Working with the numbers

Just to put on screen (for my benefit more than anything else) the possible options of an outcome to the election in which we gave no party a majority.

Figures to note:  Conservatives are probably +1 from Thirsk & Malton (which is still to vote) and though Speaker John Bercow has been included in some Tory numbers, he will (likely) be Speaker and the Tories will finish on 307 (probably).  But for the moment, it is 306.  Second, Sinn Fein MPs are unlikely to take their 5 seats, which reduces the majority needed from 326 to 324.

Option 1:  

Conservative minority government

CON - 306 

Opposition:

LAB - 258  LD - 57  DUP - 8  

SNP - 6  PLAID - 3  SDLP - 3  

GREEEN - 1  ALLIANCE - 1

TOTAL - 337

Option 2:

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government

CON - 306  LD - 57

TOTAL - 363

Opposition:

LAB - 258  DUP - 8  

SNP - 6  PLAID - 3  SDLP - 3  

GREEEN - 1  ALLIANCE - 1

TOTAL - 280

Option 3:

"Progressive Alliance"/ "Coalition of the Losers" government

LAB - 258  LD - 57

TOTAL - 315

Plus SDLP - 3  who probably take Labour whip

Plus ALLIANCE - 1 who probably take Lib Dem whip

TOTAL - 319

Plus support/ agreement not to vote down government from:

SNP - 6  PLAID - 3 GREEEN - 1

TOTAL - 329

Opposition:

CON - 306  DUP - 8

TOTAL - 314

Option 4:

Saying "bugger this, we can't agree - give us something we can work with" and going to the polls again (which may happen sooner rather than later if any of the above agreements come to fruition).

There are obviously other models (confidence and supply) but they seem to have been ruled out now that Gordon Brown has stepped down and the Tories have offered coalition (and, presumably, Cabinet seats) to the Liberal Democrats.

Read more...

Predicting the unpredictable...

I mentioned this morning that I was working on a prediction for the 59 seats in Scotland come Friday morning.  So here we are - polling data, majorities, vague knowledge of candidates and local issues, and the occasional bit of blind guesswork has led me to this:

Labour - 34 seats

Lib Dems - 14 seats

SNP - 8 seats

Conservatives - 3 seats

Which, on the face of it, would keep each of the parties fairly happy.  Yes Labour will have lost 5 seats, but it wouldn't be the disaster they'd expected.  The Lib Dems, a few short weeks ago, were probably looking at a few losses, and less than 10 seats, so 14 would be a big win.  The SNP, though nowhere near their (ridiculously ambitious) 20 seat target, would be happy with adding a couple of seats to their 2005 total in an election they've been squeezed out of by parties and media alike.  And the Conservatives would be delighted with two Scottish colleagues for David Mundell, with the fears that they have over another wipeout in Scotland.

So, here's the few seats I see changing hands:

Aberdeen South - LD gain from LAB

Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk - CON gain from LD

Dumfries & Galloway - CON gain from LAB

Dundee West - SNP gain from LAB

Dunfermline & West Fife - LD gain from LAB (from 2005)

Edinburgh North & Leith - LD gain from LAB

Edinburgh South - LD gain from LAB

Glasgow East - LAB gain from SNP (from by-election)

Livingston - SNP gain from LAB

The remainder will, I think, stay the same as 2005.  This includes seats like Ochil & South Perthshire, with a small majority; the four-way marginal Argyll & Bute; Labour holding off Tory & SNP charges in Stirling and East Renfrewshire and what I think will be a stonking fight in East Lothian.  The "vogue" pick amongst my friends and colleagues is a Lib Dem win in Glasgow North, but I'm not sold on it.  

Of course, as I said before, this is entirely guesswork, and based on nothing more than an amateur psephologist's instincts.  Feel free to systematically de-construct this on the basis that you think I have no idea what I'm talking about because I'm not out talking to "the people".  And let me know what you think.  

