‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’

Abraham Lincoln, via Bob Dylan for most of us, was right – as Alex Salmond found out this week when he debated Alistair Darling.

In the build up to this event the Scottish National party were almost unbearable in their assumption that their guy would wipe the floor with our guy. The insufferable Pete Wishart – an SNP member of parliament you will thankfully never have heard off – claimed that the ‘slaughter’ (yes, slaughter) would be worse than in the reconstruction of the battle of Bannockburn. Presumably he actually meant the actual battle, since there is usually no bloodshed in a reconstruction – that’s the point, really. Well, turns out he was right. Just wrong about who would have to be dragged off the field mortally wounded.

It is an iron law of politics that you should take an honest and realistic assessment of your opponents and not simply hope that they are what you wish them to be. From the SNP’s perspective, Alex Salmond was the longest serving Scottish first minister up against a Westminster backbencher. Thing is, in reality he was up against a man who had been a cabinet minister for 13 years in Westminster, where Salmond had only ever been an opposition backbencher. You do not get to the top and stay at the top in British politics unless you are pretty good – and Darling is just that.

That accounts for the passion, precision and wit Alistair brought to the debate. But sadly we cannot give him the credit for the killer blows. They were landed by Salmond – on himself. Repeatedly. On his jaw.

I have always been a sceptic that political debates are ever game-changers. Even Nixon-Kennedy wasn’t. That election wasn’t won on TV, it was well (and I mean well) and truly stolen by the Daley machine in Chicago and Lyndon B Johnson’s people in Texas. But Alex Salmond may well have provided political science with the exception that proves the rule.

The reason that Salmond tanked – and did so spectacularly – is that he believed in himself too much and trusted in the people too little.

The first is an easy mistake to make. He went into the debate as the favourite, and anyway he has never knowingly lacked self-confidence. He is the greatest proponent of ‘magical thinking’ in contemporary politics – when he says it is so, it makes it so. And appropriately – but stupidly – he has surrounded himself with ‘yes’ men and women. ‘Don’t you think that’s not a good idea?’ is a phrase that is never heard from SNP advisers.

From this feeling of invulnerable and absolute rightness flows the utter contempt for the public. I know what SNP polling says because I’ve seen it. (When I say I’ve seen the SNP’s polling what I actually mean is that I have seen polling by organisations opposed to separation. If the SNP’s is any good – and it is – it will be telling them exactly the same thing as ours is). It tells Salmond that voters want clear answers on the currency and on the European Union. And they don’t mean repetition of the SNP lines. Voters say: ‘Nothing ever goes completely to plan. There are always problems. Alex is a clever man. He must know that. So, if he is not telling us, they must be pretty bad’. They want reassurance about contingency plans. They want to hear a little humility and uncertainty from Salmond: ‘There may be difficulties, but it will be worth it.’ They don’t want the politics of ‘No compromise with the electorate.’ They thought they had the Greens and the ultra-left for that.

Given that context, Salmond’s strategy was insane. He must have known Alistair Darling would ask about his ‘plan B’ for the currency – it is the most ill-concealed line of attack in Scottish political history. Why was there – apparently – no preparation? Why was there no better line than ‘It’s wir poond tae’? Judging from the ludicrous attacks Salmond made on the no campaign he certainly thought that this STV debate was just first minister’s questions on steroids. And that therefore his usual bravado and bluster would do the trick.

Except that this was a category error. As the old joke goes, it is first minister’s questions not first minister’s answers. In a debate on such a critical issue as independence with such a large audience something very different was needed. The people he needed to impress were not his backbenchers, or even the assembled lobby hacks. No, this was a broadcast to the heart of middle Scotland. It needed a completely different approach.

The flaw, ultimately, is not in the performance but in the strategy. To make separation something even remotely like a majoritarian proposition Salmond has systematically rubbed all the edges off it. Worried about a republic? We’ll keep the Queen. Love the British army? We’ll keep most of the bases. Hate the Euro? Don’t worry, we’ll keep the pound. In the end, this was all a stretch too far. Separation is an existential issue. It cannot logically all be ‘and-and’, some of it is ‘either-or’. Else, what is the point? The fundamental SNP slogan was ‘Everything will change, but everything will stay the same.’ They had a decent run with that. But it came to an end on Tuesday night – and not a moment too soon.

———————————

John McTernan is former political secretary at 10 Downing Street and was director of communications for former prime minister of Australia Julia Gillard. He writes The Last Word column on Progress and tweets @johnmcternan

———————————

Photo: Ewan McIntosh