If establishing Scottish independence was a needle that Salmond has been carefully trying to thread these past four years, the 69 SNP MSPs that he has surprisingly won may now prove to be a haystack landing on top.
Let me explain…
One of the main reasons for the SNP’s victory last week was the long-term intransigence (perception or otherwise) of the opposing parties to work with Salmond’s Government in a constructive manner. Will the Lib Dems turn down coalitions in 2011-16? Will Labour vote against its own budget proposals as they did not once but twice last term? Will the Greens pull the rug from under the SNP by holding firm on an insulation policy? Put simply, no. Despite the mollifying tone that Salmond has cleverly adopted this past week, there will be only one party calling the shots over the next five years.
That is a good thing from an SNP perspective in that it gets to follow its agenda but the down side is that the buck can only stop with Salmond and the public is free to imagine the powerless other parties at their ideal best rather than their practical substandard.
Labour wouldn’t cut jobs the LOLITSP will coo, the Greens would have delivered that 100% renewables promise Harvie will protest, free tuition isn’t sensible Goldie’s heir will despair and the Lib Dems will wring their hands at policing being so centralised. It will be a four-pronged attack and the SNP, as bullet-proof as it appears now (albeit against the backdrop of a Labour leader that runs into a Subway shop and could hardly have run a worse campaign) cannot hold firm against that given the economic pain they have no choice but to deliver at some point in the next few years.
Pain delayed is not pain denied and, now, the SNP has all those cuts that it has put off to call their very own. The more the Conservatives and Lib Dems cut at Westminster, and cut they will if the deficit is to be wiped out by 2015, then the more difficulty the Finance Secretary (let’s just say John Swinney) will have in preparing budgets that ensure current popularity for the SNP will remain.
The election might have been won with a runaway victory that suggests that the SNP is all kinds of popular and independence is just around the corner but (1) they did not win a majority of the votes so how that points to a majority for independence and/or against devolution is beyond me, (2) polling showed that a significant majority of the public were unimpressed with numerous specific policy areas from the 2007-11 Government, (3) the SNP spent pretty much all of the past year behind in the polls so one purple patch in early May may be an exception rather than the rule and (4) there is a creeping triumphalism on display, not necessarily within the SNP, but within the Nationalist bandwagon at large, a triumphalism that I suspect will make way for complacency and, ultimately, a backlash..
If even a lacklustre Ed Miliband can pull together a commanding lead over the Tories, occasionally beating the polling figures of the coalition parties combined, then whoever takes over the LOLITSP position at Holyrood can surely relatively quickly pull ahead in Holyrood polling once the jobs start to go and the services start to get scaled back.
Alex Salmond is clearly hoping to spend the popularity of his Government in the Scottish Parliament on the potentially politically costly gamble of his party’s cherished independence referendum but, ironically, that popularity being pushed too far in a dramatic final week of an election campaign could result in said strategy being about to fall off a cliff.
Brits love to build people up just to knock them down and, as will be frustrating for the SNP in more ways than one, Scots can be every bit as British as our friends down South in that regard. The SNP could not have been built up much higher but this victory does not come with the prolonged honeymoon period of 2007 when tolls scrapped here and an A&E saved there was the low hanging fruit that enabled popularity to come easily. We’re still in a period of deep economic uncertainty and the depressing reality is that the farther you are from London, the bleaker your economic prospects tend to be.
There is a misguided notion that oppressive Conservative policies, a declining economy and a ‘UK’s not working’ campaign may aid the Nationalists’ chances of pulling off a Yes result in a 2015 referendum but a nation can surely only find the confidence to move to independence from a position of strength, not from perceived weakness. Furthermore, if anyone is in any doubt that Scots lean towards the status quo, you need only look to the surprising AV result where only Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin voted ‘Yes’ to know what a challenge the SNP faces. If Scots won’t vote Yes to a lousy little change to AV, how can they be moved to cast off the bowlines and grasp a future as uncertain as an independent Scotland.
It’s all very well Nats criticising (quite rightly) certain unionists for peddling the ‘we’re too wee, we’re too poor’ argument against independence but if normal Scots feel that way, right to their very core, you’re not going to convince them otherwise by compounding that belief. And that is where the SNP will come unstuck – if we are currently doing well in Scotland then why change the system and if we are not currently doing well then not only are we (as most seem to believe) not up to the task but it must surely be those 69 SNP MSPs fault for not improving Scotland as they promised.