But you know I'm right... right?

Read more...

Election Manifestos

Having proved a few days ago how indecisive I am about voting, I thought there must be some in the same shoes.  So, in order to help those like me, here are the manifestos of parties standing in Scotland that I could get hold of online in pdf format (listed alphabetically):

British National Party (no online manifesto)

The Liberal Party (no online manifesto)

Pirate Party UK

Scottish Christian Party (no online manifesto)

Scottish Conservative Party

Scottish Green Party

Scottish Labour

Scottish Liberal Democrats

Scottish National Party

Scottish Socialist Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (no online manifesto)

United Kingdom Independence Party

Hope this is useful.  I'll probably try to get through the seven that are standing in my constituency.


PS - I read today that Nick Clegg is under fire from the Daily Mail for an article he wrote lambasting British attitudes towards Germans EIGHT YEARS ago whilst he was an MEP.  I've read the article and I agree with Nick (which was last week's soundbite I know).  Britain remembers German's expansionist ambitions but not the travesties carried out in the name of Empire.  He's right - even 8 years on - the British air of superiority is lame.  

Read more...

Consider the lily

Consider the Labour party at the moment - likely defeat at the next UK election, already in opposition in Scotland, MPs jumping ship left, right and centre, (arguably) a distinct lack of talent left on the benches and staring at a future which looks decidedly against them.

On that basis, I have a question for Yousuf.  And, well, all Labour-types really who purport to be "social-democrats".  It's about Labour, the next election, preferences, social democracy and conservatism.  Actually, from that previous sentence, you can probably make the question yourself.

Why would the Labour party in Scotland prefer to see Scotland governed by a Conservative government at Westminster - and, in turn, the Tories roll back all any of the good, social democratic policies delivered by Labour in the past 13 years - when they could have an independent Scotland which, in all likelihood, would see social democracy as the norm?

This question - put in a fairly similar form - was put to the author of a different blog but I can't for the life of me remember which blog or who asked it so I will very much apologise for not sourcing it.  If it is any consolation, I thought it an excellent question, and one I've been thinking about since.

Labour's campaign for re-election in Scotland purports to ignore the SNP as irrelevant, focusing solely on the Conservatives.  Perhaps that is smart - it is a UK election, where the SNP are on the fringes after all - but for me, it smacks of desperation.  The SNP form the devolved government of Scotland - people are not going to forget who they are.  But by setting up the election as a battle between themselves and the Tories, Labour are drawing the battlelines - and identifying their real enemy.  And apparently it isn't nationalism - its conservatism. 

Now that makes sense - "social democracy" (as New Labourism likes to self-define as) has always been opposed to conservatism.  The outlook on the individual, on society, on the role of government is all different - in short, they stand for different things.  I guess Labour will tell you they want a "fair" society, with "equality of opportunity" for all while for the Conservatives, the focus is on law and order, and on encouraging enterprise.  Obviously these concepts are not mutually exclusive, but it is the way in which the parties focus - and prioritise - which provide the biggest differences.

Priorities.  Preferences.  The key concepts in this debate I think.  For if Labour, as they purport to be, really are about promoting equality and improving standards of living, then surely that could be achieved better on a smaller scale?  And their opportunity to do so on a smaller scale would also be bigger - that is, political competition in Scotland is focused on the politics of the centre-left, with only the Conservatives and their 15-20% of the vote residing outside the dominant political discourse.

What is my point?  Simply this - Labour's core principle, social democracy, is one which is easier to achieve on a smaller scale.  In Scotland, Labour's core principle is in tune with the electorate (arguably it is across the UK, but only really in cycles).  Labour's visceral behaviour towards the SNP is predicated upon a threat not to that principle but to their electoral prospects and their ability to enact these principles.  If the party were not so blinkered, they'd see in the SNP a party with principles remarkably similar to their own.  Yes, the SNP are a broad church of opinion - with independence the glue that holds it all together - but predominant policy in the past 25 years has been guided by centre-left values.  Combined, the two parties dominate Scottish politics.  Why would that be any different in an independent Scotland?

