The No campaign finds it hard to get past the negatives

There have been some stronger arguments for ‘no’ in the last day.  The Herald posted a formidable editorial to say that

“The Herald backs Scotland staying within the UK at this stage.  But fudge this process, stitch it up and fail to deliver far-reading further devolution, and make no mistake – you wil be guaranteeing another referendum – one that you will lose, and deserve to lose.”

They complain – fairly – that

“in promoting its manifesto for Scottish independence, a Panglossian emphasis on the best-case scenario has at times strained its credibility.  …  the case for independence has been built upon a string of ideal outcomes.  Even the other party in this great divorce, the Government at Westminster, would, it is assumed, act at all times during separation in accordance with the Scottish Government’s wishes.”

David Webster also asked me particularly to mention a negative argument by Carol Craig in the Scottish Review.  Her best point is that:

“If Scotland gains independence then for decades most of its political and intellectual resources will be channelled into becoming another, largely inadequate, European state.”

I don’t agree about the inadequacy.  I do agree that it will take time, and resources.

There has also been, however, a chorus of negative, scaremongering  comments.  Supermarket prices will go up;  Scotland can’t afford the NHS (stuff and nonsense); it will not be able to run a finance industry without a lender of last resort (doesn’t anyone remember the  building societies, built on mutualism and secured loans?)    This has been the weakness of the No campaign all the way through, made worse in the last week  by carpet-baggers from London who imagine that Scottish voters haven’t thought about anything in a two year campaign.

With a day to go,  I’m still undecided.  The ‘yes’ campaign wins out on principles and on process.  I’ve loved the energy, intelligence and civic sense of the ‘yes’ campaign – a far cry from the way it’s painted  by people who’ve not been around to hear the arguments.   The ‘no’ campaign wins on practicality, but not on much else.