THE calm is over, and the storm is incoming. Since the 2021 election to the Scottish Parliament, the discussion over independence has been relatively quiet. This is partly down to external factors (most obviously Covid and war in Europe), and partly to internal factors (the UK Government’s fear of a second referendum, the Yes campaign’s poor polling and the lack of a national election on which to focus the story, all contributing to a lull).

It seems the can, however, can be kicked no more. The SNP/Green Cooperation Agreement stipulated the deadline of the mid-point of the parliamentary term for a second independence referendum and, last week, the Government’s Constitution Secretary, Angus Robertson MSP, confirmed that a referendum would be held in October 2023.

I have explored the case for, and the likelihood of, another referendum on these pages in the past, and will no doubt do so again. It remains deeply problematic, and therefore on balance rather unlikely, that the short runway allows a path to be smoothed for a referendum recognised by both governments and participated in by all sides.

For the purposes of today, though, I will presume that a referendum of some sort will indeed happen in only 16 months time.

With the publication of its first paper on the case for a Yes vote, the Scottish Government is asking us, as voters, to get serious about independence. And so, we the people are entitled to ask the Scottish Government to get serious in return.

Now, let us place this in context. The case for the Union is based on nothing more than remaining in the UK being the lesser of two evils. The UK Government and the pro-UK parties in the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments are doing next to nothing to create or promote a positive case for the UK.

However despite that, No remains in a fairly healthy polling position, and because of that, the onus is on the Yes campaign to persuade the unpersuaded that the evil of No is not lesser. The Scottish Government seems as far away from that as it has ever been.

The core failing of the Yes movement in that respect is that it appears not to fully understand, or perhaps not to want to fully understand, the motivations of those who are still polling for No but have no philosophical objection to voting Yes if it appears to be in their interests to do so.

Furthermore, they need to understand that the motivations which the SNP and its colleagues in the Yes movement desperately want to be game-changing, may not in fact be so.

Take the EU, for instance. All else being equal, Brexit should be a solid motivation to switch from No to Yes. It has been, at best, an unnecessary aberration which has caused, at least, a short-term economic blip for no discernible gain, and one which Scotland didn’t vote for, to boot.

However, all else is not equal. More often than not, committed Europhiles are turning out to be more committed to the union between Scotland and the UK than they are to the union between Scotland and the EU. The Yes campaign cannot rely on Remain voters switching from no to yes. The pull is not strong enough.

But it is this reliance – this presumption – which is leading to a stubbornness about an independent Scotland’s EU membership. I am happy to say this out loud and be ridiculed and corrected in the years to come: Scotland is never going to join the EU. Scotland is never going to join the EU because joining the EU and its Customs Union will create some form of border control between Scotland and England. It is economically, socially and politically illiterate, and it will never happen.

The Scottish Government wants us to get serious about independence. So the Scottish Government must get serious about the EU, and offer a range of options (EU membership, EFTA membership, unilateral free trade agreements, and so on) and an associated range of consequences.

A further area of unseriousness, as far as I can see it, is in the provision of healthcare and education. Scotland’s performance and outlook in both of these critical services is dismal.

International comparison in education is becoming difficult because of our withdrawal from the assessments which allow it, but readers with children in the state school system (like the writer) will understand very well the scale of the deterioration in a once-renowned service.

Our health service is more easily comparable thanks to outcomes data from the OECD (much of which is UK-wide but is veracious for Scotland). The data gathering exercise is as harrowing as it is comprehensive. Despite the government investing a broadly average amount of money, we have woeful survival rates in the key killers, and we have a very small number of doctors, nurses, beds and pieces of vital equipment, amongst many other failings.

We were asked, last week, to think about the countries of Scandinavia when we think about the opportunities which abound as a result of independence. Indeed, there is much to admire in our northern neighbours. But we should be very clear that neither their education nor health systems are run like ours. They are heavily localised, with limited central control, and there is heavy involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in their delivery.

The Scottish Government wants us to get serious about independence. So the Scottish Government must get serious about a ‘blank sheet of paper’ approach to public service provision.

If the Scandinavians are known for something, it is the trick of ruthlessly exploiting the wealth creating gains of capitalism in order to fund outstanding public services and provide the foundation for general wellbeing. You cannot create the output without the input. And, yet, the rejection of capitalism and economic growth is not at all far from the levers of power in the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government wants us to get serious about independence. So the Scottish Government – or perhaps more accurately the SNP – must get serious about setting out its plan for a high-growth, high-pay, high-wealth, entrepreneurial economy.

An independent Scotland would face short-term challenges. In the long term, though, there is a case to be made for a highly successful, rich, just and happy independent country. So make the case. Seriously.

Andy Maciver is Director of Message Matters and Zero Matters