Finding an independence-winning strategy with a majority Holyrood Government? It could be like looking for a needle in a haystack…
#1 by nconway on May 10, 2011 - 9:45 am
Woh is me were awe doomed …cant we hear something positive ?
#2 by Gavin Hamilton on May 10, 2011 - 9:55 am
An extremely honest and, I think, accurate post Jeff.
One of the best I have read.
I think you lay out the difficulties faced by the new Scottish Government extremely well.
I think the key paragraph is where you highlight that under the surface the SNP position is not necessarily all kinds of popular for precisely the reasons you lay out.
You note a creeping triumphalism in play. I think this is not from the SNP but from the media on their behalf. Which is a paradox as that wasn’t really their position a month ago. In fact I have been struck by the SNP’s humility as a whole – perhaps because the extent of the victory was ultimately a surprise – and no-one was certain of a victory at all until the last days of the campaign.
I think you are right to highlight that this is a really tough part of the political and economic cycle. We face a massive deficit. Politics aside, it seems to me disingenuous to blame the Tories / LibDems for this. Labour would be cutting £7 in every £8 they intend to cut and if John Swinney were to be in charge he would have to deliver some sort of cuts programme too.
This simply has to be dealt with but it makes it tough for any party to deliver what it actually wants to achieve with a consequent affect on their popularity. This will hit home in Edinburgh too.
The question of the relative strengths of the public and private sector in Scotland is an interesting area in this regard. To really prosper we need a stronger private sector in Scotland and we are probably too reliant on the public sector alone. This is an interesting area to adddrees long term – particularly if we are to explore growing autonomy or outright independence.
I also note when you say the Brits love to build people up to knock them down – and so do the Scots. There’s the rub. We are very much in the mix as to what is British – the British are diverse – made up of Scots, Welsh, Northerners, Cornish people and Southerners – the Brits are not just those in the South and we are part of that every bit as much as we are Scots.
I guess we are going to have a lot of debate about this over the next few years.
Finally, I think you are right to highlight an innate conservatism of the Scottish people. The Labour party in Scotland is – I would argue a conservative party (small c). There are many examples from our history – Red Clydeside for example was not typical – but that is maybe for another post.
The Scottish desire to be radical and our searching for an innovative agenda to address our issues and to make Scotland modern and prosperous – and to take us on to a Better Nation as you would have it – is perhaps the big challenge for us in the next 5 years and the years beyond.
To give the SNP, in its current form, its due they seem to offer a fair chance to do this – but the other Scottish parties must play their part in developing their analysis and their ideas – we need Scots of all parties and of no party!
#3 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 8:58 pm
I think I need to correct an error you made – it seems you’ve listened to Tory propoganda a bit about the cuts. The whole £7 out of every £8 line (although I’ve also heard it described as £16 out of every £17).
You are comparing apples with oranges – as the original Labour plan in cash terms was based on a much high borrowing figure, and lower growth than we achieved in 9/10. It comes from the 2008 Darling budget. You then compare that figure to the Osborne 2011 budget. Of course the cash figures are similar – thats because in the meantime the borrowing has been less, and the economy has grown more (although thats stopped).
Its quite simple. The Osborne plan is to eliminate the deficit by 2015, the Darling plan was to half it by 2015. Osborne plans to do this by 80%cuts/20% tax rises, whilst Darling planned to do it by 66%cuts/33% tax rises. From these simple facts, we can see that in the same circumstances Labour would have cut less than £1 for every £2 the tories are cutting.
#4 by Richard on May 10, 2011 - 10:05 am
I agree with your comments Jeff, but I suspect that AS reads it that way too. That’s why Independence was kept on the back burner throughout the campaign.
I have a sneeking suspicion however, that he might just have a magnet in his pocket for finding that needle.
Either way, it will be an interesting few years ahead….
#5 by Christian Schmidt on May 10, 2011 - 10:13 am
Deary me, that’s a sour comment. And I’d disagree with much of it:
1) For starters there are a few low-hanging fruit left over from the last parliament (e.g. minimum alcohol pricing).
2) Concerning the cuts, the Scots clearly blame labour and the Tories for it and not the Nats, I cannot see why this should change as long as the Nats can show that because of their management the cuts ordered by Westminster affect ordinary Scots a little bit less than people are affected down south. Which given the relative record to date of the ConDem and SNP governments shouldn’t be difficult.
3) What creeping triumphalism? The Nats know that potential banana slip very well and whoever can run an election campaign like they did should be able to avoid slipping on that one.
