End of the Party Line: Political Parties after Independence

In December Yes campaign strategist Stephen Noon put forward his own view of Scottish Politics post Independence. The host newspaper for Stephen's thoughtful essay 'Scotland on Sunday' ran a companion piece headlined 'SNP could disband after Independence' that distorted his article and to quote Mr Noon probably had people 'spluttering into their porridge'. I include myself as a member of the spluttering classes. That was, though, before I read his words.
Stephen was using his essay to explore was the possibilities available for political realignment post a Yes vote in 2014. Using personal illustration he painted a picture of his ability to vote for other parties - he'd done this as a democrat living in England.
I expect Stephen has been asked what becomes of the SNP if there is a Yes vote in 2014. I've certainly been asked that by a whole range of people over the years since the SNP first formed the Scottish Government in 2007. Sure the SNP will change following the creation of an Independent Scotland. It's changed a lot in the years since I joined in 1986. For a start it's become electable right across the country. It's become credible and competent in government. It is also has the biggest membership of any Scottish party in recent times. For these reasons I would be extremely surprised if the SNP were to depart from the Scottish political scene. As a proven party of government if successful in winning the Yes vote it would seem inconceivable that the SNP wouldn't be returned as the government of a newly independent Scotland. Perhaps in coalition, perhaps not.
It's the other major parties that face the biggest challenge following a Yes vote. They and their leaders will have come off on the losing side in the referendum into which they'll have thrown their all in defence of the Union. They will be discredited their leaders vanquished. Their reinvention will need to be quick and ruthless. Politics is often the art of survival and reinvention plays a large part in that so it is a possibility that one or more of the established UK parties could reform as an attractive alternative government of an independent Scotland. All three of the 'British' parties have long and strong Scottish roots and history so the scope for the imaginative among them to rethink their party for a new Scottish  politics is theirs to form.
Obviously on the radical wing of current Scottish politics the Scottish Greens have both a Parliamentary and Council presence that should position them well in a post independence Scotland. The SSP is still there and may revive. Both may gain from the growth of the Radical Independence Conference  coalitions. In fact some green/socialist group of parties could play a progressive and significant role in an Independent Scotland. The Radical Independence Conference has potential to provide a forum for a broad left green platform around which this type of coalition could germinate.
It is what happens in the centre of the Scottish political field which will be equally interesting. Will the Tories take the Murdo Fraser line and disband to reform with a new name and new centre right mission? Will the Liberals drop the 'Democrats' addendum and bounce back as the mainstream party of localism? Will Labour in Scotland finally find its way again or will it succumb to factionalism and navel gazing for a generation? Will new parties form - two new centre or centre right parties already exist in the Scottish Democratic Alliance and the Scottish Progressives - to take advantage of the climate of change following the referendum?
Finally will the referendum campaign throw up new talent, new voices, new leadership and new ideas for an newly independent Scotland?  All of these are possibilities. First though there's a referendum campaign to be fought.
 

Let your 'Yes' be YES!

Now that the Scottish Government have made clear their preferred referendum question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"  there have been cries of 'foul' from the no campaign 'Better Together'. 
Seemingly the use of the phrase 'do you agree' is a trick and voters will find it difficult to vote no in the referendum. I have to say I never knew it would be so easy to win the Independence Referendum! I am also surprised that people could fail to to understand such a straightforward question and accidentally vote 'Yes' when that is not their intention. According to head honcho of the 'Better Together' campaign Alastair Darling MP the SNP have rigged the referendum. Gosh are people that lacking in intelligence Alastair? Are people who don't want Scotland to be independent really going to vote 'Yes' when presented with the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" 
Obviously I am campaigning for a 'Yes' vote and a 'Yes' victory so it could be levelled at me that I would support the question as it is wouldn't I? Yes I would because I put more faith in the voters basic intelligence to know whether they agree or disagree with the question. It is simple and easily digested.
In way of contrast here's what the good voters of Quebec were presented with at their two referendums on Quebec sovereignty or independence. 

1980 : "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"   

&

1995 : Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.

These two questions are neither clear nor that easy to understand. Both require a background paper (I've provided a link to wikipedia for the bill and agreement from 1995). But it was the shorter of the two that came closest to winning. In 1980 the result was 59% No against 40% Yes and in 1995 Quebeckers ran the vote much closer 50.5% No to 49.4% Yes.

Whatever the final question is on Scottish Independence my 'Yes' will be 'Yes'. 

Note: The Electoral Commission's consultation on the referendum question closes on 30 November. Details here. 

Can the Scottish Independence Referendum refresh the parts other political campaigns can’t reach?

The long haul of campaigning has begun in the Scottish Independence referendum. The YES campaign will be holding street stalls throughout Scotland over the coming weekend asking people to sign the YES Declaration. Alasdair Darling ups the negative anti of the No campaign (ok,ok I know it’s not ‘called’ the No campaign but the allegedly cuddly Better Together) by criticising the SNP currency union position.

