Ewan Crawford: For people to vote Yes they must see the positives

THE No campaign’s vision for Scotland post-2014 is not a pretty prospect, but it’s up to the Yes camp to point this out writes Ewan Crawford

More than any other presidential candidate in the last 50 years Barack Obama probably came closest to matching the sheer optimism engendered by John F Kennedy.

In 2008 his “Yes, we can” rhetoric and symbolic visit to Berlin seemed to be deliberate ploys to recapture the spirit of his Democratic predecessor.

Much of the Kennedy legend stemmed directly from his magnificent inaugural address in which he famously said: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

Here in Scotland the No campaign for the independence referendum has taken a slightly different tack. The rallying cry for the future is this: “Ask not what you or your country can do, but fear what other people are going to do to you and your country, then keep quiet and hope it won’t be too bad. Now run along.”

In relation to Europe not a day goes by without some obstacle or other, however feeble, being thrown in front of the possibility of Scotland retaining its membership of the EU.

Quite why we would be thrown out of the EU given our contribution over the past 40 years, our natural resources, our oil, our renewables potential, our world-class universities and so on is never made clear. That is probably because it is an absurd proposition that runs contrary to the entire ethos of the European Union.

But despite the cringe element to this debate, the issue of Europe is clearly a legitimate topic and one the SNP may have handled better. What it seems to me is less acceptable is the combination of highly personal attacks and hypocrisy that has so far characterised the official campaign against independence. I am not thinking here about the regular assaults on Alex Salmond. These have such a long history they have become a fixture in Scottish public life.

Indeed in 2003 I was involved in an SNP election campaign which focused too much, and counter-productively, on the then First Minister, Jack McConnell.

I am not referring to criticism of politicians (or even ex-political advisers) although some of the speeches in the Scottish Parliament recently have been embarrassing in their hostility and pettiness.

Instead, it is the attacks on those who appear either to be doing their job or on non-party figures who are seeking to make a contribution to the debate on the side of change that are most illuminating.

In the first category of doing his job, falls Sir Peter Housden, permanent secretary at the Scottish Government, who has been the subject of a relentless campaign aimed at prosecuting the charge that he has, to use that horrible phrase, “gone native”.

It doesn’t matter that last year the former head of the UK civil service robustly defended Sir Peter’s actions in relation to the Scottish Government.

The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell wrote: “It is right and proper that civil servants working to their respective administrations undertake the relevant work to support their ministers to pursue their aims, whether or not these aims are the subject of political controversy.”

But that hasn’t stopped the onslaught. It is important to stress this isn’t about unpleasant individual political cyber-warriors who can overstep the mark on both sides.

Instead, last week an anonymous briefing was given to a London-based newspaper describing Sir Peter as “Salmond’s nark” and the former Labour minister, Brian Wilson, writing in The Scotsman last week accused him of hovering “between a joke and a disgrace”.

Yesterday the No campaign hit out at the “news” that the Scottish Government is to produce a White Paper on independence setting out the detail that, guess what, the No campaign has been calling for.

The crime here is that civil servants are supporting a democratically elected government in pursuing a manifesto pledge. This becomes truly comical when set against the fact the UK government has set its own civil servants the task of justifying continued Westminster control of Scotland.

Thus, an extract from a speech given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, appears on the Treasury website like this: “The Scottish Government’s pursuit of independence puts at risk the many benefits of one – United – Kingdom. Those who advocate independence have so far failed to set out the detail of their plans, and they’ve had time to do that. [Political content removed].”

Well, thank goodness the “political content” has been removed and all that is left is an impartial, objective attack on independence.

All this is much in keeping with the treatment of Martin Sime, chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, whose support for a devo-max question in the referendum resulted, incredibly, in calls for his resignation.

Those of us who support independence often ask those on the No side to set out their vision of the Scotland they want to see post-2014.

In fact, in its campaign we have all the evidence we need and it isn’t a pretty prospect.

Engaging in this kind of debate does, I am sure, favour the No side because it will turn many people off and dampen any sense of optimism that the Yes campaign needs to win.

That is why it is essential that the Yes campaign continues to engage only with the issues at hand and acts at all times in a courteous and reasonable manner.

Many Scots, particularly those on middle and low incomes who have seen wages squeezed, will know the current political system has failed to offer the security claimed by Westminster’s supporters.

The challenge is to make a convincing case that life will be better if all decision-making powers rest here in Scotland. In this endeavour I believe, hopefully not naively, that reasonableness will trump the angry hostility of those who oppose that change.