Far Greater than the SNP

With a referendum secured, and a date set, the independence debate has kicked-off in earnest. So far we’ve had it all: brinkmanship, scaremongering, patriotism, scaremongering, chest-thumping nationalism, accusations of political racism, scaremongering and no shortage of political theatre. Quality debate is conspicuous by it’s absence!

Andrew Graeme Smith submitted an illuminating post on Better Nation recently, offering an assessment of what strategy may underpin the NO campaign in the coming referendum. Aside from avoiding a presidential head-to-head with Alex Salmond (which any one individual would struggle to pull off), there is a fundamental difference in the starting point for each campaign and a subtle, but important, tactical consideration. Put simply, the NO campaign only needs to retain support, while the YES campaign must win support. Considered in this way, Andrew argues that the NO campaign will ultimately seek to undermine the SNP’s credibility in the hope that, by extension, the YES vote suffers as a result. The early skirmishes suggest Andrew’s assessment is correct and it is worth considering how the YES campaign should proceed with care.

The single biggest ‘thing’ that the NO campaign agree on, is their absolute loathing of the SNP. This is not wholly about the Union and it is not wholly about the status-quo. Sure, they oppose independence in principle, but as the flag-bearers of the independence movement, the SNP currently stand alone, proud but exposed and hated. While no longer the small, determined and patriotic lobby group in the corridors of Westminster, the mammoth, monolithic SNP political machine is still a single, solitary target and this makes it vulnerable to focused and targetted attacks. It has always been thus. The contempt shown to SNP MPs has long been known and David Dimbleby’s blatant sneering and badgering at Nicola Sturgeon recently exemplifies how the British political classes have thumbed their nose toward the SNP, egged on by the state broadcaster and other sections of the mainstream media. In considering tactics, it is worth remembering that the UK political theatre and media are more than happy to play the man and not the ball. Where the SNP are concerned, it’s open season.

Aside from attempts to control how and when we wish to hold a referendum, we have already seen – a mere fortnight into a two and half year campaign – a barrage of questions about an independent Scotland: which currency would we use, would we be a member of the EU, would we join the Euro, what would our military look like, who would control monetary policy, etc. All fair questions, make no mistake. However, this is not how the questions are framed, but rather: what makes you think you could use Sterling, what makes you think the EU would want you, why choose independence and be forced to join the failing Euro, how many aircraft carriers would Scotland have(!)? The tone of the UK argument thus far has sought to question the temerity of Scots to even consider independence. And crucially, they do so by sneering with complete contempt for the SNP. Their undoubted aim is to conflate independence with SNP policy.

Why? Firstly, it is far easier to fight a political party than it is to fight an ideal such as independence. It is almost impossible to successfully fight an idea that enables a people to take greater responsibility, that enables greater local representation or that enables their right to self-determination. The only way for the NO campaign to fight these lofty and idealistic concepts, is to take a particular implementation and hope to pass this off as the definition of independence: how many planes will you have, will you have aircraft carriers, what will your monetary policy be, what currency will you use? To tolerate such a shallow and 1-dimensional interpretation of independence is a gross disservice to Scotland. As we continue to champion a free education for all, or the importance of the NHS, surely we argue that these services are a right (or wrong) on a point of principle and not some absurd tit-for-tat about the number of teachers, nurses, doctors, school or hospitals we create?

Secondly, the SNP are not flawless. They will make mistakes, they will propose controversial legislation and they will suffer from voter fatigue. We are less than a year into a second term and already the SNP have had their fingers burnt on several policies such as sectarianism and gay marriage – by the time the referendum comes around in 2014, there is a significant risk that the SNP will suffer from stagnation in terms of public support. Should it happen, any significant ministerial casualty will, rightly or wrongly, impact upon support for independence and has implications for the momentum of the YES campaign. And while Alex Salmond was surely underplaying his hand in May by claiming the SNP had “no monopoly on wisdom”, you only have to look at their fumbling about in the dark lately on proposed defence policy to realise this was more accurate than Alex would probably like us all to think. Unfortunately, the more the SNP are seen to be the flag-bearers of independence, the more they allow the YES campaign to be tainted by their own limitations and their own mistakes.

Is any of this fair? Probably not, but it is the nature of politics. Independence is not about the number of planes you have, whether you build aircraft carriers, or what your specific monetary policy might be – these are implementations of policy that any particular government might chose and can only be decided by those we elect via the elections of an independent Scotland. Independence is a far more abstract and powerful ideal and not for any one party to define, but this will not prevent the NO campaign from forcing the suggestion that the fortunes of an independent Scotland are questionable because the SNP are fallible.

So what should be done to counter what will be a major theme of the NO campaign?

Well, one of the mistakes the SNP have made is allowing themselves to be pushed into a corner on policy with no way out. As a political party, they are defined in terms of policy and this will certainly be the case for the duration of this debate, but more should be done to highlight that the SNP are not, and absolutely should not, be the sole architects of an independent Scotland. There is currently no proposal, as far as I can see, for an independence convention that takes responsibility for moulding the early years of an independent Scotland: the constitution, defence policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy. This cannot, and should not, be a party political body and must draw on individuals and groups from across Scotland. Given the partisan nature of this debate, this defers such a convention until after a successful YES vote (given there will be no prospect of involving the members of the NO campaign until such a result) and it would seem reasonable to me that the SNP should propose that such a body convenes in parallel with the lengthy negotiations that will occur between the Scottish and UK governments. The no-man’s land between a YES vote and an actual declaration of independence (or the first parliamentary elections) would seem like the best time for Scotland to dwell on the decision and decide what kind of nation we want to be. The outcomes of the convention would then underpin the first election of an independent Scotland where political parties campaign on implementation detail. From a tactical point of view, this reduces the dependency of the YES campaign on the SNP’s fortunes and policy manifesto, and we quite rightly emphasise that all of Scottish society will have a role in shaping an independent Scotland (should that be the result of he referendum).

As such, the SNP’s challenge is not to win the referendum as if it were an election but to lay the foundations of a campaign that will grow beyond their control and beyond their particular vision of Scotland. It must be organic, or viral in social media parlance, and have the freedom to grow into areas of Scottish life that the SNP cannot reach, or do not appeal. The professional and obsessive SNP machine will need to fight everything it has become and allow the campaign to evolve far beyond anything they could control. As the campaign grows beyond the party and the chattering classes, the less acceptable, effective and palatable the gratuitous attacks on the SNP will become.

When Alex Salmond noted that the SNP “did not have the monopoly of wisdom”, his supporters and his detractors have both used it to their advantage in order to appear consensual or to highlight the absence of consensus respectively. This theme should be taken further for the YES campaign and the narrative should increasingly be that the SNP cannot, and should not, define independence. In supporting independence, we should not have to align ourselves with any one SNP policy, or be defined by what is in the SNP manifesto. If we are to succeed in this campaign, we must recognise that this is far bigger than the SNP. As the flagbearers, they must only lead by laying the foundations of a campaign that will grow beyond the limits of the party machine, beyond the wizardry of a slick media team and beyond the control of Alex Salmond. For us to succeed, the campaign must be far greater than the SNP and it must not come to represent the SNP, but the Scottish people.