Scotland on Sunday lecture: Gordon Wilson

These days, I take a long view of Scotland's drive for independence. In the 55 years since I set out on this tortuous road, much has changed. In 1955, the Conservative & Unionist Party had as many seats as Labour –and more votes! The main Parties were unionist and, believe it or not, the Scottish Liberals were home rulers! The Scottish National Party was nowhere, with few votes, no parliamentary seats and miniscule support.

Roll on 55 years, it is a different picture. There has been sustained SNP representation in Westminster for 43 years. There is a Scottish Parliament and an SNP Government whose ministers have performed brilliantly. So from the vantage point of time, there has been heartening progress. But it is not enough. We still do not have independence and support lags around one third of our people.

So when SNP members expressed consternation that the SNP government had abandoned the promised referendum, my response was different: it was one of relief. Alex Salmond and his Cabinet were right. There was no point in holding a referendum. We were bound to lose. The majority was just not there. There was a tactical argument that we should allow the Unionists to vote it down. A neat decision, but on balance a miscalculation. Defeat would have placed the SNP on the back foot in an election year. We have had a narrow escape. If the Referendum Bill had passed with a resultant NO to independence, then it would have taken the SNP up to 20 years to recover.

It is perfectly true that if the SNP were defeated in one referendum, there would be a regrouping and we would fight for another, and another and another 'a neverendum'. After all we do stand for independence. Unfortunately, that is not the problem the SNP faces. The Unionists and Donald Dewar were not dumb. The voting system for the Scottish Parliament was specifically devised to make it impossible for the SNP alone to win a majority.

So, here is the unpalatable current choice – no referendum because the Unionists vote it down. Or a referendum where we lose! The longer the promise appears in the Manifesto, the less credibility it will have. A ground hog day, indeed! As to gambling on a referendum when support for independence is not at tipping point, I am not of the 'with one bound Jock was free' school of thought.

It is time for fresh thinking. There is validity in the gradualist strategy. If, however, a referendum is held and the result is NO, then it will be a severe set-back – unless, that is, the Party settles for a governmental role in a regional Scotland. And to be honest, given the success of the SNP government over its term, many members of the public – and perhaps some SNP members, too – would look on this option favourably. It is after all a constitutional aim of the SNP that the Party should further Scotland's interests. An SNP government is certainly good for our country.

Strangely enough, I am not downcast. SNP members are concerned there is no way out of the constitutional cul-de-sac. Well, they are wrong – but they need to be patient. It is one of the paradoxes of an SNP government that many Scots voters think they have the best of both worlds – a nationalist Government that stands up for Scotland while retaining comforting membership of the United Kingdom.

So where does the SNP go after its first term in government – especially if it is re-elected on merit? Let's look anew on strategy.

The primary weakness is the low level of support for independence. And here the SNP deserves criticism. It has prioritised its role in government and devoted little of its resources towards presenting a relevant, modern economic case for independence.

The crisis has made Scots look to British solutions and there is alas little popular acceptance that the source of the problem is Britain itself. Independence is not regarded as the solution which is why many voters turned to Labour at the last General Election. Not logical I know since it was a Labour Government that caused the financial and economic collapse. But in politics, the mood counts for everything and logic for little.

Britain is a failing state. As a world power, it is in decline economically. It is unable to support its military. Its Prime Minister has admitted that the UK's special relationship with the US is that of a client. And financially – and I don't have to spell it out – Britain is nearly bankrupt with cuts in the standard of living likely to last for 10 to 20 years. Not much comfort then in continuing membership of the UK. Staying with London is the Titanic option. And yet there has been no sustained anti-British campaign by the SNP to turn opinion our way.

By contrast, an independent Scotland would be a wealthy nation. Of course, we would inherit our share of the debt and we already have dreadful social problems, being at the bottom of many of the international indices for a first world country. So where are the benefits and strengths that will give this failed nation of ours the confidence to move forward?

Jobs come from resources. Scotland is rich in resources. The First Minister went out on a limb some time ago, predicting that Scotland could be the Saudi Arabia of green electricity generation and was duly laughed to scorn by his opponents. He looks like having the last laugh as development follows development and tidal energy becomes feasible.

This campaign for green power may be the defining achievement of Alex Salmond's administration. Yet to win votes we have to show that the new resource will be managed for the benefit of our people and here the SNP curiously has a policy vacuum. We must use the big energy and engineering companies to help re-skill our workforce, while recognising they are here largely because of the subsidies from 250,000 per windmill. It is our cash resources, they are after.

What we can't allow to happen is a repetition of what occurred with oil where even after 14 years of gas exploitation in the North Sea, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in 1973 found that the UK Government had no regulatory or taxation structure in place.

