lang, Rifkind, Forsyth, Blair, Dougie Alexander or Dewar wanted to happen. So let’s not ignore the fact that what is said here has consequences in England.
To my mind, far from being a weakness, Europe could be the independence campaign’s trump card. Sometime in 2014 the First Minister announces that the government have been listening and have concluded that since there is clearly support for a debate and a referendum before an independent Scotland signed on the dotted line to remain in the EU. That should swing some voters behind Yes – there’s no other way anyone can get a referendum on EU membership. But more than that, it should take Dave and Nick and Ed and Westminster and all of the London media out of the picture for weeks dealing with the fallout. Just try to imagine the reaction of euroskeptics in England to the news that Scotland might have a vote on the EU and they can’t even have a vote on repatriating powers.
A boost for democracy, a gain for the yes vote, and a poke in Westminster’s eye. It’s a plan packed brim-full of win. So what’s the obvious problem that I’m missing?
#54 by Indy on January 18, 2012 - 9:20 am
That will happen to a certain extent by itself. In realiy it would be extraordinarily difficult for an independent Scotland to leave the EU – and from the EU’s point of view the last thing they would want is a country which is fully integrated into the EU and single market suddenly pulling out or even threatening to pull out. So there would be opportunities to discuss terms of membership prior to independence which could be put to a vote and which would in itself make people think oh right, we can actually decide some of these things for ourselves can we? We can make our own points and argue for our own position? Ah this independence thing makes more sense now.
#55 by Angus McLellan on January 18, 2012 - 1:27 pm
Hmm. Even as a negotiating position, a 100% committment to the EU is not great. The CFP won’t get reformed that way.
#56 by Allan on January 18, 2012 - 6:54 pm
“So what’s the obvious problem that I’m missing?”
Apart from the enthusiastic zeal for the EU in the “Scotland Forward” document, which does run contrary to public opinion at the moment? Salmond could kill this issue any time, I suspect the fact he hasn’t is down to his own & his parties preference for us to join the EU.
Far from being a strength, if Salmond postpones making this announcement until 2014 it may look rather different from the tactical masterstroke being portrayed by Angus.
#57 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2012 - 1:37 am
Totally disagree about AV. AV was not a substantial change, and this was the problem – why bother leaving your pit to go and vote for something that, as analysis showed, would not have changed the results of elections? The only ones that were really motivated to go out and vote were those who were dead against any change.
#58 by Greig Aitken on January 17, 2012 - 10:35 pm
Thanks for the insights, Andrew. I don’t wish to be pedantic by focusing on two NO specifics you mentioned, but here we go: WW2 … remember that? Yes, great, but what about Iraq, Afghanistan, pro-Israel etc? NHS … remember that? Yes, we remember it well, and look how it’s being dismantled down south right now. She will get a new cardiac facility in an independent Scotland.
Another day today, and more abject pro-Union purple prose from Oborne in the Telegraph. And then he was up against Ascherson on Today, almost characterising him as evil and harking back to … the Union in the 18th century! I read Oborne’s piece next to Tom Nairn’s piece in the Scotsman – the backward-looking Union man got a toeing from two forward-looking octogenarians in one morning. I just can’t see how a ‘positive’ pro-Union message can be created.
They’ll have to go psychological (will Saatchi get on board?), probably along the separation lines: BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO … with a vast list (perhaps into the hundreds) of all the practical stuff, large, small and bizarre, that will have to be negotiated if independence gets the green light. That’s the only thing not so much putting me off YES at the moment, but worrying me: the field days the press will have with the bizarre, time-consuming minutiae of independence (unless Peter Murrell’s got a line for every eventuality up on his glass grid). Oh yeah, that and the SNP’s neoliberalism.
#59 by Galen10 on January 22, 2012 - 11:54 am
Andrew…. an interesting post. We share some things in common, as I’ve lived and worked in England for the past 19 years, I’m married to an English woman, and my daughter goes to an English university. I may never return to Scotland to live, but I support independence… though I’m sanguine about not having a vote in the matter since I’ve moved away.
My take on the debate thus far (seen from afar) differs from yours however. What strikes me is the crass nature of the “Unionist” response, both in the UK as a whole, and within Scotland. I’m not convinced that if there is a one question, yes/no vote that people will vote yes – although 2.5 years is a long time in politics admittedly. However, even if they DO vote “no” what then?
I doubt the desire for more devolution will suddenly evaporate… indeed it may even be strengthened. In that situation, what are those who had the chance to formulate a “devo-max” alternative and present it between now and the referendum in 2014, going to say? The Labour party in Scotland are dicing with death it seems to me; they risk becoming as toxic as the Tories and the LibDems by associating themselves with what will widely be seen as “anti-Scottish” forces, however unfair that appellation may be.
If Forsyth is the best the Tories can do, the Unionists are in deep trouble. All the SNP have to do is point out how insufferable the interventions (to take just the more recent examples) of Lord Wallace on the legality of the vote and thus the status of Scots law, or the impact of removing the Trident base at Faslane, are for the SNP juggernaut to become if not un-stoppable at least very hard to stop.
All the evidence seems to be that no effective “devo-max” platform can be put together in Scotland. Even if that could somehow be done, and a credible leader could be found, I see little prospect of a coherent devo-max programme being negotiated and accepted by Westminster. Thus the Scottish people are essentially being told there will be jam tomorrow; we should trust that Labour and/or the LD’s will somehow contrive to deliver some kind of unspecified greater measure of devolution, at some unspecified time in the future, but only when Westminster allows it.
I’m not a betting man, but I wouldn’t put any money on that…. would you?
Pingback: Far Greater than the SNP | BaffieBox