John McTernan: No signs on road to… what exactly?

SO, GAME on. At last, the reveal – the moment when the magician, with a flourish, presents the end of the trick – now, at last, we know the route to independence. How? There’s been a document published by the SNP – it’s the route-map to the promised land – and there’s been a presentation by the campaign supremo, Moray MP Angus Robertson. Finally, an end to the shadow-boxing, there’s a proposition. This is the choice, this is what an independent Scotland would look like and feel like. This is how we’d live. This is what the real choice will be.

Chance would be a fine thing. For all the flash of Scotland Forward, the new SNP website, what Scots have actually been offered is, once again, a pig in a poke.

The triumph of separatists has been – up till now – to divert attention from their own policy. It’s extraordinary in a way. The SNP wants Scotland to be the first industrial country in the history of the world to break away from another country. And not just that, to leave the fifth biggest economy in the world, the sixth biggest manufacturing country in the world. All its precedents are agrarian economies, or post-Soviet ones, or relics of the 19th century Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires. There’s a reason for this. Rupture, in the modern world, is rare. For a very prosperous part (that’s Scotland) of one of the richest countries in the world (that’s Britain) to break away would need a really big reason.

So what is the overwhelming case that Alex Salmond makes? “Independence will allow us to create an exciting new Scotland.” I like the sound of that, well the exciting new stuff anyway. I quite like the boring old stuff too – the architecture, the grumpy sullen Calvinism, the cold, the rain, my family, Hearts, you know, the whole show. Still, go on. “A Scotland fit for the 21st century.” Thank the Lord, I totally reject those parties who propose a country fit for the 15th century, I really do.

But there’s more. “Independence will mean we no longer face having our troops sent to fight in an illegal war like Iraq.” Phew, what a relief. We’ll never have to live in 2003 again. Oh, wait, chronology has done that for us. Never again. Truly. Because, without a time machine, we are never going to war in Iraq again – and yes, it was legal.

Go on then, inspire me, lead me, sell me on autonomy. Here’s the killer punchline: “The days when we have to implement policies forced on us by Tory governments in London we didn’t choose will be over for good.” In the end, that’s it. No grand visions, just a body-swerve – nae Tories here. Not the inspiring claims on nationhood of a Mazzini, a Garibaldi or a Bismarck. Just a shrug and a shuffle.

This is the most intriguing element of the next step by the SNP on the road to independence. They still have no detail – except that we winnae hae thae Tories. Eighty years since their foundation, over four years since they formed a government, the SNP still cannot honestly say what an independent Scotland will be like. What will the defence force be? The interest rates? The levels of social security? The economic resilience? No answers. Simply the assertion of the Harry Corbett school of politics – a little tartan oofle dust will make it all much better.

All odd in one way. Normally, ideologues have a compelling argument – at least one that they find overwhelmingly convincing. But the new SNP document, Your Scotland, Your Future, revealingly has no case to prosecute. It’s all about how great this non-Tory Scotland will be. We’ll realise our potential, build prosperity, have lifelong healthcare, learn for the future … You get the picture. It will be magic.

As they say, I wish I believed in anything as much as the Nationalists believe in everything. But as ever, the question any intelligent, sceptical Scot should be asking is: what is not being said?

The first and biggest question that remains unanswered is “Why?” What is the cause that means we should sunder a 300-year-old relationship? In even the worst and messiest of break-ups, both sides have a reason. The best one can discern from the SNP document is that it will all be better if Scotland is run by Scots. Hmm. Really? Scots, and Scottish firms, have prospered by being open to the world and open to talent from elsewhere, indeed from anywhere. There is no supporting evidence for the proposition that Scottish leadership is best because, of course, there is none. Yet, if that is the core of your case, you should provide some.

Second, there are no costings. Not even vestigial ones. Presumably, the SNP believes an independent Scotland would be far better off than at present. So, the independence balance sheet would look good. Yet there is nothing. This, in the end, will be a crucial battlefield. Is there a structural deficit? Could a separate Scotland sustain the same level of pensions as the UK despite a lower GDP and a higher proportion of pensioners? Good questions, but unanswered – except by assertions. The magic money tree will flourish on the Summer Isle.

Third, and crucially, why can’t the promised benefits be achieved within the United Kingdom? This is fundamental. Sure, there’s a mood for change. But change to what, and why? If it’s getting rid of the Tories, they’re only a minority across the UK. They can be knocked of at the next election, especially since Labour has had an opinion poll lead for the past 15 months. If it’s a change to socialism, there’s no Scottish majority for that, let alone a UK one. Sorry about that, but it’s a fact that’s frustrated me since I was a teenager.

These are the big unanswered questions. They need to be surfaced, and they will be – because the SNP has opened a space for debate on the detail. We need to know about the pound, the euro, defence, embassies, broadcasting and social security in detail. But more importantly, we need a powerful reason why – why now, and why it will be better. Facts, not hope. And we’re still waiting.