The winning case for keeping the Union
So the great debate on the break-up of the United Kingdom has begun. But much of the heat has so far been generated by the process of the referendum – two questions or three, this year or in two years time – rather than matters of substance.
My concern is that the debate is being led by politicians rather than ordinary voters. As a result, people will tend to line up according to their party political inclinations, rather than assess the proposals on their merits. And this plays into the hands of the slippery Mr Salmond, who is by far the most popular (and wily) politician north of the border. Many of those who voted SNP last year did so because they wanted Salmond as first minister – not because they wanted an independent Scotland.
My experiences of working for the “No” campaign (against joining the Euro) and the campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty provide helpful lessons. The key one is that there needs to be a unified, non-party-political campaign against independence, which means that whoever heads the campaign – Mr Unionist – should not be a politician. Ideally, he or she should be a succeassful businessman or respected academic.
There is no reason why the political parties can’t be seen to support the Unionist cause but English-sounding voices from south of the border should be banned if possible. Salmond would like nothing better than to portray the referendum as a chance to free Scotland from the colonial English yoke, so the arguments in favour of the union must be made by Scotsmen and women.
And we urgently need someone to produce some positive arguments in this respect. So far, the Unionist arguments have been (a) independence would be a disaster for Scotland, (b) if not a disaster then very difficult (c) Scotland would have to accept its share of the national debt and the RBS toxic assets and (d) the Scots’ standard of living would suffer if they left the UK. These may well be true but they are so negative. I want people to vote for staying in the union because they recognise it as a good thing.
People should certainly be told what the consequences of leaving the union would be, but that is no more than half the story. They need to know WHY Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. And I don’t think phrases such as “we’re stronger together” are the answer. The Unionist campaign must explain why we are stronger together.
The problem is that, after 300 years, the benefits of union are taken for granted and are so much of our daily routine that we need to be reminded what exactly they are. If this campaign succeeds in making all of more aware of just how beneficial the union has been – and still is – then the whole exercise will not have been wasted.
