THERE are only two real questions that preoccupy the Scottish independence movement these days and neither is whether there will be another referendum. We’re already taking that pretty much as read. No, the real questions are: How do we win that second independence referendum? How does the independence movement persuade soft No voters of the case for independence?
There are a number of schools of thought on this vital question. Some believe that we can win by doing what we did the last time, once more with feeling. After all, what we did last time was very successful in persuading hundreds of thousands to come over to the dangerously radical idea that a country is best governed by people who actually know where its largest towns and cities are, because they live or work in them.
This strategy was highly successful in persuading people in Scotland that the abnormal thing isn’t independence. What’s abnormal is that we have a government made up of out-of-touch Conservatives from outwith Scotland who would struggle to distinguish between Balmoral and Balornock, at least when it comes to locating them on a map. Even a map that’s in English. Although to be fair, Jacob Rees-Mogg knows how to tell the difference. He just needs to ask his nanny. She knows how to work the sat-nav.
During the first independence referendum campaign the Yes movement was characterised by wish-trees, paintings of butterflies and unicorns and a relentless positivity that would make a glee club seem as morose as our national fitba team’s fans after yet another drubbing by a small country in Central Asia that not even Jacob Rees-Mogg’s nanny knows how to find. It was a refreshing change from the more typical Scottish approach to things, which is to start off miserable and get gradually more torn-faced as things proceed.
This was of course the strategy adopted by the Better Together campaign, and one that they’ve pursued with gusto as they’ve continued to get even more torn-faced after their victory in 2014. Just look at Fluffy Mundell and his increasingly strident attempts to stave off another referendum. He’s not doing it by being happy and cheerful.
But although the Unionists won, they’ve also seen support for the Union decline from more than two-thirds of the population to a majority that’s as lacking in substance as Donald Trump’s comb-over. So even though the Yes campaign didn’t quite make it over the finish line, adopting the kind of positivity that you more normally associate with American football cheerleaders instead of the moroseness of Scottish fitba is a strategy that works well.
The question is, will it work well enough the next time to get us over that magic 50 per cent figure and really knock the stuffing out of the po-faced plush toy who occupies the post of Secretary of State for Telling Scotland What to Do? Will it make the leader of the Ruth Davidson Selfie Party pose with a sad face on a buffalo? It could be that we were so concerned to paint a positive and glowing picture of an independent country of butterflies that fly free, of unchained unicorns, and wish-trees bearing fruit that we neglected to warn people of the downsides of remaining a part of a UK that isn’t going to respect Scotland’s needs, which will lie, deceive and dissemble in order to get its way then attempt to lock us back in the shortbread tin.
It’s certainly the case that the dangers and uncertainties of staying in the UK are far starker in this post-Brexit world. The Unionists can no longer claim that it’s the independence movement that spreads narrow-minded and parochial nationalism, because that’s Brexit Britain’s job. Independence will allow Scotland to rejoin the world; staying in the UK isolates us.
They can no longer claim it’s only by remaining a part of the UK that we can protect jobs and public services, or that only by relying on the broad shoulders of the UK can we achieve stability. Those broad shoulders have no head on them and they’re carrying us in a headlong rush over the cliff of Brexit.
We were threatened the last time that we’d not be allowed to use the pound. During the next independence referendum we will see the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to Scotland to threaten us that we’ll have to keep using it. The pound is no longer a byword for stability – it’s lost 20 per cent of its value since the Brexit vote and could well fall even further. The Better Together threat that Scotland would have to adopt the euro is looking a whole lot less scary.
With Brexit, there’s precious little stability or security in the UK, and during the next independence referendum campaign we need to be a lot more assertive about getting that message across. Your job, your, pension and your NHS will not be safe in a Tory state that is facing a massive shortfall due to a shrinking economy. There’s a Heisenberg Principle that’s more certain than the future of the UK. Or, to paraphrase Albert Einstein’s saying about mathematics: “As far as the laws of the UK refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Britishness is a core belief for only a minority of Scots. For most people in Scotland, Britishness and the British state were supported because they were seen as being useful to Scotland.
Being a part of the UK allowed Scotland access to a larger world. It provided us with security and economic stability. That’s no longer the case. We’ll win the next independence campaign by demonstrating that it’s by becoming an independent member of the European Union that Scotland will attain access to a larger world and be provided with security and economic stability. Britishness has survived as long as it has because it was useful to Scotland. In the post-Brexit world it’s no longer useful. We’ll win the next independence referendum, in part, by demonstrating that the British state is a hindrance to Scotland’s opportunities, a danger to our stability and a risk to our future.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here