THE moral malaise of Boris’s Brexit Britain lies not just with the current Prime Minister and his immediate circle, nor is it limited to the Tory party. It lies embedded in the very being of the British state – in its compromised political class, its corrupted institutions, and its decrepit unwritten constitution.
It is hard to understand the mindset of those who look at all this and still regard Scottish independence as a threat to all they hold dear.
Yet they do. Support for independence should be hovering around 65%, but it still balances on a knife-edge. Some recent polls show it dipping well below 50% again.
I suspect part of the reason we have not yet seen any bold movement towards a second referendum is fear of the outcome. Perhaps the SNP is right to be cautious. We could easily lose the next referendum; if so, the whole movement for independence would be crushed.
READ MORE: Mark Brown: As France prepares to vote, the fascist threat rears its ugly head again
The need to win makes it vital to understand the motivations of the No voters. I don’t mean the hardcore of British Nationalists who think Brexit is a swell idea, nor the drum-bashing Loyalists who are beyond the reaches of reason. I mean the moderate centre-ground of Scottish opinion.
We know who these folks are. They are the “could-be-worse” and the “better-the-Devil-you-know” brigade. They are the comfortable and complacent, the small-c conservative but politically uncommitted, the middle class and middle-aged.
They are those who voted No in 2014 and Remain in 2016. They probably don’t like the way things are going. They don’t support Brexit. They don’t sign up to Boris’ brand of “Bandit Toryism”. They might even concede that Nicola Sturgeon did a good job managing Covid. Yet they remain wary of independence.
Independence can only be achieved by convincing this key swing demographic. So we need to know what makes these people so reluctant to make the switch. Why, even as the old ship sinks, will they not jump into the waiting lifeboat of Scottish independence?
It is hard to generalise. Nevertheless, it is possible to understand, in broad strokes, what this demographic cling to, and what they fear.
They cling to a nostalgic sense of what Britain was. They are not so keen on what Britain is now, or what it is becoming. They are not blind to its many faults. However, unlike some independence supporters, they retain an emotional attachment to the Britain of past and imagination. They do not deny the decline and disintegration of Britain, but they lament rather than celebrate it.
They are not ashamed by the British Empire. They prefer to focus on its achievements, like suppressing slavery and suttee. The crimes of the Empire, like the Bengal Famine and the Amritsar Massacre, are not necessarily denied, but they are dwarfed, in their scales of judgment, by Britain’s defence of freedom and humanity in the Second World War.
Their uncle was in the Scots Guards, their granny once met the Queen. They made little models of Spitfires when they were a child. They are comfortable with all of that. The Union flag on a bag of carrots at the supermarket does not offend them. They do not insist that the Falkland Islands be called Las Malvinas. Britain is part of their Scottishness, and Scotland is part of their Britishness, and they do not want give that up.
Then let’s look at what they fear: change. They are not necessarily terrified of independence itself, but of what might happen next. Will independence raise their taxes? Will it turn Scotland into “another Venezuela”? Will it stop them getting to the garden centre?
Despite everything, they see the Union as the guarantor of stability and property. The absence of a centre-right pro-independence party, and the immoderate language of the radical edge of the pro-independence movement, does not help. Let Scotland go it alone, so they think, and within a year the “Dreaded Nats” will be confiscating Volvos and treating anyone with a golf club membership the way Stalin treated the Kulaks. That’s not a risk worth taking.
To win, we must reassure Middle Scotland of two things, both of which are constitutional in nature.
The first is that they can continue to express Britishness in an independent Scotland. This might include elements of the “social union”, dual citizenship, and symbolic continuity (eg, keeping the monarchy, at least initially).
The second is that while an independent Scottish Government is likely to embark on much needed social and economic reform, there is no risk of revolution, chaos or insolvency: the rule of law, individual rights, and the sanctity of private property, will be constitutionally guaranteed.
In the words of Terry Pratchett: “A good plan isn’t one where someone wins, it’s where nobody thinks they’ve lost.”
William Thompson is this week’s guest on the TNT show. Join us at 7pm on Wednesday
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel