Gregor Gall: Lack of campaign clarity no laughing matter

Now that the Yes and No campaigns are officially up and running, the time has come to ask some searching questions of both if we are to have a genuinely informed public debate in the run up to the referendum in late 2014.

For the debate to become informed, it must move away from the age old slanging match of Nats versus Unionists and begin instead from first principles.

The questions here are what and who is society in Scotland for? In other words, whose interests should be served by society and what values should guide this society?

It is only by asking these big questions that we can then say that there is no point in having the debate and the referendum unless it is possible to change society in Scotland and change it for the better.

The challenge for the two campaigns then becomes, define what you mean by changing Scotland for the better and then tell us how your chosen modus operandi of the status quo, devo-more or independence will deliver upon that vision

Everything else is then secondary to this, whether it be how many questions there are on the referendum ballot paper, which questions there are and so on and so on.

A change in the constitutional relationship of Scotland to the rest of Britain is then firmly positioned as a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Starting with the “Better Together” No campaign called led by Alistair Darling, the fundamental questions revolve around whether staying part of the union means the citizens of Scotland will be subject to the continued age of austerity as all three of the main anti-independence parties – the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour – agree that continued austerity measures are necessary and for a considerable length of time.

So such questions concern what will happen to the NHS, local government, social services, benefits, transport and education under a union of continued austerity.

If Labour were to reject austerity entirely and state clearly that under its version of the union was one of increased public spending and public provision as well as rejecting and rolling back privatisation, the case for the continued union would be very much strengthened.

This is because it is the material aspirations of better standards of living that most plainly motivate citizens.

But this would be a very particular form of the continued union. It would clearly cause big ructions within the “Better Together” camp and be dependent upon Labour securing a working majority at Westminster with this agenda for many years to come.

Whilst this agenda may be the aspiration of many Labour voters and those that wish to stay within Britain, it has to be doubted that Alistair Darling and Ed Miliband are capable of delivering this.

Darling, as secretary of state for trade and industry and then chancellor, presided over the deregulation of the economy to point that it helped create and became so susceptible to the financial crash of 2008. For his part, Miliband continues not to have learnt from the mistakes of New Labour, the very project Darling was a leader of.

Turning to the Yes campaign led by Alex Salmond and the SNP, the quintessential questions must be: “What do you want society in Scotland to be independent from and independent of ?”

Is it the whirlwinds of international capitalism or merely a London-based parliament? Is it the Tories and their neo-liberal agenda or just the Union flag?

With the SNP’s heavy emphasis upon trying to emulate the Irish Tiger economy through cutting corporation tax as the way to boost investment and jobs, the answer is clearly not about protecting the citizens of Scotland from the ravages of capitalism and financial markets.

Indeed, the logic of wooing international capital is not only to partake in a race to the bottom as a result of competing against other countries for jobs and investment but also to invite at some point down the line the devastation that affects Ireland at present.

This makes a mockery of Salmond’s claim of Scotland becoming a progressive beacon under independence.

And, it is precisely this neo-liberal stance on economics which undermines the attempt by the SNP to deliver upon its professed agenda of social justice and fairness.

The SNP believes that it can have the best of both worlds, namely, a growing free market economy which provides the funding through tax receipts to pay for welfare provision.

But the current world situation shows this a pipe-dream. This route has not only been tried and failed, but it has failed badly.

Only if the square of the market is circled by state intervention can there be both economic growth and equitable outcomes for all. Yet this is not what the SNP proposes.

It, therefore, becomes incumbent upon the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party, along with the likes of Elaine C. Smith, to loudly voice their alter-vision of an independent Scotland. This is one where social compassion and environmental concern trump enterprise and the free market.

Elaine has made clear at the Yes campaign launch last month, the independent Scotland she wishes to see is a Scotland free of – independent of – poverty.

So if you now conclude that the alternatives are, in effect, “worse together” and “not any better apart”, is it time to emigrate or hibernate for the next two or more years?

Yes, if you’re not prepared to shoulder the responsibility of being an active citizen.

But if you are, this means taking part in the debate and attempting to influence it. Most obviously, this means lobbying the more amenable political parties to reflect your views, which can be done from within or without.

If trying from the inside is unproductive and unappealing, the logic is to band together with like-minded souls to form your own campaign for your vision of what society in Scotland should look like.

That would ensure the ensuing public debate over independence is inclusive and critically informed.

• Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire ([email protected]) but lives in Edinburgh.