WHAT WERE MISTAKES IN YES 2014 CAMPAIGN?

I was reading Alex Salmond’s book The Dream Will Never Die today. It’s an excellent enjoyable read (you can buy it on Kindle) and I would highly recommend it. Alex has always been a clever and witty communicator and this book is a moving and detailed account of the last 100 days of the referendum campaign.

Salmond blames the infamous ‘vow’ (which totally went against the spirit of ‘Purdah’ rules) and the last minute intervention of Gordon Brown ultimately for the loss of the campaign as well as the gap closing in opinion polls slightly too early.

There is no doubt that Yes fought a superb campaign from intensive grassroots traditional campaigning through extensive use of social media. I thought we had done enough to win and I thought we would and no doubt like many others I was shocked and dismayed to see the negative results flow in from across the country.

Post referendum the Yes campaign’s zeal has pushed the SNP into extraordinary political dominance at this year’s General Election with the unionists all but wiped out and the stage set for a similar thumping for them by the SNP in the next Scottish parliament elections.

Now that some time has passed and the dust has settled I think it is appropriate to look back at the 2014 referendum and consider whether there were any tactical mistakes which we can avoid in the future.

I would say there are a number of areas of concern which need to be addressed.

The main reason for achieving independence would be that it would give Scotland the chance to set out our own stall internationally. We would also be able to control all tax and spending decisions and be able to set our own welfare and defence policy.

The point that we could cancel Trident and spend the money better elsewhere was made during the campaign. The point that we could not prevent future Tory Governments was also made and we pointed out that a squeeze on spending on the NHS in England could adversely affect our block grant in Scotland.

I’m not sure however that any distinctive international policy was articulated. What we did say was that we would remain in NATO and contribute to it’s efforts around the world.

This raises problems not least the fact that recent NATO actions have been unpopular in Scotland and in fact one of the reasons for becoming independent would be presumably to avoid the quagmire of Iraq and Afganistan and the ‘war for oil’.

Simultaneously the idea we could join an international organisation under a nuclear umbrella while at the same time taking a unilateral position on nuclear defence was a mixed one at best. It may be that this is technically possible but the political reality is that it is extremely unlikely. 

It also meant that our policy internationally in terms of military intervention would probably be roughly similar to the current one pursued by the British Government! In which case why become independent?

I have noticed a disturbing tendency amongst senior pro-independence politicians that when international questions come up they seem to slip into ‘British MP mode’ they say things like ‘this country’ when they mean the UK and talk as if the imperialist position is the only game in town.

The UK is not a country and we need to point it out at every opportunity. The policy of world imperialism is not in Scotland’s interests and it never has been yet it seems that people think it might be impolite to raise such an objection on Question Time and that it might not go down too well in England.

The problem is that it doesn’t help us in Scotland. When Alan Cumming and Alex Neil at different times said that they were comfortable with Britishness and the British flag they inadvertently handed the moral high ground to the likes of Michael Forsyth who had to point out that independence would actually end the British state.

Cumming is a fine actor but this intervention made us look quite absurd as did the time Alex Neil claimed to be proud to be British. (He was a lot more honest when he was calling George Robertson Lord Haw Haw!) I suspect that both of these efforts were intended to try and position the Yes campaign to gather No supporters to our ranks but I don’t think it helped our credibility one iota.

As Britain’s third party the SNP will be constantly appearing on Question Time. While it might be nice to be highly regarded in England it is not the purpose of the party. No-one joined the SNP because they liked Britishness and it’s not what I have campaigned for since 1987!

At every debate in the Scottish parliament and at the UK parliament independence supporting representatives need to point out that Scotland is a separate country with separate political objectives. If we don’t do that then people will simply not see a requirement for independence even if the economic arguments are all in our favour.

We should always mention the United Nations but more importantly we need to craft a defence policy and international policy which suits our status as a small country in the north of Europe and then argue for that.

While I understand that Alex Salmond is a supporter of the monarchy I also feel that the rigidity of the Yes campaign on this and the EU potentially lost us more votes than it gained.

I’m sure the Queen is a decent woman and I must admit that I wouldn’t particularly like to live in a museum or attend interminable official functions or live in a goldfish bowl existence so I don’t envy her either her existence or her huge financial fortune (I’d prefer to just win Euro Millions!).

My problem isn’t with the personages of the royal family (Charles also seems like a decent man) it is with the fact that republican views are constitutionally barred from representation. Most republicans would I’m sure mumble the words of the oath and think of it as a compromise worth taking if it means they can represent their constituents. I can understand the pressures and if I was ever elected as an MSP no doubt I would feel forced into doing the same thing.

The problem is that it’s simply morally wrong to start of any MSP’s career on a lie and a humiliating ragman’s roll type experience. They should declare an oath to serve the people of Scotland and if they choose to add a declaration of support for the monarchy that should be entirely optional. If not we aren’t a functional democracy just like Westminster which uses the House of Lords to subvert the electoral process as well as provide a cushy retirement package to every MP that reaches cabinet level rank.    

While I have never been overly concerned about the European Union the facts are that it quite obviously represents some level of threat to the sovereignty of all states. Is it worth sacrificing some power to gain influence in the EU? It may be but there is a legitimate argument to be had about it. Simply imagining that all of Scotland is happy to join the EU doesn’t recognise the diversity of our country’s opinions.

We need to make a grown up choice on both the EU and the monarchy and we could only make those choices if we have a referendum on them post-independence. It doesn’t have to be immediate but the principle should be there just as the oath should be removed as a democratic principle whether the present Queen remains our head of state or not.

I think we need to seriously consider all these points if we want to win a future referendum on independence and the first thing is that we should never, ever think like a British MP. We might be in the place, but it’s on a temporary basis until we’re somewhere better. Similarly being British is a choice not a geographical quirk. The word British itself comes from the ancient Roman term for England and if the English are offended on occasion by the fact that we want to leave their fond embrace that is a price worth paying for our freedom from a political state which has never represented our views properly as Scots and never will.