So, I'll put the question to the Labour types again:

Why would the Labour party in Scotland prefer to see Scotland governed by a Conservative government at Westminster when they could have an independent Scotland which, in all likelihood, would see social democracy as the norm?

If the SNP are smart, they'll start asking Iain Gray and Jim Murphy this very question.

Read more...

Politically naive or worth a resignation?

I'll be honest - the first I heard of Nicola Sturgeon's, ahem, "troubles" was on Good Morning Scotland on my way to Stirling today, when the usual heid-bangers were arguing amongst themselves in the following fashion:

Heid-banger 1:  "It's all a media hatchet job set up by Labour - they've nae policies so they're just attacking the SNP."

Heid-banger 2:  "Awa' ye go - the guy's a thief!  Stole 80 grand!  Lock him up and throw away the key - its MY money he's got!"

Or something to that effect.  Anyway, it took me awhile to work out what the stushie was about, but I think I've got it now.  Mr Rauf committed fraud by claiming benefits of more than £80,000 which he was not entitled to, having previously been found guilty of a similar offence (apparently if you are not an MP, making unlawful claims is a crime punishable by prison time).  Mr Rauf wrote to his constituency MSP (who happens to be the DFM) to make representation on his behalf.  Nicola Sturgeon writes a letter to the court to that end, asking that a non-custodial sentence be considered.  His QC - uber-Unionist Donald Findlay - made this letter public (and where's the outcry on that score?!).  Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The case for the prosecution (of Ms Sturgeon, not Mr Rauf) goes something like this:  Gross error of judgement, the guy has form, gives signal to benefit thieves that it is a tolerable crime, actions not befitting of a government minister.

The case for the defence is that she was acting as a constituency MSP not as a government minister, that the code of conduct that stipulates:

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case

and that in doing so Nicola Sturgeon's actions were well within her remit as an MSP (with thanks to DougtheDug for the relevant section).  Incidentally, I don't think MSPs always abide by that section of the code at all times, but that is beside the point.

So, who is right?  And what should the outcome be?

Well... I don't know is the honest answer.  Journalists are snooping around this story as I write, and if they find even the remotest whiff of a connection between Mr Rauf and the SNP, this will play as crony-ism - and as such will almost certainly require a resignation.  If not, and the situation remains as it is, then I think her job is safe, if only because it both sides of the case seem to have arrived at an impasse.  Yes, she abided by the code of conduct in taking up Mr Rauf's case and making representation on his behalf.  On the other hand, it would appear that, in doing so, she may have been guilty of gross political naivety in backing a convicted fraudster (albeit one who does have health difficulties - there's that compassionate element of the Scottish justice system again).

So while the rest of the blogosphere (Stuart Winton being the noble exception) lines up along party lines (Nats unsurprisingly providing the defence, everyone else making the case for the prosecution except Caron, who has the most balanced judgement of any "opposition" blog) I'll reserve judgement for the moment.  As I say though, I don't think the MSP for Glasgow Govan is guilty of anything more than naivety.

On a side note though, how refreshing it is to see a Scottish Labour MP get involved in a debate in Scotland.  I thought they were all retiring (or being made to retire) but apparently not.  Of course, this is a debate concerning a devolved matter (justice) therefore some might accuse said MP of sticking their nose in where it isn't required.  I mean, its not like they'd get remotely annoyed if, say, an SNP MSP strayed into a a debate on a reserved matter, is it..?

Read more...

The TV Debate debate

Legal action, Mr Salmond?

