Once bitten - twice shy

Recent weeks have not been kind to the Better Together campaign in East Kilbride.

First, they had a chaotic visit by a Tory Cabinet Minister, Justine Greening. They were so frightened of the reaction to her visit that they switched meeting venues at the last minute. Those attending had to endure speeches shouted across a room far larger than needed – the public address system, and possibly many of the audience, having been abandoned at the original venue.

Just when they thought the worst was over, Michael McCann MP disgraced himself twice within days. At a debate organised by the Trades Union Council he showed how desperate the Tory-funded, Labour fronted, No campaign has become. Clearly rattled at being forced to justify a No vote, he abused his position on the platform to hurl abuse at a member of the audience, and at fellow No speaker, Professor John Foster.

McCann then turned his attention to the speakers for the Yes campaign, describing Yes supporter Cat Boyd as ‘a socialist’ in a tone that clearly meant it as an insult. His final comment was directed at Linda Fabiani MSP, when he criticised her for referring to the blacking of Chilean Air Force aero engines as an example of social justice that crossed borders, describing this as 'an esoteric issue'. This was too much for some Labour supporters who left the meeting in disgust.

Days later, to widespread ridicule on Twitter and Facebook, McCann used his column in the EKNews to complain that ‘bussed in’ members of the audience had heckled him.

Local Labour members are clearly annoyed at the way their party has been hijacked by such a unionist element, and local interest in Labour for Independence and Radical Independence is growing. Labour voters and members in East Kilbride are also increasingly willing to sign the Yes Declaration, and it is clear the party is facing a major revolt by its supporters over its pro-union stance.

The troubles facing the No camp in East Kilbride are mirrored across Scotland. Even a visiting journalist, Channel 4’s Jon Snow, was moved to comment on the negativity of the No campaign and the failure of Westminster to grasp the position in Scotland.

I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.

Sensing that their campaign is in trouble, Better Together has reached for an old favourite – promise that a No vote will lead to something better, but don’t specify what that might be. This tactic was first used in the 1979 referendum on devolution. Former Tory Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, urged Scots to Vote No, and, after the General Election, Westminster would deliver something better. Sound familiar?

The "something better" turned out to be Margaret Thatcher, whose government refused to deliver any form of devolution, and subjected the country to policies consistently rejected by the Scottish people. These policies saw a massive rise in unemployment and the virtual destruction of Scottish industry, doing immense damage to the economy of East Kilbride.

While the No camp talk of more powers ‘guaranteed’, even their own publicity highlights the lack of clarity about what these powers might be. Some of their supporters point to the, as yet unimplemented, 2012 Scotland Act as the limit to any further powers that would follow a No vote. This Act implements the much watered down recommendations of the Calman Commission, which was set up as an attempt to save the union in response to the SNP taking power in 2007.

Here is the view from the Conservative Party adviser, Adam Tomkins, a regular 'objective commentator' on BBC news programmes, who is such a committed unionist that he refers to Scotland as North Britain:

A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012. This Act, described at the time of its enactment by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as the largest transfer of fiscal powers within the United Kingdom in its history, will bring to Holyrood a substantial degree of fiscal devolution. 

Calman reported in 2009, and these powers were on the way when the SNP was elected to majority government in 2011. If the No campaign genuinely believed in delivering more powers for Scotland, they would have ensured these were also on the statute book before the referendum. Instead, all we have in place are the grossly inadequate powers in the 2012 Act.

Voices around Westminster make clear any proposals for more powers for Scotland would be given a rough ride, with a newly appointed Tory Minister describing devolution as ‘constitutional vandalism’. The Labour Party is so divided that no one has a clue what its policy is. Its plans for more financial devolution have been so badly developed that not even Johann Lamont could describe them accurately when she launched them for the press.

As Professor John Curtice points out, the gulf between the powers Scots want the parliament in Holyrood to have, and what they believe Westminster will deliver, is huge:

No less than 68 per cent of Scots agree that, in the event of a No vote, the Scottish Parliament should become primarily responsible for taxation and welfare. But just 39 per cent think Holyrood will actually be given more powers and responsibilities should Scotland vote No.

With clear echoes of 1979 and Alec Douglas-Home, the Scottish people must not be fooled again by unspecified offers of jam tomorrow. 

The ONLY way to guarantee Scotland gets the powers we need to grow our economy and to deliver a fairer and more prosperous country is to vote Yes on 18th September.