The Sunday Herald report that revealed people in the No campaign describe it as "Project Fear" marks an important moment.
The time leading up to next September's vote is a precious opportunity to have a quality debate about what is best for Scotland and everyone who lives here. It's an unrivalled chance to discuss what kind of society we want to be, the powers we need in Scotland, and how we can use them to maximise quality of life and prosperity. It should be about how we can build a fairer country and stronger economy, and the constitutional future that enables this to happen.
From the Yes perspective, that is the kind of debate I am determined to help lead, and show how the full powers of an independent Scotland are the key to realising the ambitions we all have for our families and future.
The significance of the "Project Fear" revelation is that it shows the No campaign has little interest in having this debate. It does not want to build up – it wants to knock down. It does not want to inspire – it wants to scare. It has abandoned any pretence of positivity, and chooses to define itself, at least internally, as an essentially negative proposition.
I firmly believe that the strength of the Yes case, and the need for Scotland to gain the powers that only a Yes vote offers, will prevail next September.
Scotland should always get the government we vote for – instead of remote control from Westminster by Tory governments we reject. For well over half of my life, people in Scotland have had to put up with the Tories despite rejecting them in ever increasing numbers. A Yes vote resolves Scotland's democratic deficit, and means that decisions taken for Scotland reflect the views and votes of people in Scotland.
It means, among many things, that we can scrap the bedroom tax and develop our own approach to welfare; focus fully on capital stimulus to boost the economy in place of Tory austerity; negotiate Scotland's vital interests in Europe rather than having the debate dominated by UKIP, which has never even
saved a deposit here; and deliver safe conventional defence including getting rid of Trident.
I think this would be a wonderful and energising future. But rather than present a positive alternative, the No campaign seeks the paralysis and inertia of "Project Fear".
However, the scares are getting dafter as the well from which they are dredged runs dry.
Last week, as the Sunday Herald reported, the claim mobile phone calls between Scotland and England would cost more after independence was demolished by the fact the EU is moving to scrap roaming charges – with the support of the UK Government.
The claims on trade didn't make sense either. The majority of OECD countries' biggest trading partners are their neighbours, and there would be no barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK, particularly with the shared sterling area we propose.
It's about as sensible as arguing sales of Guinness are damaged by Ireland being independent. Or, as the No campaign has done, painting a lurid picture of Scotland without an AAA credit rating – just before the UK lost its. Or suggesting Edinburgh Zoo would lose the giant pandas if we vote Yes.
People are beginning to look and laugh at all this. The name "Project Fear" may be new, but that approach to opposing progress for Scotland is age-old. It was deployed by the No campaigns against a Scottish Assembly in 1979 and a Parliament in 1997.
Take this classic editorial from the Daily Express, 10 days before the 1979 referendum: "How much of Scotland's economy will be left intact if a Scottish Assembly gets the go-ahead on March 1? Will our coal mines go gaily on? Will Ravenscraig or Linwood thrive? Will Bathgate flourish and Dounreay prosper?"
This was Project Fear before "Project Fear". And the irony of Scotland losing all these industrial facilities in the absence of an Assembly will be lost on no-one.
William Hague, in a speech the week before the 1997 referendum, said that "devolution would make no difference to schools, to hospitals, to jobs or to business. The tartan tax would lead to foreign investors saying no to Scotland".
In reality, devolution has enabled us to safeguard Scotland's NHS. Rather than add burdens, we have the most competitive business taxation system in the UK. And instead of a flight of investment, last month's Ernst & Young report confirmed Scotland is the most successful part of the UK outside London in attracting inward investment.
"Project Fear" was wrong in both tone and substance in the last two referendums – and I am confident Yes will win again next September.
Sturgeon: 'Claims about trade don't make sense'
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article