4) The SNP’s purple patch has been running for four years, not one month – the government has been very popular throughout the period, the voting intention polls did not reflect actual Scottish parliament voting intention because they were contaminated by UK issues.
5) An independence referendum is eminently winnable, because it will be very difficult to construct an argument against it as long as the incumbent UK government is so unpopular (/Tory). You cannot argue that Scotland is too small/cannot survive on its own because that’s can be easily debunked as an offensive lie. And it is very difficult to argue, sure, we could go on our own, but we should rather stick to this reviled UK government although we won’t be any better off and probably worse off for some time.
(In my view in the long run independence will make no difference to the economic prospects of Scotland – there is no benefit of being big (like Germany) or small (like Denmark). But sometimes an independent Scotland may have a better government than the UK and therefore do better. Sometimes an independent Scotland may have a worse government than the UK and therefore Union would be the better option. The point is that for the foreseeable future (as long as the Tories rule the UK and the Nats in Edinburgh) Scotland effectively is in the former situation. Salmond will make that point and will make it well.)
#6 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 10:17 am
Quick reply but longer one to follow.
It is a bit ‘guest post from Alan Cochrane’, I’ll give you that, but Gerry Hassan proclaiming “devolution is dead” typifies the Twitter-led (admittedly non-SNP) triumphalism that I speak of. I’ll try to link to more examples in the post itself when I get a chance.
#7 by Edinburgh observer on May 10, 2011 - 7:46 pm
I agree with your points in brakets in the end: why do the SNP consistently say independence will make us more successful, and the unionists that it will make us pooer? Neither is the case, it all depends on who runs the respective state/union, and how?
The issue which should be at stake is to who they are accountable – the Scots alone, or the whole population of the union? And other such social, cultural and political questions. Good or bad economics can be delivered by both an independent Scotland or a union.
#8 by Aonghas on May 10, 2011 - 10:24 am
Very good post, totally agree with the analysis. I won’t have been the only person to vote SNP despite not rating their policies highly, to say the least.
#9 by Andrew on May 10, 2011 - 10:51 am
Jeff You use the analogy of Milliband having “a commanding lead”, but not true according to “Political Betting” report of poll.
#10 by Andrew on May 10, 2011 - 10:51 am
report, not reort
#11 by JPJ2 on May 10, 2011 - 10:52 am
Jeff,
I strongly suggest that you should go in the direction which you appear to have originally intended to do and join the London Branch of the SNP.
You would find this far more illuminating and relevant to the issues which you continue to post predominantly on than being a supporter (member?) of the Green Party in England which I believe is an entirely separate party to the Green Party in Scotland.
#12 by DougtheDug on May 10, 2011 - 11:00 am
Jeff, this sentence encapsulates the incoherence of thought behind your post.
“Finding an independence-winning strategy with a majority Holyrood Government? It could be like looking for a needle in a haystack”
The only way that an independence referendum can happen is with a majority SNP government. If the SNP had been returned as the largest party in Holyrood but not with a majority in a rerun of the last parliament then an independence referendum would be as remote as ever.
The SNP have got a majority, they can now guarantee an independence referendum and as far as your concerned that means that the sky has fallen in on them. I simply can’t follow the logic in your post.
#13 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 11:03 am
Damn right we are triumphant Jeff. But believe me complacency is the last thing you can accuse us of! Nobody underestimates the huge responsibility that has been placed on the shoulders of the SNP Government. The next five years will be hard hard work. But it will also see us deliver the referendum.
I know you have never really believed in independence and fair enough, neither do some other SNP supporters.
But it’s what we believe in – and we believe we can persuade a majority of the Scottish people to vote yes. We’ve been given a platform to do that which, frankly, many of us doubted we would ever have.
If I envisaged the circumstances where we would get a referendum it was as the result of deals with other parties inevitably involving all kinds of compromises which we might not have chosen. I did not envisage majority government.
So this is it for us. The next five years will be the most important ones of our political lives. I would guess that most people, you included, just assume that we will lose and that, secretly, we know we will lose and will not even really try.
But you could not be more wrong. This is the best chance we have ever had, adn may ever have again in our lifetimes, to win independence for Scotland. Complacent? Lol.
#14 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 11:06 am
Incidentally the AV vote was not in the least bit surprising. I voted no myself having decided that the whole piece of nonsense did not even deserve the time it would take to spoil my ballot paper. Nick Clegg’s face made that decision worthwhile.
