CHARLES KENNEDY outlines how the case against independence can be made

I was struck recently by the observations of Peter Lynch, director of the Scottish Political Archive, which is bringing together the harvest of political memorabilia from our previous constitutional referendums in the 1970s and 90s.

As he noted, it is telling the extent to which so many of the key arguments and core themes remain near identical as we engage upon our next step forward as a nation.

To an extent, this is hardly surprising. For many Scots, not over-obsessed with the minutiae of constitutional detail nor the subtle calculations of short, medium and long-term party political advantage, the central judgment boils down to one of gut instinct.

So in making the case against independence, those of us in the public vanguard are going to have to address that reality as well as many others.

Which leads me to my own formative gut instinct concerning  this seminal campaign. I was always a devolutionist and argued the case for the precise reason that as Scots we had to shake off the historic shackles of blaming somewhere, someone or something else for our national setbacks and shortcomings.

“It wisnae us” was far too common a refrain across too much of the political spectrum. We had to stop blaming the Central Belt (as Highlanders), or Westminster, Brussels or Silicon Valley for our ills.

The morning you could wake up, learn of the latest problem, recognise the fact it was generated within Scotland and would have to be resolved similarly, really would mark the point at which we were coming of age.

In significant measure this necessary process has been evolving as a result of Holyrood. The SNP now position themselves as the near-exclusive keepers of the “wisnae us” territory.

Feel-good news is down to them, less good or bad has to be a product of Westminster or Brussels generally, the Coalition Government in particular. Part of our task, as we move from incessant referendum process and mechanical matters to the real politics of substance and choice, has to be exposing the sheer grind of this habitual girn. It is not a viable platform for steering a small nation into the 21st century.

Accordingly, our tone has to be searching as to the specifics of political independence but at the same time positive and upbeat as to Scotland’s prospects within the continually evolving union of nation states which, together, constitute today’s United Kingdom.

We have to dispel the disreputable notion political Nationalists somehow enjoy a monopoly ownership of patriotism and wisdom. They most certainly do not. Indeed, such an implication offends the vast majority of Scots, home and abroad.

Equally, if we are to press forward with an inclusive approach to the campaign then we must demonstrate that mindset within our campaign itself.

I do hope Scottish Labour and its STUC allies will overcome natural apprehensions and see the broader need to share platforms and make common cause with the Scottish Conservatives.

And I say that as someone who is not cited as the principal cheerleader over the formation of the Westminster Coalition. A tribal campaign is likely to become a fraught exercise for all of us involved.

We must also be mindful of the potential hazards which a plethora of “vote no and get something else” campaign groups could engender. We already have Reform Scotland launching its developing ideas on devo-plus; there is the as yet to be crystallised “devo max” pitch.

There are obvious dangers in over-crowding the field of play, which is why the central campaign must seek to accommodate the rainbow of perspectives.

But most of all is that positive, upbeat message about the nature of us Scots and the potential for Scotland itself. The Union has massive benefits to extol – which is why the SNP are now so anxious to offer reassurances over everything from a continuing role for the monarchy to preserving a cross-border “social union”.

We cannot allow them to get away with such chicanery – the approach which seems willing to define political independence as whatever the First Minister, in an increasingly Gaullist fashion, chooses to define it, depending on the day of the week.

The cry has gone up in some media quarters as to the lack of a single, defined leadership figure against independence. This misses two pertinent points. First, the more broadly-based our campaign, the more likely its appeal.

Secondly, in Alex Salmond the pro-independence campaign has an inestimable leader who allows little else to grow in his shade. His relentless need for self-promotion (just consider that tantrum over the BBC television rugby coverage) is liable to prove counter-productive the longer this saga runs. We counter the cult of personality with political patience, perseverance – and most of all persuasiveness.