Bill Jamieson: Will the Right back independence?

Tory grandee Lord Fraser of Carmyllie believes Scottish independence has “something of an inevitability about it” and that a rousing campaign by English Conservatives to keep Scotland within the Union should not be counted on. In Scotland, Peter de Vink, a financier and prominent Conservative supporter and fundraiser, is not afraid to use the “I” word. He believes there are many on the centre-right who share his view.

To say that traditional politics in Scotland is changing would be an understatement. In the wake of the council elections earlier this month, all sorts of coalitions, unthinkable a few years ago, are now running our local authorities.

Every month brings a shift in the SNP’s interpretation of what the term “independence” means and involves – indeed, its very definition. Such have been the policy changes of late that an “independent” Scotland would now retain the monarchy, keep the pound as its currency, retain the Bank of England as lender of last resort and might even retain membership of Nato.

Add to this the heavy assurances that the independence campaign would need to provide financial markets in Scotland as a reliable sovereign borrower if its public spending requirements are to be funded, and the new status quo will come to look increasingly like the status quo ante.

So it is not at all unthinkable that a change of thinking could now be under way on the Right. It is one that could provide a voice – hitherto unheard – for those willing to contemplate independence but opposed to the present Leftist trappings of the SNP.

How significant is all this? And what might it mean for the referendum campaign if it transpires there is an independence fifth column in the unionist ranks? Or, rather less comforting for some cyber-Nats, a right-of-centre fifth column within the SNP?

For the avoidance of doubt, Lord Fraser is no convert to the SNP: there is a world of difference between endorsement and what sounds like a statement of exhausted resignation. Nor could it be said that Mr De Vink considers himself any less a Tory for envisaging a non-Leftist or non-statist grouping in the event of independence. Both remain staunch Tories. But Conservatism is – as it has always been – a broad church comprised of many strands and tributaries: like the concept of independence itself, a house of many mansions. Were this not so, a very different political history of Britain would have told us.

Caution is needed on any prediction at this time. We are still more than two years away from First Minister Alex Salmond’s mooted date for the referendum. Formal campaigning is a long way off. But already there are evident problems within the pro-unionist camp.

First is a lack of focus on what the positive case for the Union is and why it is so vital to maintain. A negative campaign, resting on warnings of business exodus or capital flight, is as likely to rebound and alienate as it is to rally support. Even in areas where the unionists held strong sway such as defence, the ground has been swept from under them. It is Alex Salmond who has held down or cut taxes. On such totemic issues as the maintenance of Scottish regiments and cap badges, it is the Westminster government that has set out to abolish them and the SNP that has emerged as their protector. How the most hirsute on the Daily Telegraph must be tearing at their hair.

Second, there is no sense of galvanising mission or purpose with anything like the intensity the SNP is able to bring to the cause of independence. And third, most visible of all, is an absence so far of clear and obvious leadership. With the exception of former chancellor Alistair Darling (who has signalled that he will play a prominent part, but does not, it seems, wish to lead a campaign) there is no figure of the Left or Right with the stature and combativeness to take on Alex Salmond. He may have the build of Danny DeVito. He has the punch of Sonny Liston.

Indeed, such is the abysmal electoral standing of the traditional Conservative Party in Scotland that almost any Tory figure – or anyone with an English public school accent – would be automatically disqualified from a leadership role. This opens the prospect of “the battle for the Union” being predominantly a fight between the SNP and the Labour Party. And if that is the perception, a strong Conservative turnout should not necessarily be counted on.

At the same time, moral support from Conservative England, as Lord Fraser indicated for a second time this week, is not the force it was. Indeed, such has been the pugnacity of the SNP leader on English sensibilities that many English Tory MPs perceive a positive electoral advantage in allowing Scotland to go its own way.

Consider also the constraints under which the unionist cause is operating. The UK is – and is likely to remain for the duration of the referendum campaign and for an indefinite period thereafter – an economy constrained by deficit and debt. Even without this constraint, the UK’s military strength and global influence are set for a sharp downward lurch. In addition, much of what passes for “UK government” is now determined in Brussels. Compliance with EU regulation and governance has torn the guts out of UK “sovereignty”.

Whether constrained by the bond markets for the borrowing we will require, or by existing treaty obligations, “independence” will not be the “leap into the unknown” that the Tory voices of yesteryear proclaim it to be. But what such terrain will require, should Scotland vote for independence, is a powerful voice, organisation and leadership from a non-Leftist grouping. It will be all the more necessary to champion the cause of enterprise, job-creating investment and a low-tax environment to encourage that investment. Ever bigger government will not save us. A Stalinist failed state with a saltire as its flag is still a Stalinist failed state.

Thus, what has appeared as the greatest threat to the revival of the centre-right in Scotland may yet prove its greatest opportunity.