Kirsty Strickland: How turning to the royals could backfire for the Union

I’m old enough to remember (because it was only a few months ago) when Prince Edward was the favoured Royal to be sent to Scotland to save the Union. It was a daft idea then and it’s a daft idea now.

There’s the obvious reason as to why it is so silly; a charm offensive is worthless if the people hoping to do the charming publicise their strategy beforehand.

You have to wonder whether Downing Street and palace officials realise that people in Scotland have internet access. If the royal couple are photographed eating a Wetherspoons breakfast in Kirkcaldy nobody is going to be so gullible as to believe it’s because they really want to be there.

READ MORE: William and Kate could be asked to come to Scotland more in bid to save Union

It would have perhaps been better to develop these plans in secret and deploy them stealthily. It’s not like palace officials aren’t well practised in those dark arts. If it weren’t for the intrepid reporters at Channel 4 News, we would have never known that Prince William had a secret meeting with Gordon “No Thanks” Brown recently.

I’m not going to pretend I have any PR or brand management experience but still I don’t think sending a rich couple to a Scottish castle is the winning strategy that Unionists think it is. I would like to see the working behind the plan. Who are they hoping will be persuaded by it? It seems to me the only people who will view this as anything other than an inappropriate political intervention by the royal family are probably already supporters of the Union.

In this, we see the same miscalculation that the Yes camp has also made on occasion. People in Scotland have been given two opposing ideas of what the future of the country should be. The merits and pitfalls of each have been the subject of fierce and sustained debate, both before and after the 2014 referendum.

Those who feel a deep affinity with the cultural signifiers of both propositions have already made up their minds. It’s those in the middle – soft No, soft Yes and those that are undecided – who should be the target market of both campaigns. Soft Yes voters aren’t going to be persuaded by a few senior members of the royal family wearing kilts any more than soft No voters would be by a foam finger emblazoned with a Saltire.

Though having said that, there is a risk we give these leaked plans more credence than they deserve. As with every other plan to save the Union we have seen proposed (and then leaked to the media) in recent years, it suggests an element of “just thinking out loud”.

But it does reveal something interesting about the Unionist strategy post-election. Plans such as these, which are ill-thought-through and unsubstantial, indicate panic.

“Say no to indyref2” works insofar as it blocks the mechanism by which Scotland can decide to become an independent country. But it does nothing to quell support for independence itself.

And when it comes on the back of yet another SNP victory in an election, it could be argued we are fast reaching the point where it could begin to actively repel some 2014 No voters.

It also betrays an arrogance among London Unionists in how they approach the issue. Note that these many plans to save the Union never include compromise, good-faith discussions or plans to devolve more powers. Their preferred solution is always the low-effort option. It’s always a microwavable lasagne, never the full roast dinner.

READ MORE: Government staff told to call UK 'one country' and avoid talk of 'four nations'

And if they can stick a Union Jack on the packaging then they count that as a win. During the Earl and Countess of Strathearn’s recent tour of Scotland, William insisted that Scotland is “so important” to both him and his wife and that he has been “shaped by this place”.

I have no reason to doubt William’s sincerity on that one. He studied here and fell in love here. It would be odd if the country didn’t hold a special place in his heart.

But partisan interventions are not the way to demonstrate that affection. In that same speech, he also described Scotland as “vibrant, friendly, innovative and determined”.

High praise indeed. If he can recognise the determination of the people who call Scotland home then he should also be wary of allowing himself to be dragged into our constitutional debate.

When Scotland becomes an independent country, we should be given the option to decide whether we want to continue to give William’s family special status and taxpayers’ money. I know which way I’d vote. If the royal family meddle in Scottish politics in the intervening years then I’d bet that a majority of Scots would vote the same way.