#15 by HarryHatless on May 10, 2011 - 11:07 am
You said, “they did not win a majority of the votes so how that points to a majority for independence and/or against devolution is beyond me”
By saying this you seem to be ignoring the fact that many people who support independence do not support the SNP. There is a significant number of people who vote for unionist parties despite supporting independence. Elections are not about one issue.
#16 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 11:31 am
I would argue that there are significantly more that voted for the SNP and do not support independence.
Anyway, that is beside the point, when the independence debate happens the current polling will be turned on its head and I think the SNP has a great chance as a result.
My point was more that many seem to believe that the 2011 election alone is an indication that devolution is finished which I don’t understand the logic of.
#17 by Malc on May 10, 2011 - 11:44 am
I think its more that “devolution as we know it” is finished, that the result gives the SNP a mandate to get Holyrood more powers. Whether that is independence, devo-max, fiscal autonomy, borrowing powers is of course debatable – but I’d agree: devolution as formed in 1999 is now set to be changed beyond recognition from that settlement.
#18 by DougtheDug on May 10, 2011 - 12:11 pm
“…the result gives the SNP a mandate to get Holyrood more powers”
Actually Malc it doesn’t. The difference between independence and devolution is that we can take independence but we have to ask for more devolved powers and they are only in the power of Westminster to grant.
The SNP can ask for as many devolved powers as they like but it’s up to Cameron to agree to them if he so wishes. A majority in the Scottish Parliament means nothing to Westminster as far as devolved powers go.
The Scotland Bill was the last grudging, incremental change in devolved powers and I don’t see us getting any more beyond what is currently in the bill.
#19 by Malc on May 10, 2011 - 12:18 pm
From a theoretical perspective, you are of course correct. Its up to Westminster to bestow more powers on Holyrood – I can’t argue with you there.
But look at what the papers reported at the weekend. Salmond asked for borrowing powers, Cameron (apparently) said “aye, okay then”. I never said a majority meant the Parly could decide on more powers. I said (and you quoted it) that it gives the SNP a mandate to get Holyrood more powers. Which looks like it is bearing out already – Cameron has seen the SNP majority and is looking for ways (short of independence) to pacify them. So theoretically – yes, you’re right. Of course. But practically, the situation has changed.
#20 by DougtheDug on May 10, 2011 - 12:22 pm
“But practically, the situation has changed.”
I’ll believe it when I see the borrowing in the Scotland Bill and get to see what the actual powers are.
#21 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 12:26 pm
” the result gives the SNP a mandate to get Holyrood more powers”
I’m really not sure it does, and this is where I think people may be misinterpreting what the election result means. The SNP are all for independence and more powers but their mandate is limited to what was contained within the manifesto.
There may well be some lines in there talking about more borrowing powers for Holyrood but (1) that is a Westminster consideration so should only be voted on at a Westminster election and (2) did people really vote SNP having read the small print of the manifesto and have borrowing powers in mind?
I’m not convinced. You are right Malc that practically speaking Westminster will have to give concessions to the SNP but that word ‘mandate’ has to be used with caution. If the SNP starts to ‘over-ask’, they will face a backlash, though I suspect Salmond and the SNP in general are to canny to let that happen.
#22 by Malc on May 10, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Perhaps mandate is the wrong word… well, maybe not. I don’t know.
I think mandate means what you want it to mean. I’d suggest the fact that there is a majority government (of any party) gives that party the strength of public opinion behind them. Obviously this is different when it comes to independence, since there have been polls showing that isn’t why people voted SNP.
But anyway pick through my language all you want – the point I was making was that “phase 1” of devolution is finished, for a couple of reasons. 1) We have a majority party for the first time (which, whether you agree with the terminology of “mandate” or not, does give them more public support) and 2) That party is the SNP, who have more powers for Holyrood as the bare minimum of their constitutional ambition. Phase 2 will see devolution of a distinctly different character – that’s what I meant, and that’s what I think Gerry Hassan et al. were alluding to.
#23 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 12:41 pm
Fair enough, I would just argue that we’re just part of a regular political cycle. Most parties get two terms to implement the domestic agenda they set out at the outset – this is no different for the SNP in terms of Futures Trust, local taxation, minimum pricing and NHS waiting times. The SNP will have their referendum, they will lose (I will be voting ‘Yes’), they will get beat in the 2016 election and Labour will form a minority administration or a coalition with Lib Dems and/or Greens and we’re back to devolved Scotland as per 1999.