I'm not sure what I think of this development. I mean, I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, Sky want to tap into the idea of "Presidential politics", the sense that the leader of the party IS the party and answers for them. They want to make it a personal thing - a one-on-one (okay, a ménage à trois) with the men (it's always bloody men eh?) vying to be Prime Minister. They want to allow a clear debate between the leaders of the parties, giving their viewers a clear idea of the differences between them and an opportunity to judge the best candidate for the job of PM. It's a kind of political X-Factor - complete with public vote and everything (though the vote won't be for some time after the show ends).

However, Sky's bright idea doesn't cater for devolved politics. It doesn't take into account that Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish audiences interested in health or education issues may be misled by statements from the candidates on show, who can do nothing about those policy areas. It doesn't allow for regional variations, for parties of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the debate. And it reinforces the dominant Westminster political culture by excluding smaller parties - and not just those from the "Celtic fringe".

The question of fairness is the one which is being pursued by the SNP. They argue, legitimately, that while the UK election is basically a two-horse between the Tories and Labour (which makes Nick Clegg's invitation all the more questionable), the fight in Scotland is likely to be a straight Labour-SNP battle (though the Lib Dems do currently have more MPs than the SNP in Scotland, their share of the vote in opinion polls is going in the opposite direction). In Wales, the situation is further muddied by the fact that, although Plaid Cymru are in coalition government with Labour, the Tories (!) actually won the European election there, making it a genuine three-way battle. Northern Irish politics, with its division between nationalist and unionist communities, brings with it an extra element which also requires consideration. And those are just the parties that have representation at the moment - what about UKIP, the Greens and (dare I say it) the BNP?

The principle that Sky have (loosely) been adhering to, is the idea that they should invite the realistic candidates to be Prime Minister. That means limiting their invitations to the leaders of the three main parties on a UK level. However, were this principle to be taken to its logical conclusion, David Cameron would have a solitary invitation. So they've widened it to include the also rans - incumbent PM Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dems have 62 seats and would need to make over 250 gains at the next election to make him PM. Just a thought, but Sky could invite me, Jeff and Caron to the debate - we'd have as much of a chance of being PM after the election as Nick Clegg does. And possibly just slightly less of a chance than Gordon Brown.

So really, Sky's own guidelines are based on loose ideas anyway. I guess it is a case of whether they want to accommodate the SNP (who, I think, are the only ones making any real noise about it) or not. But the legal guidelines regarding political coverage at elections are clear (as Jeff points out - in the case of Iraq!). The televised media has to provide equal and balanced coverage. So what can they do?

Well, I guess there are a couple of options. They can go with Salmond's suggestion and have "regional" debates, with Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond in Scotland, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Wyn Jones in Wales and... well, I guess they'd figure out something for Northern Ireland. Or, they could ignore Salmond and his legal fight, and have their original debate with Brown, Cameron and Clegg. But where would that leave Alex Salmond?

Kind of reminds me of (yet another) West Wing moment, appropriate really given the US-style TV debate. Freedonia, an episode in season 6, sees candidate Matt Santos struggling to get into a local debate - the invitations have gone only to the two lead candidates. Other events take over, but his original idea is to host his own debate and invite the other candidates to come which (eventually) comes to fruition. I wonder if Salmond invited Brown, Cameron and Clegg to a debate, if they would go? Or would Jim Murphy, David Mundell and Alastair Carmichael be sent instead? Or Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott?

Mind you, isn't that supposed to be what A National Conversation was supposed to be - an invitation to debate? Problem with that was, not one of the opposition parties showed up.

Read more...

Referendum: "Bring it on"?

The SNP are due to announce their legislative programme for the coming session this week. This is apparently the cue for the respective party leaders in Scotland to come up with hysterical soundbites in the hope that the newspapers pick up the quotes... and that people start to recognise who they are.

It's the proposed Referendum Bill that has the opposition parties' knickers in a knot. This is despite the fact that the Scottish Government set out their plans for this when they entered office and detailed their proposed referendum in the White Paper "Choosing Scotland's Future" (pdf - page 44). So we've known for a couple of years - at the very least - what the SNP planned to do when they got an opportunity: hold a referendum on independence. But that hasn't stopped the hysterics. No no.

Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament, Iain Gray:

"Over a year ago, Labour offered the SNP a referendum on a straight question, and they ran away. Alex Salmond will only ever consider a referendum that is rigged."

"Of course people want a say in how the country is run, but right now I think they are saying that their top priority is economic recovery and protecting jobs."

Right. On point one, I think Iain Gray's memory is failing him slightly. When Wendy said "Bring it on", Gordon slapped her down, saying "Not on my watch, Missy." On point two - the idea that the referendum is rigged - total tosh. Opinion polls with the SNP's preferred question see independence do no better that on other polls. And on point three, is Iain Gray really trying to speak on behalf of other people? And how will he ever know, if he never asks them? And, presumably, if people are, in fact, more concerned with their jobs, they'd let you know that in a referendum - by voting no? Just a thought.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie:

"At home and abroad, Alex Salmond's government has been found wanting. Fewer than a quarter of the key government indicators are on track."

"Alex Salmond is leaving a trail of broken pledges and promises in his wake. On the domestic stage as on the international stage he is letting Scotland down."

Okay. I wonder what she defines as "key government indicators"? If it is key policy pledges, I'd say its probably 50/50 - for every abolition of tuition fees there's a ditching LIT. But that is minority government. And she has pledged that the Tories will support the SNP on an "issue-by-issue basis - except on a referendum."

Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott couldn't be found to give an opinion, so instead chief whip Mike Rumbles said:

"The SNP's Referendum Bill is dead in the water. This is a futile waste of taxpayer money and parliamentary time. We already know that there is strong cross-party, majority opposition to the Referendum Bill."

Which is typically undemocratic from everyone's favourite Illiberal Undemocratic party. Why bother testing public views in a referendum when we can just make the decision for ourselves? Excellent use of democratic values right there. (Quotes from Scotsman and Herald).

What is my point? Well, former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth sums up my view rather well, when he suggests that a referendum should be held as soon as possible to end the uncertainty surrounding Scotland's future. Of course he thinks it would "call Alex Salmond's bluff" to do so. And I'd probably be inclined to agree - if opinion polls are anything to go by at the moment, independence is looking less and less likely as the constitutional preference of the many in Scotland. At the moment.

Which makes the opposition parties' opposition to a referendum all the more bizarre. Here's an opportunity for them to make huge political capital out of something, the ability to have actual, physical proof that Alex Salmond and the SNP do not speak for the majority of Scots when they call for independence, yet they prefer not to allow the people a voice.

If you've read this blog before, you'll know two things about me - that I broadly support independence for Scotland and that I am a PhD candidate examining Nationalist parties in government. The second point gives me more licence to say this: I have absolutely no idea what the opposition parties in Scotland are doing on this issue. I get that it is a risk to allow people a vote on something that you are not keen on. But when polls suggest that less than a third of the electorate support that which you do not, surely it is time to take a deep breath and ask them? Then, when you get the answer you want, it kills the question for at least a generation.

Ah, but there is the problem that these are self-thinking people. I mean, what if they changed their minds? Are you really willing to bet the Union on the ability of people to make a rational decision in a referendum? Tricky... very tricky.

Read more...

Meltdown?

I guess there is no point in my pointing out the inaccuracies of The Scotsman's reporting of the SNP's candidate selection procedure in Glasgow North-East. I mean, why let the facts get in the way of a good Labour story? Presumably (if previous comments are anything to go by) I'll just be accused of being bitter. But for the benefit of those who may read the article, let me point out a couple of things.

The Scotsman claim that David Kerr will become the SNP's "fourth choice candidate" - thereby implying that there were three people in line for the candidacy before him. Those named by the Scotsman as ahead of him are current SNP MSP Anne McLaughlin, Glasgow Councillor (and former blogger) Grant Thoms and SNP leader on Glasgow City Council, James Dornan.

