Unionist denial over Scottish independence referendum a problem and an opportunity for Yes

This nearly universal pro-Union take denies Scotland’s right to choose, demonstrates incomprehension of the independence debate and refuses to understand that the drivers of this are not just about Scotland but the state of the UK.

Seldom is this bigger picture ever addressed – with one or two honourable exceptions – namely that the UK is broken in its politics, democracy and capitalism and that the Scottish question is not only about the desire for greater self-government but about an expression of dissatisfaction at this British dimension.

One rare, recent example of British media understanding the above came from Andrew Rawnsley, chief political commentator of The Observer, in a piece on the politics of independence where he wrote: “Scotland’s future will not be settled definitely without a second referendum at some point.”

READ MORE: Independence would be 'utterly tragic for the whole world,' Boris Johnson says

Rawnsley singled out Downing Street and the attitude of many senior Tories as clueless on Scotland, citing their setting up and dismantling the Scotland

Unit in No 10 and saying they were just hoping and praying that “something will turn up to make the Scottish question go away” or that the SNP implode.

Another nuanced take came from academic Michael Keating who observed that Unionists continually denying an indyref are forcing Unionism into becoming an inflexible nationalism where “unitary nationalism thus becomes the enemy of the Union”.

Much more common takes bewailed the state of devolution, the Scottish Parliament and a constitutional settlement that does not completely deny Scotland’s right to choose. Martin Kettle in The Guardian bemoaned Scottish nationalism’s ascendancy as being about the loss of a coherent British story; Chris Deerin in the New Statesman talked of SNP moves as a “revolutionary act” which “smack of desperation” and “grievance max”; academic Alan Trench compared a possible single-issue election to Ireland, Sinn Fein and 1918 and “civil war.”

What Rawnsley got is that the independence question is alive and kicking and will have to be settled – irrespective of whether that is in 2023 or later. This requires wider understanding, particularly from pro-Union opinion. But it also necessitates that Yes campaigners accept the need to get serious and disciplined and recognise that some hard truths need to be faced and work undertaken to win.

First, it is easy to criticise the SNP and their record in office but it is harder to identify the centre-left political terrain and agents who can successfully inspire bolder, more radical politics. The dominance of the SNP’s centrist managerialist politics is a reflection of the size of this constituency.

Second, for all the SNP’s caution, left-wing and alternative critiques of the party’s approach are missing. This can be seen in the failure of RISE, the lack of traction of Common Weal, and the absence of any serious Marxist critique of the SNP – the last point particularly acute since the death of the left-wing thinker Neil Davidson.

Third, miserablism will get Yes supporters nowhere as an attitude or tone. Whining about the modern-day SNP as a sell-out or that things are not as they were in the golden days of 2014 does nothing constructive. For example, in this paper a week or two ago Kevin McKenna was lamenting the absence of hope and optimism in the announcements by Nicola Sturgeon compared to 2014, ignoring the darker global political environment and that things are different when you have a realistic chance of winning.

FOURTH, just waxing lyrically about how terrible it is for Scotland in the Union does need to be carefully calibrated. Last week, after Sturgeon’s announcement a lot of independence supporters were taking the view that a Scotland denied a vote in 2023 would be a country reduced “to the status of a colony” – which is neither accurate nor helpful.

Fifth, in the next couple of years the independence side will have to recognise the importance of creating a range of institutions which are separate from the SNP on research, policy and evidence. These have to be seen as not a threat to the SNP but a supplement.

But until now the SNP leadership has shown no grasp of such a need and in some cases actively blocked such initiatives.

One fundamental that needs discussing is the nature and extent of Yes unity and co-operation. This matters in any independence campaigning and electioneering.

In this, the key constituency needs to be kept in focus and prioritised – how to win over and convince those as yet unconvinced. Nothing should take precedence over that.

Such a politics is not aided by having any formal alliance which extends from Nicola Sturgeon to Tommy Sheridan and Alex Salmond. Reality has to check in here as the latter two have diminishing box office appeal and are seen as toxic by most voters.

Salmond now has an 11% favourability rating according to Savanta ComRes and a net rating of -61%. This can be compared with Nicola Sturgeon having a 51% favourability rating and net of +16% - after eight years as First Minister.

The same is true of any talk of a fledgling Yes alliance which would not extend beyond the SNP and Greens to the likes of Alba. Any political force has to attract more supporters than it detracts and in this Alba clearly fail to pass the test.

The indyref is coming as Andrew Rawnsley said and that widespread denialism on the Union side is both a problem and opportunity for Yes campaigners. It provides a window in which people can get organised, disciplined and think about tactics, strategy and messaging.

The future of Scotland is not decided by just talking to your base, mistaking your side’s most passionate supporters as the heartbeat of the country, or projecting your own thoughts onto the national canvas without qualification.

READ MORE: Here's the big question Anas Sarwar must answer – The REAL Scottish Politics

One observation worth remembering is the continued existence of “the missing Scotland” and “missing million” – the terms I coined during the 2014 indyref – to describe those politically disenfranchised for a generation.

These voters turned up in 2014 but that does not mean in some complacent way that the “missing Scotland” is no longer with us. It is always with us in some form until we fix our politics and society, and post-2014 there has been a retreat and retrenchment in terms of how politics is done on all sides.

To counter this in the age of noise, one astute response is to listen, even amidst the most cacophonous exchanges, to the sounds of silence and who is not speaking, is hesitant to speak up, and who is completely marginalised. The Scotland that is often forgotten or missed from our politics is part of the critical constituency which will determine the future of the country.

However the next few years pan out as Scotland debates independence, listening to the silences is one way of doing politics better, understanding Scotland and reaching out to those who have yet to find voice.