Hence my thinking that the suggestion that devolution is ‘dead’ is premature.
#24 by BM on May 10, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Assuming terms of 4-5years:
1945-1951 Lab – 1.25 terms
1951-1964 Con – 3 terms
1964-1970 Lab – 1.25 terms
1970-1974 Con – 1 term
1974-1979 Lab – 1 term
1979-1997 Con – 4 terms
1997-2010 Lab – 3 terms
Don’t really see any sort of cycle there 🙁
#25 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 9:01 pm
Jeff, are you intending on moving back to Scotland so you can vote in the referndum?
Maybe we’ll get to see Sir Sean after all!
#26 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 11:43 am
Of course it’s not an indication that devolution is dead.
It is however an indication that the Labour establishment in Scotland – who always regarded devolution both as their baby and as a trap for the SNP – is fatally wounded.
Anyone watching those Labour MSPs going down like ninepins across the central belt could be in no doubt of that.
What devolution means has changed as a consequence of that.
#27 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 1:02 pm
I think you assume way too much Jeff when you start talking about a “regular political cycle”.
The Scottish Parliament itself is just, what?, thirteen years old? Is that even time enough to have established a regular cycle?
We had two terms of Lab/Lib dominance, then a minority SNP Government, now a majority SNP Government – something that was supposed to be impossible. There is nothing regular about this and I really don’t think there will simply be a return to Lab/Lib government when people get fed up of the SNP.
For a start the Lib Dems are finished. The only way they can get back into the game is if they re-invent themselves entirely as an independent Scottish party.
Secondly, Labour are in crisis. It would be impossible to underestimate how shocked and stunned they are by their losses across the central belt. It’s going to take some time for them even to come to terms with that, far less decide where they go from here.
Meanwhile the referendum campaign starts now.
#28 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Political cycles exist all over the world and generally fit into an overarching trend. The Scottish Parliament may be in its infancy (toddler stage now?) but let’s not pretend it won’t be any different.
#29 by BM on May 10, 2011 - 1:55 pm
The political cycle is simply a description of how governments rise and fall. With only four data points, we can’t extrapolate any kind of cyclical pattern. Indeed, even countries with more datapoints do not have term-linked cycles: the Labour party has always been the largest party in Norway; the Swedish Labour party ruled for decades; Fianna Fail dominates irish politics; there is no recognisable pattern in who controls the house, senate, or the presidency in the US (although one would expect a two-term turn-about for the presidency, history has proven otherwise).
It’s too early to judge what the “regular” political cycle of the Scottish Parliament is, if indeed any timed/term-linked cycle does indeed exist.
#30 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 2:01 pm
For me, the political cycle follows the economic cycle and I don’t see the SNP being able to extricate itself from the blame of implementing cuts when that inevitably has to happen. It’s poll figures drop and independence support drops and, given there is a majority, there is no option of blaming other parties.
I guess I’m just making a prediction so I absolutely take your point that it may not pan out like that and we don’t really know what will happen given the unchartered territory we are in.
#31 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 9:04 pm
You’re on a sticky wicket here, jeff. Many SNP activists see the political cycle here as being one of eventual SNP domination of Scotland – with no other (or only minor/special interest) parties. Even David Dimbleby picked up on it on Friday, when he commented that Alex Salmond wanted a one-party state.
The SNP wont admit to, or want a political cycle, as it measn they have to lose at some point.
#32 by Daniel J on May 10, 2011 - 1:58 pm
It is clearly going to be a very challenging five years for the SNP.
I for one will not give the SNP a free rein to blame *all* the cuts on Westminster/London/Torys, bar the ‘tesco-tax’ I would say it’s a political calculation to directly pass on the reductions in the block grant.
Putting this aside a loss in the referendum could be taken by some as a vote of no confidence – assuming of course that Labour offers a credible alternative…
#33 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 1:24 pm
Oh it won’t be any different once we are in a stable enough situation for cycles to become established. Of course that is true.
My point is that we are not in that situation. We are still involved in a process the outcome of which no-one knows.
#34 by John Souter on May 10, 2011 - 5:25 pm
Ah Jeff, you’ve gone down to London and lost your perspective.
It’s the pain game – Capitalism is king and its flaws are being exposed by its stupid aversion to responsibility.
In five years time the NHS in England will be privatised with the State acting as a health insurer rather than provider, and the people issued with health credit stamps.