Where to start?

Anne McLaughlin was the SNP candidate for the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament - Glasgow Springburn - in 2007, but was elected an an MSP earlier this year on the death of Glasgow Region MSP Bashir Ahmad (just in case there is any confusion, Glasgow Springburn and Glasgow North-East, although they cover very similar territory, are actually constituencies for two different parliaments). She may have been in consideration as a candidate in the event of a General Election (which was never called) but after she became an MSP that was no longer the case.

Grant Thoms was, I believe, slated to be the the candidate for Glasgow North East in the event that a snap General Election was called by new PM Gordon Brown. SNP rules dictate that if a by-election is called in a constituency then the party must hold a selection procedure again. Grant Thoms at that point decided that he did not wish to put his name forward for selection, with speculation that he feared his sexuality would be attacked by opposition parties, and subsequently did not put his name forward.

Then the selection meeting occurred and James Dornan won the candidature. Subsequently, he decided that his previous financial difficulties may come to light and stepped down as a candidate, leaving David Kerr as the favourite for the post.

In that fact based telling of events, how many people can you count that were ahead of David Kerr in the selection procedure? I count only one - James Dornan - who was selected by the local SNP to fight the by-election (apparently against the hopes of the First Minster though not the Deputy FM - at least according to the above linked article).

Meltdown? Not so much. Labour propaganda? I'll let you decide, though here are some other posts which discuss the issue to help you make up your mind.

Read more...

Don't ban the BNP - debate them

Been a wee bit quiet on here despite there being lots to write about over the last few days. Unfortunately, I've been a wee bit busy with an important engagement and things have been a wee bit busy to blog...

I'm actually on holiday at the moment anyway, but I wanted to take a minute to discuss the result of the Euro election.

A friend of mine (a natural Tory voter I think...) pointed out to me that he thought it rather ridiculous that there was such a difference in votes between the 2004 & 2009 elections in Scotland and yet the end result (with the exception of the reduction in total seat numbers from 7 to 6) was the same. He wanted to know why the SNP could win nearly 100,000 votes (or 8% of the vote) more than Labour and still only get the same reward - 2 MEPs.

The answer, of course, is the D'Hondt electoral system. It's all about PR. At the end of the day, Labour hung onto their second seat by around 8,000 votes.

My Gran asked me about the BNP. She wanted to know how they'd won two seats when (she thought) less people voted for them in 2009 than in 2004. In fact, in 2004 they won 800,000 votes while this year they got 940,000. Nick Griffin won his seat in the North-West by only 5,000 votes while Andrew Brons got his by the same margin in Yorkshire and the Humber.

That's statistically how they did it. But how did they secure these votes? My Gran asked me if it was Labour's fault. And I thought about it for a minute. I ended up saying no, but qualified it somewhat. Extremist parties like the BNP feed on the anxiety, the fear and the anger that comes from recession conditions. They play on this fear for jobs, concern about "foreigners coming here, taking our jobs" etc etc. And they play down the dark side of their politics in order to appeal to a wider audience. So in that respect, Labour have to take some of the blame - though you can argue whether it is them or the global financial situation that is responsible for the recession.

But equally I think the other parties have to take some responsibility for the rise of the BNP too, for two reasons. Firstly, as many commentators have argued, the state of mainstream politics at the moment - particularly with the expenses scandal - and that has made voters less likely to cast their vote for the mainstream parties. That, for me, is a short-term theory.

In the long-term, parties have invited support for the BNP by ignoring the threat that they pose to democracy. Let me explain that. Rather than taking on the BNP's radical, discriminatory and racist views in public they run away, saying that they won't share a platform with them. Why the hell not? It it that downright lack of belief in the ability to defeat these racist views in a public forum that has meant the BNP have not had to defend these views.

