The result of the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September is likely to be close and divisive. Too many political leaders keep stressing the same point, that a ‘Yes’ vote is irreversible. They are wrong and progressives need to respond with a post-referendum strategy whatever the result.

After trailing in the opinion polls, the Scottish nationalists have benefited from a surge in support that resembles the ‘late swing’ that saved the Conservatives in 1992. John Major’s victory turned into Britain’s defeat just a few months later with the devaluation of the pound, a consequence of a contradictory policy that linked sterling to the Deutsche Mark without synchronising British and German economies.

The similarity between the Scottish nationalists and the Tories goes further. At the heart of the ‘Yes’ campaign is a contradiction. Alex Salmond is promising that leaving the United Kingdom will make a world of difference and that leaving the United Kingdom will make almost no difference. Salmond needs the first proposition, that separating Scotland from the UK will lead to prosperity, to mobilize his nationalist base. Salmond needs the second proposition, that the split from the UK will involve ‘seamless’ transitions, to convince just enough of those outside his base to win a majority.

This contradiction runs through all of the nationalists’ major proposals:

• Scotland will leave the UK, but keep the UK pound
• Scotland will gain control over its economy, but by keeping the UK pound will have less control over fiscal policy and no control over monetary policy
• Scotland will no longer be part of UK foreign policy and defence, but will remain in Nato and the European Union (the cornerstones of UK foreign and defence policy)
• Scotland will remove UK nuclear weapons, but participate in Nato, a nuclear alliance
• Scotland will have a separate immigration policy and expansive citizenship criteria, but there will be no border with the UK
• Scotland will run its own affairs, but will keep such cherished British institutions as the DVLA

What makes this long list of inconsistencies even more bizarre is that the Scottish National party, which dominates the ‘Yes’ campaign, has had decades to think about what independence would look like.

This ‘tooth fairy’ politics is what the Tories have practiced it for decades. Let us remember the Conservative promises that public services and assets would be sold off and nobody would suffer, that tax cuts for the rich would not lead to a less fair society. No wonder the SNP have been called ‘the tartan Tories’.

So how have the Scottish nationalists gotten so far with such terrible arguments? Again, like the Tories they know how to run a campaign.

First, the ‘Yes’ campaign is unified. It is in many ways an SNP front, built upon the SNP grass roots organisation that brought Salmond to power in Scotland in 2007 and gave him a majority in 2011. By contrast, the ‘No Thanks/Better Together’ campaign is fractious and draws upon political parties that have lost the last two Scottish elections.

Second, the ‘Yes’ campaign has the support of the Scottish government and, thanks to the SNP majority, the most important Scottish parliamentary committees. The SNP government has abused its powers, putting civil servants to work justifying independence and drawing up a post-independence constitution (in violation of the Scotland Act). The SNP has rammed a pro-independence report on EU membership through the European and External Relations Committee. Salmond, without bothering to wait for the referendum result and in violation of the UK government’s sole responsibility for foreign relations, says he has begun negotiating Scotland’s EU membership.

Third, the nationalists are obsessive and relentlessness. This monomania allows Salmond to blame current and future problems on Britain. Salmond has called his own countrymen as ‘a nation of drunks’ and blamed the UK: ‘there is something deep about Scotland’s relationship with alcohol that is about self-image – lack of confidence, maybe, as a nation – and we have to do something about it.’ You can be sure that if an independent Scotland fails to reduce poverty, another SNP ‘tooth fairy’ promise, the nationalists will blame the legacy of the union.

Fourth, the nationalists have used intimidation without penalty. This involves more than covering up the weakness of their arguments. The nationalists know that if they lose on 18 September, the independence issue could be buried for years. There should have been a scandal when a civil servant sought to undermine the credibility of Clare Lally, the mother of a child with cerebral palsy. There should have been a scandal that the highest levels of the Scottish government threatened businesses with retribution if they opposed independence. There should have been a scandal that local ‘Yes’ campaign groups encouraged people to turn up when Jim Murphy was speaking – people whose goal was intimidation and who included anti-English extremists. There is a scandal that the nationalists have targeted the BBC and defamed a journalist. There should be utter disgust when nationalist sympathisers write that ‘For hundreds of years, disproportionate multitudes of Scottish soldiers have fallen in England’s wars’ and young nationalists jeer at the mention of Britain’s resistance to Hitler. Instead, the nationalists have run a dirty campaign that makes the Tories look like the Salvation Army.

Fifth, the nationalists have promised a financial windfall. The figures may not add up, but the logic is clever. If Scotland stops paying for all the unionist services it claims not to need (defence, security, investment in British infrastructure etc), that means money saved. The SNP wants this to sounds like money in the pocket of Scottish taxpayers, a windfall for which there is no guarantee.

So how should progressives respond to this classically Tory approach of terrible ideas and a tremendous campaign?

First, we must push for a federal Britain whichever way the referendum vote goes. For all Salmond’s rhetoric that an independent Scotland will be England’s ‘best friend’, the nationalists want an unfriendly divorce. The assumption that Scotland can walk out of the union and keep all the benefits is designed to lay the blame on the UK for the inevitable turmoil and cost that independence involves.

Instead, progressives should promote a federation of the British Isles that maintains the unique identities of our countries and the openness and connections that have made us, in John McTernan’s words, ‘the most successful, multi-national, multi-racial, multi-faith country the world has ever seen’.A British federation is not another 1707. It will be a unique arrangement of mutual support. It will be a recognition that we have a shared history and shared values north and south of the border – and on both sides of the Irish Sea.

Second, progressives should campaign for a genuinely accountable Scottish government with greater democratic oversight, whatever its relationship with the UK. In the event of independence, do not be surprised if the SNP seeks to manipulate Scotland’s electoral system, or defines citizenship laws to give expatriates passports and so secure their votes.

Third, we need to continue to show solidarity with progressive Scottish forces. The nationalists have suggested that Scotland can separate from the UK but maintain a ‘social union’ with the rest of Britain. For all Salmond’s talk of ‘international citizenship’, the nationalists’ claim that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK is another way of saying that their compassion for the poor and disadvantaged ends at the border. Progressives should repay them in their own coin with cross-border solidarity and campaigns. The SNP knows that it will have to reduce the bloated Scottish government payroll. The media operatives and other pro-independence flunkies may survive the cuts while essential service workers will not – British progressives should be their best allies.

Fourth, as John McTernan suggested, progressives need to make this term Salmond’s last. That means campaigning for a Labour victory in Scotland and a post-SNP government that targets assistance to the poor rather than benefits to the rich.

Finally, let us remember that for all the nationalists’ sniping and vitriol, the referendum demonstrates that the UK is a country to be proud of. Indeed, while the debate has exposed the unpleasantness of Scottish nationalism, it has also occasioned a growth in British pride that cuts across political parties and ethnic groups. David Cameron and George Galloway, rarely appearing together in the same sentence, have passionately spoken up for Britain. With our country’s unity under threat, we appreciate how dear Britain is to us and what a remarkable place it is. As Adam Tomkins has written, ‘what other state would do this: would not only countenance its own peaceable break-up but would act so as to facilitate this?’ There are millions of people around the world who can only dream of being granted a vote on independence – just ask the Catalans and the Kurds. We are better, no matter how we stay together.

——————————-

Andrew Apostolou is a British historian who has managed human rights campaigns in the Middle East and has debated George Galloway on live tv

——————————-

Courtesy of Scotland Shop Tartan