Prof Chris Harvie and I investigated in the summer how Scotland could best retain the benefits in both jobs and revenues from development of off-shore green electricity and these were our conclusions.

The Scottish Government should:

1. transfer the powers, royalties and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament.

2. negotiate the transfer of OFGEM's relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament.

3. establish a Scottish Energy Agency that will licence experimental and commercial energy developments, co-operate with other government agencies, the engineering industry, the Scottish financial sector and the energy companies in optimising the development and manufacture of generating processes in Scotland for production of renewable electricity and if necessary, be empowered to purchase and distribute electricity so produced to prevent exploitation of Scottish consumers.

4. negotiate with the London Government to gain fair access to the UK National Grid in respect of power produced in Scotland and with the Norwegian, German and Danish Governments over the establishment of an inter-connector and Combined Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) links with Europe so that the Scottish government will have autonomous authority over the transmission and marketing of Scotland's green energy.

5. set up bi-lateral links with other European Governments and industrial enterprises specialising in generating and energy-conserving technology and seeking to be active in off-shore Scotland for training and to provide scholarships and grants for technicians and engineers (supplementary to EU Erasmus exchanges at University level) to rectify the severe shortfall in skills in Scotland arising through past deindustrialisation.

6. make provision for an Electricity Revenue Tax on excess profits made by producing or retailing companies harnessing the benefits of Scotland's sea and wind energy.

While this package will safeguard Scotland's interests, its likely rejection by Westminster will focus minds in Scotland to the benefits of independence.

And then, there is oil. Still a bonanza for a country of 5 million people with more fields being discovered on a regular basis! Scotland's oil is no myth. Don't write it off. Peak oil price increases as oil runs out world wide will revive the debate. The problem now is that it is a jaded issue. To refresh it we must add it to the quiver of

Scotland's natural resources. And in 30 years time, fresh water will give us a strategic advantage amidst global shortage. It is not just a case of exporting it but of attracting industries that use water in quantity.

One difficulty for the SNP is that the Scottish Election is only 6 months away and the case for independence will take years of intensive marketing to make an impact. And in any election, the electors will want a range of affordable policies from the SNP such as the popular freeze on Council Tax. Not easy at a time when budgets are being savaged. How we fight this coming election is for the Party to determine.

So how do we break the constitutional deadlock? I want to look at the middle term after the election.

Firstly, the feature of the last 10 years has been a growing demand from all quarters for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Although we should examine with suspicion any financial powers being offered by London – if only because we are likely to lose out - the first priority of the SNP within government or without is to transform a regional assembly into the real thing. The slippery slope objective, if you like. As this is done better when in power, the Party should consider placing the precarious referendum on the backburner until support for independence soars, provided it avoids the temptation of becoming a Scottish Regional Party.

Secondly, the SNP has to be blunt in its message to all the people suffering through the crisis – the unemployed teachers, those who may lose their jobs in the public sector (and the private sector if a double dip recession bites), and the pensioners and those on benefit seeing their income slides. Place the blame on bankrupt Britain. Scotland with its natural resources offers a future that Britain can no longer deliver. The SNP should find a spokesman or woman with verve and panache to front this negative campaign.

Thirdly, the Party should co-hitch the mandate for independence to achieving a majority of MPs in the Westminster parliament. With first past the post elections, majorities are possible in the right circumstances. In the last election, our candidates were reduced to grubbing for votes as 'local champions' and were not seen as relevant.

Now as the cuts pile upon cuts, they will be. The MPs should be given an enhanced relevance.

Finally, the First Minister is setting a lead on green energy, but he needs political back up. The Party Constitution strangely does not have an office-bearer charged with responsibility for strategy and campaigns. He should find some emergent member from within the SNP with the energy, time and talent to put a major campaign in place that will last for years in successive phases.

One thought about the referendum. History tells that the Thatcher oppression conditioned the Labour Party to campaigning for devolution in 1988 – something they did not do in 1979. Who is to tell what the unprecedented cuts in public expenditure now looming will do to alter public opinion and the views of the rank and file of the Unionist Parties. Will there be civil unrest? Will desperation create its own dynamic? Who can tell at this stage? It is the calm before the storm.

What I do know is that as the independence vote rises, one or more of the Unionists will give way on the referendum if only to save their political hides. They can hold back the people only for so long. The log jam will break.

And, of course, as ever it is the SNP that has to ride point and lead the way. So I counsel our younger members, think afresh. Work hard.

Persevere. Be patient. And it will come! The pieces are falling into place whether the media or our members realise it.