Euan McColm: SNP’s pragmatists may be the catalysts for a second question

THROUGHOUT the SNP’s steadily impressive modernisation, one of the greatest challenges facing the leadership has been how to bring along the fundamentalists, those diehards who rallied to the roar of: “Independence – nothing less!”

A decade ago, a typical Nationalist conference might see Mike Russell furiously red-penning a “butcher’s apron” speech from an older colleague, while spin doctors tried to convince the press that the delegates – male, bearded, carrying Co-op bags stuffed with Xeroxed pamphlets and raffle shortbread – were part of a retooled fighting machine, ready to topple Labour. Oh, the pathos.

We live in different times. Those problematic fundies are – by and large – gone, or so marginalised as to be irrelevant. Alex Salmond’s dominance of the political scene means he has been able to speak truths to the more excitable members of his party that none of his predecessors, himself included, could.

When the First Minister pushed independence to one side after 2007’s Holyrood victory, they understood, and got in line behind him. Nothing breeds loyalty like success (for living proof, see Cabinet secretary Alex Neil).

But Salmond shouldn’t get complacent about party harmony. As he moves towards 2014, a potentially problematic new group is emerging inside the SNP. And this time, their weapon is reasonableness. Please welcome the pragmatists.

Given pause for thought by a 33 per cent share of the vote in the recent council elections, down from 45 per cent in last year’s Holyrood landslide, there is growing pressure from within the SNP for there to be two questions: one on a clean break from the UK, and a second on greater powers, as yet to be decided upon.

Hours before the online referendum consultation – already the world’s largest collection of partisan spam – closed on Friday night, a leading SNP strategist told me the issue of how many questions to have was back at the top of the agenda.

The decision on the number of questions would be based on the results of the consultation, he said; and on circumstances, he added, pointedly.

Some of those who just over a week ago were absolutely committed to a single referendum question now wonder if a second question might be a good idea. Many activists have been at that place for a long time. As one senior SNP figure explained it, the party is at its “most pragmatic”. The First Minister has been careful to insist that his government will analyse carefully the consultation submissions before making any decisions, thus leaving his own options wide open.

New momentum from within the party to consider a second question reflects a solid analysis that the SNP is not on course for a referendum majority. And, if we can’t win a referendum, at least we can win more powers goes their argument.

Opponents might cry scaredy-cat at the introduction of a second question, but it would chime with the ongoing SNP narrative of listening to and leading for all, nationalist and unionist alike.

Others within the party believe a second question would help unite the country when the first could harmfully divide. Far better, they reason, to take with you 85 per cent per cent of the electorate with greater powers for Scotland than to begin the break-up of the UK based on a 51-49 referendum win.

But the pragmatists face a block to any debate on an extra question from another powerful group, including some Cabinet secretaries, who believe it would be a disaster. One Cabinet source insisted there is no public appetite for the constitutional status quo so a second question would simply stop people taking the leap towards a “Yes” vote for independence.

Those adamant there should be only one question argue that even the loss of a referendum is survivable for a party which has already secured two Holyrood victories with the support of unionists reassured that they could say “No” to independence.

The two-question pragmatists have some influential names to persuade. Certainly, inside the SNP, two powerful opposing arguments are about to clash. This uncharacteristic uncertainty is ripe for exploitation by the opposition. Within hours of the council results, Tory leader Ruth Davidson suggested to me that Salmond would definitely try for a second question. The tone of her voice told me she saw the political capital to be made in making sure he didn’t get it. The Tories and Labour will insist on holding Salmond to a single question. They believe it is the only way to end the SNP’s grip on Holyrood.

One key Labour figure compared Salmond’s failure to call a referendum immediately after the 2011 election to Gordon Brown’s disastrous decision not to call an election shortly after he succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister. A second question would be a lifeline for the First Minister, the campaigner argued.

Some in Labour have even suggested that the First Minister might yet opt for a third option: no referendum at all. If he can’t win on a single question and the opposition won’t give him a second question, why wouldn’t he pick a fight with Westminster and then blame them for the fact that the referendum can’t go ahead, goes that line.

For now, unionist parties should be fundamentalist in their insistence on a single question, resisting all temptation to agree with those who want a second (remember, most unionists want more powers, too, just not through Alex Salmond’s stinking referendum, thanks all the same).

The SNP is big enough and ugly enough to withstand serious internal debate about this, but fault-lines exist for the unionists to exploit.

Salmond’s challenge is to see off those opposition attacks while keeping happy those members of his party who are uniting behind a new rallying cry: “Independence – maybe less.”