Under the present coagulates presiding in Westminster their present commitment to welfare – euphemistically branded as reforms instead of cuts – is going to show in the books as an even wider gap between the rich and the poor while contrarily claiming the economy is recovering.
Wages stagnant, unemployment cyclical, students debt ridden, middle incomes sweating on interest rates and Britannia hardly fit to wave, let alone rule the wet type, yet still spending a fortune trying to convince she still can when everybody already knows she can’t.
And while people are cagey towards change, they’re even more committed to getting into a lifeboat than going down with a sinking ship.
#35 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 6:12 pm
You lost me at ‘health credit stamps’. Actually, you lost me at ‘London’.
Moving away from the bizarre logic that my geography can somehow undermine any arguments I am making, you are right that the gap between rich and poor appears to be widening but with a significant cross-section of Scotland squarely in the ‘poor’ bracket, I would argue that this will only lessen the chances of independence being realised.
The Scottish Government cannot and will not escape blameless if the public’s lot is not a happy one and that anger will manifest itself in the independence referendum. Scotland fell in line with England over the AV referendum, it will do so again in 2015.
#36 by Una on May 10, 2011 - 5:38 pm
I’m sure the SNP are more than aware of the dangers of triumphalism, and the British tendency to build people up just to knock them down- which I think you’ve just displayed!
In the meantime, all us supporters reserve the right to remain delighted
#37 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 6:28 pm
To be fair Una, I tried to make it clear that it was the Nationalist movement at large rather than specifically the SNP itself that were showing signs of triumphalism. That will cause problems for the SNP even if it is not necessarily their doing.
As a non-member Nat yourself, I thought you might have appreciated the subtle difference 😉
#38 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 6:29 pm
Most people in Scotland did not give a friar tuck about AV. A majority voted no because it would annoy the Lib Dems. Simple as that.
If there had been a real choice on offer e.g. first past the post or a form of proportional representation then it would have been a different matter. We might have cared. As it was no-one gave a damn.
Was that also why people in England voted no? Because my impression – gained largely from the media – was that there is in fact some real support for first past the post.
#39 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 6:47 pm
I don’t accept that people in England voted No because they prefer First Past the Post and people in Scotland voted No because they don’t like Nick Clegg, I’d give Scots a lot more credit than that. Furthermore, Cameron was clearly against AV – I doubt Clegg would be a reason to vote against without Cameron being a reason to vote for.
That said, I honestly haven’t a clue why Scotland voted No because I really expected we’d go for it with a large majority.
#40 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 6:35 pm
Also you are quite simply wrong that people will blame the SNP for cuts coming from Westminster. If that was the case the backlash would already have begun as the cuts have already begun.
But the Scottish Government does not set its own budget. Every man woman and child knows that now, it’s been debated enough times. Now we are moving to the debate about whether it should.
The only way you could blame the SNP for the consequences of Westminster imposed cuts would be if you supported the position you and the Greens took – that the Scottish Government should increase tax in Scotland to compensate for it. That position was comprehensively rejected. You must accept that.
#41 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 6:45 pm
Well, the backlash has already begun. Remember the SNP were 10-15 points down a couple of months ago; the only reason they turned it around was thanks to a great manifesto, an awesome campaign and an awful prospect of Iain Gray as FM. All three of those factors won’t apply before very long and we’ll be back with the SNP down in the polls again because, like it or lump it, the Government gets the blame when economic problems arise. Either Government or both will do…
I do accept that raising taxes has been rejected and this post isn’t about that, it’s just the grim reality that a Government doesn’t always get the credit it deserves and often gets blame that it doesn’t deserve. We saw that over the past few years and we’ll see it again soon, I believe we will anyway and you’re of course free to disagree.
I suppose the flaw in my logic is that the independence referendum will not be sprung upon us out of the blue, there will be a 4 week/5 week campaign leading up to it and, on current evidence, there is only one party in Scotland who is top notch at running campaigns! (That said, moving the Scottish people to embark on independence is far, far tougher than moving them to vote against Iain Gray and for a 5-year Council Tax freeze)
#42 by cynicalHighlander on May 10, 2011 - 9:26 pm
A but who is going to lead the Labour group after Gray, Shirley Crabtree? 🙂
The AV failed because there was no proper debate so people voted on instinct in the main plus we as Wales had more important elections on our minds. Clegg big fail was he thought that everyone ‘thinks’ as he does.
The Independence debate has already started and will continue until the referendum which will draw out the unionists to counter the arguments to justify their position and stronger together is a non starter.
