by John Curtice, ESRC Fellow and  ScotCen Social Research

To have a prospect of being a ‘game changer’, at least so far as the balance of public opinion is concerned, the independence White Paper needed to have hit two buttons.

First it had to convince voters that they and their country would be economically and financially better off under independence. The Scottish Social Attitudes survey has found that as many as 65% might be willing to vote for independence if they thought they might be £500 a year better off. However, only last week a Panelbase poll reported that just 15% actually reckon that is what would happen.

Second, the White Paper needed to reduce the air of uncertainty, even fear, that currently surrounds the independence project. The last Scottish Social Attitudes survey reported that 58% are unsure what independence might bring, while almost exactly the same proportion, 59%, said they felt worried about the prospect. Unsurprisingly, voters who feel that way are less likely to back the idea of leaving the UK.

But how well has the White Paper hit those buttons?

As expected, the document did argue that independence would give the Scottish Government the powers needed to make Scotland’s economy grow more quickly. The headline policy of more childcare is intended to be one such example – if more women work then Scotland’s economy should be bigger.  And on the assumptions the Scottish Government at least prefers to make about the prospects for North Sea Oil and how much it would have to pay to service its share of the national debt, the paper also suggests that Scotland’s fiscal position would be healthier than that of the UK as a whole.

Yet little prospect is held out of more money appearing anytime soon in the average voter’s pockets. Such tax cuts as are envisaged, most notably in corporation tax, are aimed primarily at business rather than their employees. And apart from the childcare promise (and maybe a little on pensions) there is little either in the way of suggestions of more spending that might make life easier. For while Scotland’s public finances may be healthier than those of the rest of the UK, the White Paper admits that the country would still be spending more than it earns. Consequently, the SNP has been left with little room to offer immediate financial sweeteners as opposed to a vaguer prospect of greater riches some time in the future.

So far as uncertainty is concerned, by providing a clear statement of what independence might look like and how it could be delivered, the White Paper attempts to provide answers to myriad of possible questions voters might have. That ought to help end the air of uncertainty. However, the SNP’s vision for independence is one that involves many areas of continuing collaboration with the UK as well as goodwill from the European Union.

Thus not only would the SNP like Scotland to keep the pound as part of a monetary union, but it also wants to have a continuing collaboration with the BBC, to keep the UK-wide scientific research councils and for the UK government to keep Scotland’s share of the national debt in its name.

Equally, the Scottish government would like the EU to amend its treaties to facilitate Scotland’s continued membership of the EU rather than force it to apply as a new member. It would also like to have permission from Brussels to continue to be able to impose tuition fees on university students from England and for pension funds serving both Scotland and the rest of the UK not to have to be fully funded straight away.

These proposals might well be in Scotland’s interests. They certainly make it easier for the SNP to argue that independence would not immediately turn everyday life upside down. However, none of them is in the sole gift of an independent Scottish government. And with neither the UK government nor the EU showing much sign of saying, ‘that will not be a problem,’ the result could well be continued uncertainty.