Why let facts spoil a Scottish independence party?

Democracy is a good thing, and self-determination is right. These principles lie at the heart of the Northern Irish peace process. So those of us not taking part in next week’s Scottish referendum should hesitate to criticise the result, whatever it is. It is Scotland’s decision, made by those who live there and are eligible to vote. We will all have to live with the consequences.

I have rarely used the word “unionist” to describe myself in the past, but I find I am increasingly anxious, gloomy and upset at the prospect of Scotland no longer being part of my country. Cue the now conventional lament: I have Scottish relatives, love visiting the country, admire Scottish traditions, adore the landscape, like the people. The UK is better for having Scotland in it. It would be enormously diminished without it.

Those are my “priors”. It’s a wholly subjective view. But when it comes to objectivity, to facts, this referendum campaign becomes rather odd. Because it seems that facts and the views of many experts count for little if opinion polls are to be believed. On Scotland’s future economic prospects outside the UK (currency, jobs and fiscal position), on EU membership (likely to be at least five years away after a vote for independence), on pensions, on its place in the world – all these things look pretty uncertain, not to say deeply worrying. But this, the Yes campaign asserts, is simply the No campaign’s Project Fear, a miserable and negative litany of scaremongering threats designed to deny Scots their freedom. All the warnings of years of disruption and uncertainty are laughed off, dismissed or denied. Not many of the factual criticisms receive a factual answer or are even engaged with at all.

And that just doesn’t matter, if the polls are right. This campaign is about heart not head, about belief not facts, about hope (I would say wishful thinking) not fear. There is a simple, emotional appeal about the Yes campaign: why wouldn’t you want to be independent? Why shouldn’t Scotland stand alone?

One Yes voter from a distinguished Scottish political family – one that is involved in one of the three main unionist parties – gave me a blunt and more honest reason for voting for independence. Of course the first few years would be tough, he admitted (unlike Alex Salmond and most of the SNP leadership), but that was not the point. Independence is just a good thing in itself, and Scots should take the chance to achieve it.

It is this basic appeal that the No campaign has failed to counter, and against which many factual arguments have been deployed in vain. The now-emerging and explicit offer of “Devo Max” has come late, perhaps too late. A post mortem on a defeat for the No campaign will investigate why this offer was not made until now. It will also ask why the Nationalists were able to phrase the question as a positive statement for their side of the argument, rather than a positive statement for Scotland to remain in the UK. And why wasn’t Devo Max a third option in this referendum?

In fact even now I still think the No camp will prevail. It is not clear exactly what the polls are telling us. The margin of error must be high in this new political territory. Had Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy SNP leader, been at the head of the Yes campaign I would be less sure that the No camp is heading for victory. But I suspect that the cocky and bruising personality of the First Minister may yet prove the Yes campaign’s undoing.

Salmond is a divisive figure. Even in the event of a vote for independence you have to question whether he would be the right person to lead the new Scotland. Yesterday he was gloating at what he called the collapse and disarray of the No campaign. His spokespeople claimed the Yes campaign now had “unstoppable momentum”. These were not the words of someone who wants to unite his country. These were not even the words of someone who just wants to win. They were the words of someone who wants to crush his opponents and achieve a personal vindication. It is unseemly. Salmond reminds me of Harold Wilson in 1970, gleefully telling reporters that Ted Heath was doomed and could not possibly become prime minister, a point of view supported by most of the polling evidence that was available in the run-up to that election. But those polls were wrong, and the Conservatives were elected with a majority of 31. I believe that there are some “quiet Noes” out there now, just as there were quiet Tories undetected by pollsters in 1970 (and again in 1992). We shall see.

Another area where agreed facts are in short supply is the question of what would happen in the event of a vote for independence. Would the prime minister resign? Would there be a vote of confidence and an early UK general election? What happens to the status of Scottish MPs? Would the May 2015 election have to be postponed? These questions all deserve a post of their own, which I will write if I change my mind about the chances of the union being preserved, but my short answers are: quite possibly, quite possibly, not very much at first, and no of course not.

For one thing we should be grateful. This process has finally forced Westminster to wake up to some of the failings of the current system, the sense in which elite politics at the centre have become remote, uninteresting and ultimately meaningless. Even if No manages a slim victory a vigorous and healthy debate has been started. Things will have to change. For that we should thank the Scots and the nationalists in particular. I will salute them even more loudly if they limit their support to under 50% next week.