I think this is spot on. The current moves by Unionists are more or less trying to stir outrage by mentioning things voters should be reasonably aware of anyway. There is little, what will - in my opinion - change the current trajectory. So what could Unionists do, ideally? /1 https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1355828126165716996

A good strategy is to not just have a Plan A, but your actions should also help you bring yourself in a good position to execute Plan B and Plan C. In other words: Making sure that if you fail to prevent a indyref2, your are in the best possible position to win it (Plan B). /2

And if you fail to win it, you are in the best possible position to shape what comes up in an independent Scotland (Plan C). So basically you need to plan well ahead, something what Remainers didn't manage. /3

So, how to position yourself? First, avoiding further polarisation. Avoid deepen the trenches forcing people to chose sides. The cultural warriors should at all costs be side lined. /4

Offer a realistic alternatives which can command a broad consent. Nothing is worse than making vague promises (devo max, your place in EU is secured) which don't age well. Because this will again prepares the ground for further political turmoil. /5

That said: UK would need to change the political system. Federalism and decentralisation could help, but Unionists need to recognise that Scottish identity is not the same as a local or regional identity. People feel as a nation, any reform need to address that. /6

Chopping up the different regions of UK and putting their representatives in a second chamber won't help if people don't see that Wales, Scotland (or even England) have not a special status mirroring them being national territories. /7

It may slows down some trends but it wouldn't put it to rest. In that sense, the best way of dealing with it is having a look how other democratic countries deal with multiple nationalities in their territory. Switzerland by the way could deliver some inspiration. /8

In any case, I would argue the best way of dealing with SNP is forcing them to share responsibility not to just devolve. A second chamber could be upgraded power-wise and actually become a veto player, while you send there representatives of the three home nations + NI. /9

Obviously, they could still blame others but being in charge for your own policies and shaping the ones influencing UK would make it more difficult. A convenient scapegoat would just get less effective. /10

Promoting this would also help Plan B and Plan C: At the very least you position yourself as inclusive, promoting a consensual system which would help if it comes to a) setting up the T&Cs of the referendum and b) how Scotland is organised. /11

Last but not least, if I were Unionists, I would refrain from saying "no". Instead highlighting that Scottish people should have the last word and that the referendum T&Cs can not negotiated with HMG while a pandemic is raging, not even speaking about being actually held. /12

That would buy time: Assuming that the vaccination is over more or less by autumn, SNP & Greens could start negotiating by the end of the year and it could drag on until Summer next year. Add on top 6-8 month prep time for the referendum and we are well in 2022. /13

That would buy time to a) get a Plan on what to offer as well as b) promoting those plans and position yourself as an honest and reliable "salesman". With a bit of luck Labour numbers may also look better by that time. /14

The prospect may also help, at least a bit, to slow down the independence sentiments which are also a reaction on a) Tory government and b) a Tory government headed by Johnson (although I suspect it could easily get worse). /15

It'd also help to smoothen relations with EU, make things easier for fisherman and collaborate. This would help to encourage EU not siding (directly or indirectly) or maybe even making rather supportive musings for Unionists. Remember: EU is a key element of SNP's indy offer. /16

Now the tricky bit: Do I think that's realistic? No, I don't. For one, none of the reform offers seem to be promising at the moment, and particularly not by Tories. Second, Tories are just not seen as a trustworthy force and Labour gov is not even close to be a prospect. /17

That means, even if Tories would come up with suitable reform proposals, whether they are trusted to implement them in good faith is questionable. Having a good offer is not enough, you need to believe the party who is offering it to you. /18

And Labour gov: Currently the polls go up and down, Labour would need a stable lead over a longer period of time that people would recognise it as a prospect or a safeguard who implements the promised offer. /19

And EU: UK still has the delusion that they can decide whatever they want, ignoring that EU is not in their neighbourhood but UK is in EU's neighbourhood. The relationship'd need a reset and an honest and stable offer to collaborate (in particular socially and economically). /20

In other words: You want to create costs of opportunities for EU when facing the prospect of UK falling apart, so that they are not tempted to see it as an opportunity contain, or weaken, UK's "disruptive" ambitions. /21

At the very least you want to avoid that EU sees an independent Scotland as an asset. Currently, in my opinion, Scotland would be on since it would further strengthen the gravitational pull on rUK towards EU. /22

What shall I say, Tories or HMG are far away from recognising it. There doesn't seem to be a recognition backed by policy that EU is a No 1 priority. In my opinion, that's a big mistake for the upcoming challenges. /23

Last but not least, all those points are not just a reflection on Tory policies, but also wider backing in the ENG electorate. Power asymmetry and the lack of alternatives has not been understood, and reforms toward transitioning to a consensus democracy are not popular. /24

That means: Even if Tories'd propose suitable reforms and people in SCO would believe them, and even if they would finally have a European policy which is ambitious and suitable, it may go down badly with their voters. That's not sustainable. Not a good time to be Unionist. 25/25