The question though that interests me is, putting aside the political personalities at the head of each campaign, how will the debate and campaign reach out to the wider public? Will it reach those parts of the electorate that generally do not participate in the regular electoral process? And if it does will it refresh the parts other political campaigns can't reach?

The SNP cite evidence from the Quebec referendum to show turnout (1995 94%, 1980 85%) for that plebiscite was considerably higher than what was normal for both Quebec provincial (56.5% in 2008 Provincial elections) or Canadian Federal elections (Quebec 73% in 1997 Federal General Election). That suggests that the referendum campaigns both for and against motivated Quebeckers not normally engaged in politics. As an aside it suggests that people can engage with a constitutional question more easily than with a choice based on policy options put forward by differing political parties.

What form will that campaign to engage, communicate and motivate the usually vote shy electorate take? The SNP successfully used their Activate voter identification system to win a historic majority in 2011 and the YES Campaign uses the appropriately named NationBuilder.com platform to build a database of supporters, volunteers and funders. Lessons have been learned from US political campaigns from Howard Dean to Barack Obama.  The No campaigners are to use another US developed online campaign platform - Blue State Digital - to build their campaign.

In this digital age with print media – newspapers – declining daily in their influence and reach online campaigning is the way to go particularly to engage with the mass of voters. However there are the digitally excluded and this is where it is likely to get interesting. With the YES campaign already embarking on a series of ‘street-stalls’ across our communities from Portsoy to Chesser (there were stalls at both the Leith Gala and the Meadows Festival) this essential face-to-face engagement has started. I’m sure that at these stalls people will pitch up sign the declaration and then tell campaigners that they have not voted before ever. They will be the tip of the iceberg. Behind them will be the 50% or so who habitually don’t vote and not necessarily for any political reason.  They just don’t vote. They may sign up as a supporter of the Yes or the No campaigns but will they actually vote when 14 October 2014 comes round? The answer to this is unknown and will to some extent rely on two things 1) The media campaign and how that penetrates the world view of those generally disengaged citizens 2) The quality of the engagement and communication that the campaigns extend to individual citizens and in particular hard to motivate citizens and communities.

Now political anoraks who are signed up to the ‘scientific’ campaign model will know that political parties maintain campaign databases that tell them not only voting intentions gleaned from door to door and telephone canvassing along with survey returns but also who has voted in particular elections (note: but not how they voted). Through use of all this data targeting of campaigning is developed and used often with success. One concern that I’ve always had, while understanding the power and efficacy of targeting messages and resources, is that habitual non-voters are often excluded from campaigns and therefore part of the political process. It then becomes an electoral and participative vicious circle. Apart from a mass leaflet (and sometimes they won’t even get them!) these electors are largely excluded from campaigns. They are unlikely to ever see a political canvasser or candidate at their door as they are seen as hard work to engage and motivate. Political parties focus more attention on voters and areas where citizens are more attentive to their ‘democratic duty’. 

While to some extent it is almost understandable that political parties act in such a manner when campaigning – they generally have limited finance for local campaigns (and there are limits on election spending which is a factor in campaign strategies) along with that they have only so many activists to get out there on the doors.

The kind of campaigning that could and should develop as we see the referendum campaign roll out has the opportunity to break out of the norms of electoral campaigning logic. As stated above the appearance of YES campaign ‘street stalls’ could be an early indication of that. Their purpose of recruiting supporters and opening dialogue with citizens on the issue is reminiscent of the Anti-Poll-Tax stalls I cut my political teeth on – while those had an aim in gathering signatures of those opposing the tax they also formed a bridge between the political activist and the citizen in opening a dialogue and from that engagement.  Similar activity and engagement occurred during the 1997 YES/YES campaign for a Scottish Parliament. However the turnout in that referendum was not high, suggesting that the political parties did not really move out of their usual campaigning modes.  I do remember as part of the local cross party Scotland Forward group a Labour activist declaring that they would struggle to work Granton and Pilton and could the SNP help out there. Needless to say Labour managed Trinity and Broughton. I have no criticism of Labour over this admission but it serves of an illustration of how some areas can become excluded. 

Another issue to be tackled by the campaigners will be pockets of residents not registered for the vote. There has been a growing trend in non-registration in recent years and it is unclear whether steps like individual registration will make any change in this trend – my view is that it won’t.  

What plans beyond ‘street stalls’ do campaigners have to reach out into communities dominated by the disengaged? Will these electors become engaged in this campaign? Will they cast their vote in 2014 one way or another? Will there be a surge in registration of voters?  These are challenges to the campaigns on both sides of the argument to show that on this issue, which both sides agree is important and will change Scotland forever, they have the will and ability to reach out, engage with and motivate this section of the public. There could be a bonus for the body politic if they do.

Rob Munn has been a political activist since 1986 (do the maths!), a candidate in Council and Parlaimentary campaigns, a campaign organiser and has been a Councillor for Leith 1996-2003 & 2007-2012.