For goodness sake, treat them like any other political party - which, in case you haven't noticed, with 2 MEPs and a handful of councillors across England, they have become. Take them on in the democratic game they want to play. Get Nick Griffin on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman and let him rip him to shreds. Debate with them. Let them have their say and then shout it down - politely and democratically. Above all, let their views out in public so that voters can see them for what they are - and, ultimately, won't vote for them again.

Rant over.

Read more...

"SNP soars ahead of Labour"

so says The Herald today. And, erm, Jeff.

Base figures are:

Westminster (Scotland) Voting intention:
LAB - 32% SNP - 30% CON - 21% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Constituency) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 30% CON - 15% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Regional) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 28% CON - 15%
LD - 13% OTHER - 7%

A lot is being made of the fact that the poll was conducted for YouGov on behalf of the SNP. I find that a funny complaint. Although the March YouGov poll that I featured here wasn't for the SNP, the methodology would presumably be fairly similar. In that poll - for the same company as I stressed - Labour held a 10-point lead over the SNP on Westminster voting intention. That has been cut to 2 points in one month.

I'd suggest that Labour have, perhaps, not exactly had a great month. What with "smeargate" and a budget which there is a very public debate over, and 8-point swing might reflect that bad press.

Most frightening stat for Labour to come out of the poll though is this one:

Who would make the best First Minister?
Alex Salmond - 36%
Iain Gray - 7%

Ouch.

Read more...

The politics of the possible

Swinney & Salmond enjoying better times

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax during this Parliamentary session.

I'll write that bit again, just in case you didn't catch it the first time.

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax DURING THIS PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.

To quote John Swinney:

"The parliamentary arithmetic means that, while we might get the support of the Liberal Democrats for our proposals to introduce a local income tax, the Labour and Conservative parties are united in their opposition.

"In short, we cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this parliament."

"The cabinet has therefore decided not to introduce legislation to abolish unfair council tax and replace it with local income tax until after the election in 2011."

Now that, to me, doesn't suggest a huge U-turn. It doesn't suggest that the party have suddenly decided that the policy is rubbish or that they think the current system of Council Tax is great. What it suggests is that the party have recognised their position, in light of the budget fiasco, as a minority government. They've looked around the chamber, seen they don't have the votes to pass such controversial and significant taxation-changing legislation and have decided not to waste parliament's time by bringing forward a bill that is not going to pass. Yet.

They still like the policy. They'll campaign on it going into the 2011 election, telling voters that if they give them enough MSPs they'll be able to pass it. So what is this hysteria from the other parties about?

Iain Gray calls it "the day Alex Salmond's credibility died". What, because he can count to 65?

Jeremy Purvis: "The Lib Dems are now the ONLY party in Scotland that want to scrap the deeply unfair council tax." Well, that's just blatantly wrong. The SNP WANT to scrap it... but the opposition parties don't want to help them. Its the price of minority government.

Lib Dem and Labour blogs have it that its a huge U-turn, that it is another broken promise, that a key pledge is lying in tatters. Some of them don't seem to grasp the nature of minority government.

At least the Scotsman tells it like it is (and how many times will I get to say that?!!) when they say "LIT dead... for now." And Brian Taylor is his usual analytical self - pointing out, on balance, that opposition parties will attack and the SNP will defend their minority position.

You can say what you want about the policy (and I'm pretty sure I have in the past, though I can't find it on here) but if you haven't got the cards, you haven't got the cards. First the budget, now this. The SNP are learning about minority government. And I guess the other parties are too. As ever, we live in interesting times.

UPDATE: Just read Kez's take on it, which makes a good point about the issue. The SNP know there is not a majority for a referendum on independence, but they are still planning on bringing forward that legislation. That kinda puts the thing in perspective a bit. If only the LOLITSP could think on his feet like that and notice that kind of thing, then he might have a bit more credibility.

Read more...

Westminster still matters for the SNP

I read with interest Jeff's take on the YouGov post-budget-vote-Scottish poll printed at the weekend. And I'd throw a note of caution his way.