#43 by Indy on May 10, 2011 - 7:00 pm
The SNP were only down 10 – 15 points because of dodgy polling. If you recall many of us said that just does not tally with what we are hearing on the doorsteps.
I am under no illusions that the SNP has somehow got the whole of Scotland behind it. That is very far from the case as the turnout showed. And of course support for governments will go up and down in the polls.
But what the SNP has behind it is the support of the majority of people who cared enough to vote and they the ones who count.
As for the referendum campaign – does it not occur to you that a campaign fought against the backdrop of Westminster imposed cuts and a dismantling of many of the foundations of post-war Britain is an additional argument for – not against – independence?
I guess everyone has always seen independence as a risk and that has been the main argument against it – but is the risk of remaining in the Union not even greater?
As others have said we will be debating Scotland’s future against the wholescale dismantling of the welfare state, the NHS, comprehensive education, free access to higher education etc down south. And who would bet money on the BBC continuing to be protected? These are things that people not only care about but which make them feel British. But what guarantees can be given that they can be protected in the context of the Union?
Or look at it another way – what shared institutions and values will continue to make us British when shared institutions like the NHS are gone? The armed forces? Decimated. The Royal Family? A shallow version of what it once was, destroyed by the celebrity age. The Bank of England? Ahem.
There are only a couple of thorny issues when you think about it. The currency being the main one.
#44 by Jeff on May 10, 2011 - 7:22 pm
“The SNP were only down 10 – 15 points because of dodgy polling.”
Feb 11 (YouGov): Labour 41%, SNP 32%
Jan 11 (TSN BMRB): Labour 49%, SNP 33%
Nov 10 (Ipsos Mori): Labour 41%, SNP 32%
Aug 10 (TNS BMRB): Labour 42%, SNP 32%
June 10 (TNS BMRB): Labour 45%, SNP 29%
Feb 10 (YouGov): Labour 33%, SNP 28%
Are you suggesting that a full year of Labour being significantly ahead of the SNP was caused by “dodgy polling”? Is this not an example of the triumphalism making way for complacency? 😉
You are preaching to the converted with the rest of your post; I’m on board with independence, only just mind, but I’d vote Yes if the vote was today. I’m just saying most people probably don’t see things that way and whether it’s confidence, optimism, sense of adventure or just a *gasp* belief that sticking to the UK is Scotland’s best bet, I just don’t think the SNP will get the majority it craves. And I crave, a little bit….
#45 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 9:06 pm
No, Jeff – its the SNP way of looking at polls – only believe the polls that show the SNP in the lead!
#46 by Aonghas on May 10, 2011 - 10:39 pm
Like you, John, I loathe blinkered partisanship.
#47 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2011 - 8:25 am
Very droll!!!
#48 by John Ruddy on May 11, 2011 - 6:09 pm
I didnt believe the polls which showed Labour with a massive lead. And I never denied the polls which showed a massive SNP lead.
I always felt that the race was going to be tough and close and that the SNP always had their nose in front. But I wont ever blame a poll if it doesnt show the result I want or think. A poll is just what 1000-odd people have told pollsters and what those pollsters think will be the result scaled up. Polls can be wrong, they can be right.
But the evidence is quite clear, that whenever a poll came out showing a Labour lead – the SNP came out to attack the poll, the way the questions were asked, even the order the questions were asked! Did Labour or the Lib Dems say those things when the polls swung round and showed a SNP lead? No.
#49 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2011 - 11:15 pm
That’s only half the story, John, and it’s quite remarkable that you’re trying to rewrite history when the election was less than a week ago. Yes, the SNP attacked polls that showed Labour in front, but that was because the “word on the street” did not match up to the polls; and yes, when polls showed the SNP slightly ahead, SNP supporters quite happily accepted them, and no one else challenged them.
But what about the polls that showed leads that were more in line with the actual final result? Polls showing 40% and above for the SNP were called “rogue” or at best treated with extreme caution (particularly with those “caveats” that Brian Taylor so loves to talk about). Even towards the last fortnight when the polls were being more consistent, people still refused to believe the SNP would get even 60 seats, never mind 69. The Lib Dems and Labour didn’t need to “attack” the polls – the media and blogosphere shaped the debate for them, making even SNP supporters believe these polls couldn’t possibly be right…
#50 by The Burd on May 11, 2011 - 11:31 pm
You’re right Doug. Mea culpa. I think it was because it was so hard to believe, and also because we also all erroneously believed that the system could not be busted ie an overall majority just would not happen. The polls called it right in the last 2 weeks and none of us believed. Not even the SNP actually… they knew they had the election in the bag from their canvass data but few actually turned that into this level of seat wins. And lots of the ground specialists – organisers etc – hadn;t a clue. The polls might have pointed at it, but on the ground folk played their cards or rather votes, close to their chest.
