Sam Ghibaldan: Salmond's opponents must get ball rolling

Published on Monday 18 July 2011 15:40

A 'no' to independence campaign must stress not just what the UK does for Scotland, but what Scotland does for the UK

YOU CAN'T escape it. The SNP's promised independence referendum is a looming shadow over Scotland's relationship with Westminster. The Defence Minister, Liam Fox, even appeared to suggest it had influenced his announcement earlier this week that the number of Scottish-based army personnel would double.

But, closer to home, the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament appear barely to have noticed that the SNP's campaign for independence has begun in earnest. Some very loud music - AC/DC's Hell's Bells perhaps, with its doom-laden opening chimes - may be required to shock them from their post-election slumber.

There can be little that doubt Alex Salmond - and his capable team of strategists including Stephen Noon and Kevin Pringle - have carefully studied previous referendum campaigns. The most important lesson they will have drawn is that, almost invariably, propositions for change only succeed if they've secured majority public support well in advance of a formal referendum campaign.

Recent history makes that point clearly. The "Yes to AV" campaign failed principally as it had far too little time to persuade the public of the case for changing the electoral system. Undecided voters, uncertain about the benefits of change, took the safe option of sticking with what they knew.

In contrast, the 1997 Scottish Parliament referendum campaign succeeded as devolution was - in the late John Smith's words - the "settled will" of the Scottish people, thanks to years of public debate during the Constitutional Convention. By the time the cross-party Scotland Forward "yes" campaign got underway in 1997, public backing for the Scottish Parliament stood at more than 70 per cent. All the yes campaign had to do was stop that support being eroded.

It follows that Salmond's strategy must be to have secured majority support for independence before the formal referendum campaign begins, and he has given himself four years to do it. Though an opinion poll in June showed a small top-line increase in public support for independence following the SNP's recent election victory - up to 37 per cent, with 45 per cent opposed - the underlying figures led the polling company to conclude: "There has been no real increase in support for independence", and thus the SNP's decision to delay the referendum "was well founded".

Appreciating the uphill challenge he faces, Salmond seized the initiative straight after the May election and started campaigning. Since then he has used every opportunity to foster resentment about alleged interference by UK bodies in Scottish issues and to build a sense of momentum behind the idea that independence is evolution rather than revolution, and, to quote him, "inevitable".But with the yes campaign underway, just where is the no campaign? Fair enough, Scotland's opposition parties are still licking their electoral wounds. Willie Rennie has only recently taken the Liberal Democrat reins, while Labour and the Tories are yet to choose new leaders. Time, though, is a luxury Salmond's opponents do not have. The longer they give the SNP leader to advance the case for independence unopposed, the more headway he'll make.

Leadership is required - and now. Putting aside their constitutional differences over the exact nature of Scotland's relationship with Westminster, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories must make the case for the UK. First, they should consider what makes for a successful campaign? Here, they can refer to the research of Nigel Smith, the organiser of Scotland Forward. Above all, that demonstrated a consistent, simple and clear message is essential to build and maintain public support for a referendum proposition.

In putting together the 1997 Scotland Forward campaign, Smith deployed his research to persuade the political parties - then Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP - that to achieve a consistent message a single campaign, integrating them all, was essential. Proving Smith's strategy, in 1997 Scotland Forward successfully retained the 70 per cent of public support for a Scottish Parliament with which the campaign began. The task of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories is now to put together another cross-party campaign, get it funded and get it going.

Uniting the three parties within a single structure, and around core messages, will be a bigger challenge than that faced by Salmond in constructing the pro-independence campaign. But if building a multi-party "no to independence" campaign brings added complexities for those involved, it also offers the advantage that the public likes to see politicians working on a cross-party basis. That benefit could be further enhanced if - following the Scotland Forward model - it were broadly based, reaching beyond politics and incorporating business, the trades unions, civic society and beyond. It must be a campaign by and for the people of Scotland, not just politicians.

Even at this stage we can speculate that the leading public figures in the yes to independence campaign will include, besides Salmond, Brian Souter and - making the occasional cameo appearance - Sean Connery. But who will be the leading figures of the no campaign? Political heavyweights capable of taking on Salmond in debate are required, and they are in short supply. Could Jim Wallace, Jack McConnell and Annabel Goldie be drafted in for the task?Just as crucial as these structural issues is the campaign's message. Until now, opponents of independence haven't needed to give a great deal of thought to the case for remaining part of the UK. To a greater or lesser extent, they've relied on what might be termed the negative narrative: put simply, that Scotland would be a lot poorer if it were independent. To be fair, the public's present opposition to independence suggests that approach has considerable resonance. It was amply reinforced when UK taxpayers bailed out the Scottish banks during the recession.

But the negative narrative alone is unlikely to be enough. Running a negative campaign for four years would fail to inspire and could seriously backfire. The no to independence campaign, therefore, must be positive about Scotland within the United Kingdom. It must stress not just what the UK does for Scotland, but what Scotland does for the UK.

Fundamental to that is tackling head-on the nationalist myth that if you don't believe in independence, you're talking Scotland down. It is utter tosh, of course: being part of the UK is a clear expression of the confidence of Scots both in Scotland and their ability to be an effective part of a larger, natural geographic entity. Indeed, the campaign should not be so much about no to independence, but more yes to Scotland within the UK, a celebration of the close-knit family, business and cultural relationships within the British Isles.

There is a further complication for the pro-UK parties, thanks to the wily Salmond. By raising the prospect of a multi-option referendum - including a question on additional powers for the Scottish Parliament that would stop short of full-blown independence - he seeks to split the anti-independence vote.

But a campaign for the UK, starting soon and rooted in the common bonds that unite the British Isles, would at least stop the campaign for independence having a free, unopposed, ride. If the parties dither, worrying about what to do about their differences in the event of a multi-option referendum, they will have fallen into Salmond's trap. Polls consistently show that hard-core backing for independence is only around 25 per cent; supporters of keeping Scotland in the UK start from a position of strength. But the case for the UK must be made, and it must be made soon.

• Sam Ghibaldan was special adviser to former deputy first minister Jim Wallace.