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.
