The process of doing ourselves proud

First off: a confession and declaration of interest. I'm in favour of Scottish independence and, from the start, have been optimistic that we'll get a Yes vote. The reasoning is simple enough. I genuinely and sincerely believe that the facts, the economic facts, are on our side. But just as important to the argument, I believe that most people are unaware of these facts. Why would they not be? I was, until I decided to read up and investigate. Until the SNP came to office, it's not been in the interests of anyone in a position to do so to publicise or highlight them, to argue against the presumption that we are a basket case of subsidy junkies. That's why suddenly opponents were falling over themselves to claim no-one was saying we couldn't afford to be independent. That's precisely what they've been saying (or at the very least a belief they have been happy not to dispel) for most of my life. So, I think most people don't know that Scotland's GDP per head is higher than the UK's, that we've paid more tax per head than the UK in each of the last 30 years and more, that that excess greatly exceeds the extra public spending per head that we get back, that we're one of the wealthiest countries in the world and so on. I think that when they learn the true position, they'll want to vote for independence.

But I'm not an idiot. I know that of course that's not enough.They need to decide they want to find all this out. If enough people still don't know the facts come the vote, we'll lose. They'll need to believe my side to some extent, or they won't bother. They won't believe that there's anything worth finding out, that what they have always assumed to be true might, even just might, not be. And you would, wouldn't you, expect that people, jaded by and inured to political scandal after political scandal, would turn off and either not vote at all or refuse to engage in the debate and, so, never hear from people like me, asking them to look at the facts and consider the evidence? That's been Better Together's big bet. I'd suggest it explains their reluctance to take part in debate at all (with every meeting I've read about where a before and after vote has been taken recording substantial movement to Yes). But I always thought this wouldn't, in the end, work. What made me confident that Better Together were underestimating the electorate?



Again, fairly straightforward. This is a big, important decision. The best analogy to the situation we face that I could think of was jury service. That's one of the few remaining civic duties that the state tells people they must, whether they like it or not, carry out. And lots of people don't like it. It's an imposition on time and costly in money. But, as I understand it, when people finally end up in the role, they perform admirably. They could coast, treat the whole thing lightly, go along with the crowd and get it all over with a minimum of fuss. But, anecdotally (because that's all we have), I understand that they don't. Across all sorts of things you might think would divide them - class, education, whatever - they realise the importance of the question they are being asked to answer. And they try - really try, really do their best - to give the right one. They work at it. They rise to the occasion. And that's what I've always thought they'd do when deciding how to vote in the referendum.

Which is why I was particularly struck by a couple of reports I've read recently, written by reporters from England who have come up to observe the campaigns properly, rather than metrosplain from their desks in London.

Channel 4's John Snow:

"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."

And Libby Brooks in the Guardian:

"What strikes me, as it did at a Better Together meeting in another part of Fife earlier in the week, is the quality and seriousness of the listening that goes on. And the knowledge of the audience. When one of the few no voters at the meeting tries to ask a supplementary question about the EU, but is told by the chair that he's already had his turn, a woman across the hall shouts back her own brief but thorough response."

And all of this, finally, ties up with my own day-to-day experience. People are talking, debating, interested, keen to find out, looking for support for their arguments or information to test ones they've heard from others.

Whatever the outcome, we are in the process of doing ourselves proud. We're rising to the occasion. Which is precisely they way we'll win.