Peter Jones: It’s really not hard to say: Thank you, Scotland

‘Thank you” are two words rarely used in politics, certainly not in any sincere way. But if reports that UK government ministers are going to be visiting Scotland a lot in the near future are accurate, then “thank you” is a phrase they should consider using a lot, particularly if they want to save the Union.

Where you get thanks used a lot in politics is at formal parliamentary question times – “I want to thank the member for the question … I thank the minister for the reply … etc.” This is said in the same way as you or I might thank a traffic warden for ticketing our car.

Since voters are quite capable of being insincere in this and many other ways, they are expert at spotting political insincerity. UK politicians tripping into Scotland ought to know that, but all too often they treat Scots like suckers at a bent roulette wheel all too ready to part with their trust when schmoozed with slick patter.

That might have worked in the past, but it sure ain’t going to work now. Scotland now has a First Minister who is seen by an increasingly large section of the electorate, maybe even close to a majority, as Scotland’s spokesman.

What’s more, Alex Salmond is a smart guy with a big crowd of brainy types around him who are expert at spotting the tiniest flaw in an opponent’s spoutings. He also has a communications machine that has the speed and manoeuvrability of a Porsche, making that run by Tony Blair’s Alastair Campbell look like a Ford Anglia.

Once that machine pounces on the tiniest faux pas, they will make sure it is broadcast far and wide. And the voting public seem to be quite happy to take on the SNP’s interpretation of events as their own. After all, everyone likes to back a winner and Mr Salmond appears to be the only winner in town these days.

So make no mistake, being a visiting politician in Scotland is a tough gig and anyone who hasn’t got their act inch and line perfect has to be prepared to be pelted with rotten fruit and to be jeered off stage. So why don’t visiting unionist politicians do something – as John Cleese used to say in the opening lines of the Monty Python show – completely different. Like saying “thank you”.

In fact, it would be the diametric opposite of what previous UK governments, from Margaret Thatcher to Gordon Brown, used to say to Scots. They told Scottish voters that they should be thanking them.

Now I think that lesson one in basic practical politics these days is that the electorate is never grateful. Voters who will thank a politician are as rare as hen’s teeth, and the person who goes into politics expecting thanks is naïve or stupid, or both.

Every minister knows this, so why on earth do they expect an entire nation to say “thank you”?

But this is the practical end point of the argument that begins by setting out the apparently simple fact that public spending per head in Scotland is higher than it is south of the Border. And since tax revenues per head north of the Border are lower than they are in England, simple logic says that comparatively lavish public spending in Scotland is subsidised by the English taxpayer.

Ergo, you Scots should be thanking us, instead of whining ungratefully and asking for more. Even worse, this leads on to the scorched earth policy, which says that if you Scottish ingrates vote for the SNP, then we English will take all our money away and then you will be in a sorry starving mess.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think that demanding thanks and then issuing blood-curdling threats if you don’t get thanked is really a winning political strategy.

So where would the political thanks to Scottish voters come in? Well, you have to begin by acknowledging the missing bit in the calculations above, which is called North Sea oil. Even the dogs in Glasgow streets know that it is there, that it produces big tax revenues, and that most of it comes out of what would be Scottish territory under independence.

And if you add it into current sums of taxes and spending, it makes a big difference. Sure, Scotland still spends a lot more than it raises in taxes, including oil taxes, but that deficit, in relative percentages of GDP terms, is a lot less than the UK’s deficit. And that points to the fact the UK, or the rest of the UK, would be worse off if Scotland departed the Union.

So why don’t unionist politicians thank Scotland for making the whole of Britain a bit better off than it would otherwise be. Because, stupid, they reckon that Alex Salmond and his brainy gang will shout it from the rooftops as the final proof that Scotland would indeed be better off going it alone.

Let them, because what is happening right now is only a few years of a much bigger historical time-spread. Over the past few decades there have been times when Scotland’s deficit has been bigger, such as in the 1990s and the first half of the last decade, and English money helped to keep Scottish spending at higher levels than would have been the case with independence.

I don’t see anything politically wrong with admitting that Scotland is helping the rest of the UK out now, just as the rest of the UK has helped Scotland out in the past. It is a simple truth, and politicians usually fare better when they admit simple truths.

It is also a truth that the oil isn’t going to last forever. When it does run out, maybe Scottish renewable energy will replace it, though on cost grounds, that looks a little doubtful. Or maybe gas, of which there appears to be vast amounts in unconventional deposits underneath northern England, will save the British (and Scottish) economy.

Who knows? What does seem to me to be reasonably certain is that the old political way of talking to the Scots about the Union isn’t working.

A new way, one which treats the Scots with respect – and thanks them – might do a whole lot better.