Aye’ll be back

DAVID CAMERON reckons people should think jolly hard before they vote in Scotland’s upcoming referendum on independence. As he and other unionist leaders often argue, the result on September 18th will be irreversible and binding. Should Scots leave the United Kingdom and then change their minds, they will just have to lump it. Such entreaties seem to be working: the “no” to independence campaign has a comfortable poll lead.

A second warning lurks between the lines: if they vote “no”, Scots had better accept that outcome, too. There should be no “neverendum”; the term applied to Quebec’s decades-long deliberations over breaking from Canada. Whether or not this message will go heeded is less certain. The reason can be found in the comparison between the “yes” and “no” campaigns.

In Bathgate, a commuter town in West Lothian, a huddle in a windswept car park exemplifies Better Together, the official pro-union outfit. These activists are motivated not by grand ideals but a grudging acceptance that the referendum campaign needs to be fought and won (the secessionist Scottish National Party (SNP) called the vote after winning an unexpected majority in the Scottish Parliament in 2011). “Yes” inspires the heart, “no” the head, argues Harry Cartmill, counting out leaflets. Like many, he is also active in the unionist Labour Party. The drill here is as in election years: canvass swing voters by phone or in person, constantly refine the database and hit targets set by headquarters. They may not be terribly impassioned, but unionists are disciplined, dutiful and experienced.

If the “no” campaign is a machine, “yes” is a carnival. Though closest to the SNP, it extends farther beyond party politics than Better Together. Yes Scotland, the official campaign, provides local groups with materials but otherwise lets them do what they want. Many canvass, but others prefer street stalls, film screenings and pop-up “independence cafes” (see chart). Campaigners have used crowdfunding websites to raise money for yet bolder projects. In Dundee they converted an old fire engine into a battle bus, the “Spirit of Independence”. This is understandable: most Scots say they do not support independence; Yes Scotland has to win people over, not just induce them to vote.

Several larger nationalist initiatives have developed lives of their own. National Collective, a gathering of creative types, has toured Scotland putting on pro-independence arts and music festivals collectively known as “Yestival”. Other bodies, like Common Weal and Radical Independence, are marshalling idealistic ideas for an independent Scotland and connecting the “yes” campaign to other causes, like nuclear disarmament. From August 18th a group of these sub-campaigns will hold daily press conferences.

A pro-independence gig in a muggy Edinburgh basement typifies this colourful scene. Sporting political badges and bags marked “Another Scotland is Possible”, the crowd roars with laughter as a series of lefty comedians lampoon the “no” camp. “Better Together”, deadpans Keir McAllister, “even sounds creepy: the sort of thing your psycho ex would say once they’d locked you up in a dungeon with gaffer tape around your mouth.”

Colour benefits the “yes” campaign. It generates an infectious energy, as some senior unionists quietly admit. Nationalists are “like religious believers”, whispers one, both mocking and impressed. And energy means the independence movement has more contact with voters. Two recent polls showed that, by two to one, Scots consider Yes Scotland the more effective of the campaigns. Another, by YouGov, suggests that nationalist campaigning had reached 65% of voters by early August, compared with 54% for the unionists.

But raucousness can also alarm the undecided. Yes Scotland may have a larger online presence (including many more Facebook and Twitter followers), but this is polluted by “cyber-nationalists”: bloggers who harass unionists, peddle conspiracy theories and generally undermine the cause. In another unhelpful move, “yes” campaigners recently protested against media bias outside BBC Scotland, part of Britain’s national broadcaster. The crowd cheered a bearded kazoo player as he ranted: “Choose the BBC as your enemy!”

This spirited chaos may be making it harder to turn fizz into votes: the unionists’ poll lead has budged little over the past year. Blair McDougall, director of Better Together, offers a related explanation: his side is more focused and better at using its canvassing to direct the campaign’s messages effectively. Nevertheless, his opponents are confident that energy and numbers will boost nationalist turnout on polling day. Canvassing consistently shows that “yes” voters are more passionate in their views than “no” ones, claims Blair Jenkins, who runs Yes Scotland.

The distinction between the campaigns has a second, bigger implication. Most in Better Together wish the referendum were not taking place. Successful or not, that campaign will fold after September 18th. But the “yes” campaign is a movement. It has flushed blood into the muscles of Scottish nationalism, giving it extensive reach beyond the staid SNP. Some strategists believe that most Scots are for independence in principle (if not yet in practice). A group of them will meet in late August to discuss next steps after the referendum.

“If we lose, our anger will turn into determination,” predicts Robin McAlpine, director of Common Weal. He expects another referendum within five years if Scotland votes “no”. “Whether people move on is up to the nationalists,” adds Mr McDougall at Better Together. Thus looms the prospect of a “neverendum”. If unsuccessful, “yes” campaigners could import that decades-long limbo to Britain.