Let’s not quibble. It happened. It was and is remarkable. Labour have a long road back, the Tories and Lib Dems further. And let’s see what the SNP can deliver in the next 5 years.
Game on (sic)
#51 by Malc on May 12, 2011 - 8:26 am
I’ll also hold my hands up. I have trouble believing polls most of the time (I’m sure I’ve had this discussion before) and it turns out I was right to be sceptical again. Just for the wrong reason – it under-stated not over-stated the SNP vote. It was an incredible result.
#52 by cynicalHighlander on May 10, 2011 - 10:40 pm
This is what unionists don’t get, pride.
#53 by Gaz on May 11, 2011 - 12:27 am
There is a huge misconception amongst most commentators that support for Independence will only come from the constituency of SNP supporters/voters.
This is far, far, far from being the case. The SNP has been preparing for this moment for more than a decade by asking the Independence question of every person it canvasses.
Well over half of Labour supporters in my neck of the woods would vote Yes. Add that to the majority of SNP voters and you can see why the SNP has good reason to be optimistic.
Once the campaign gets going I am convinced we will see a similar poll effect as we have witnessed for the 2011 election. As minds focus on the core issue the polls start to reflect the reality a bit a closer, once it looks like its possible the don’t knows start to back it and, finally, once it starts to look like a winner support will harden substantially.
The big problem the No campaign is going to have is that it will, almost by defintion, have to run a negative campaign. I have been waiting all my adult life to hear a positive case for maintaining the Union and I don’t expect this wait to be ended any time soon.
And, Mr Ruddy, I know you are disappointed but do try to rise above the level of the Labour campaign just gone. You’re bringing me down man!!!
#54 by Davie Park on May 11, 2011 - 1:19 am
I’m someone who believes that Scotland will never grow up – or be anything other than the shabby end of the UK, without assuming responsibility for it’s own economic well-being. Too much economic policy made in Westminster is made in without reference to anywhere furth of the charmed circle of the city of London. A great deal of the time, economic conditions elsewhere stand in marked contrast to this ‘land apart’ and consequently the rest of us find our economic maladies are exacerbated, not ameliorated.
Scotland, of course, does not suffer alone – but we do have a solution in our own hands.
A rather long-winded preamble to get to what I really wanted to say- to wit:
Prior to the election my preference was for a minority Labour administration, limping along incompetently, unable to properly challenge the Tory Westminster govt for fear of upsetting the union applecart.
Why so? It seems to me that ‘high-tide’ for support of independence coincides with unpopular Labour administrations. A popular SNP govt does not guarantee increased support for independence BUT an unpopular SNP does always seems to guarantee a decrease in indie support. And therein lies the difficulty. None of the unionist parties are ever going to give the people a chance to vote for independence, so the SNP can only do it from a position of encumbency.
I do fear that what you describe in your post may indeed come to pass. It’s my opinion that anyone who cares for those who live here should earnestly hope it doesn’t.
P.S. Hope some of this makes sense – I have ‘drink taken’.
#55 by James on May 11, 2011 - 8:04 am
We should put a breathalyser on the blog to prevent that – just kidding, your logic is clear.
#56 by Indy on May 11, 2011 - 10:34 am
Yes Jeff I do suggest that it was down to dodgy polling and this was all gone into at the time with the issue of party identification being based on Westminster voting intentions.
I am not an expert on polling but clearly many of their techniques are set up in a way that does not take account of differential voting.
That also explains the issue you mentioned of people getting carried away during the Westminter election and thinking that we were going to win Westminster seats on the basis of canvass returns. That was also about differential voting. People were saying we are going to vote for you, but they meant in the Holyrood elections and were probably just too polite to say but we’re voting Labour at Westminster.
I don’t know anybody active in the SNP who seriously doubted that we were going to win – and I recall it being commented on in the press that the SNP was very chipper considering how badly we appeared to be doing in the polls. But when canvass returns say one thing – and remember that SNP HQ was getting canvass returns from across the whole country based on many thousands of responses – and the polls say something completely different then we all knew the polls were wrong.