For yes, he is right (and he'll enjoy my saying so!) in that "Holyrood is the main show in town for the SNP." Poll numbers from there are not only based upon the popularity of the SNP in government in Scotland, they follow the workings of the Scottish Parliament and give a clear indication of voters' intentions in Scottish Parliament elections (albeit two years prior to the next - scheduled - one of those). And since 1999 the party has focused its energies on the Holyrood Parliament, with the "gradualist" approach of winning seats, taking office, proving competence, holding and winning a referendum seemingly well in its way to fruition.

But (you could sense it coming) what of those who are banished from Holyrood, sent to serve time in a foreign land, that Parliament hosted by the arch-nemesis? For if there is only one game in town, if Westminster is but a mere distraction, why bother with the place? Why not invite abstentionism? Or, if you must stand, why not refuse to take up your seats - as Sinn Fein's members do?

There is a reason. You see, the SNP's strategy, while bold, seemingly foolproof and inherently democratic (in that it lets the people decide their constitutional future - a noble and somewhat under-used gesture) has one, somewhat major flaw: No one knows whether it can be done.

This referendum would require a majority of votes in Parliament to be held, it is true. But even if the SNP could muster a simple majority (65 - possibly with the aid of Lib Dems and Greens - of 129) that probably would not be enough. Not enough? And why on earth not I hear you ask?

Well... here's the rub. There's no guarantee that such a vote in the Scottish Parliament would be upheld as "within the remit of the Scottish Parliament." Any changes to the Scotland Act, "constitutional arrangements" or "sanctioning" of a referendum which seeks to change these arrangements would probably have to pass through Westminster.

So yes, 65 might be a majority in the Scottish Parliament... but the 7 SNP MPs fall far short of a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster. And I'd argue Jeff's point. Yes the main game for the SNP is Holyrood. And yes, if they are to achieve their raison d'etre of independence then it will be through a referendum. But it is - at the very least - debateable whether that referendum will be delivered through the Scottish Parliament or by Westminster if/when the SNP gain a majority of Scotland's MPs.

I'm not one of those who subscribes to the belief that a hung parliament will aid this goal. But what I am pointing out - albeit in a rather long and winded way - is that Westminster, while now a second priority for the SNP, remains an important part of their plans for the constitutional future of Scotland.

But a good poll for the party!

Read more...

The SNP: Regionalist and Nationalist?

I note with some dismay that my pal Scottish Tory Boy has gotten himself into a bit of controversy over his description of the SNP as a "regionalist" party. As an academic myself (ha... ha ha) who is currently studying that topic, I have to defend STB to the fullest on description. According to academic descriptions, the SNP are a regionalist party.


Now I've never been the type of nationalist who gets offended when people use the word "region" to describe Scotland. I've gotten annoyed when I've been mistaken for English, or worse, when people assume Britain means England or use the terms interchangeably. But I wondered why those that STB referred to as "CyberNats" were so offended by the term. The conclusion I reached, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that the term "regional" was an insult, a diminishing the "nationhood" espoused by nationalist/ regionalist parties.

Now I don't really want to wade into a controversy here. Well, actually, maybe I do. But its only to point out the following: Most academics use the term "regionalist" as a catch-all term because the parties who fall into the category invariably want different things - full independence, enhanced self-government, fiscal autonomy, federalism or, indeed, self-goverment to begin with. What makes a party a nationalist party too is based on different aspects - a historic claim to nationhood, a distinct language and/or culture, civil society, independent structures (eg, in education, religion or law) and a claim to represent the best interests of that historic nation.

I'd argue that the SNP fit both criteria. They are - broadly speaking - a regionalist party, in the sense exist purely for autonomous purposes and compete electorally on that basis AND at the same time, a nationalist party, portraying themselves as the defenders of Scottish society. In this way, they are very similar to Convergencia i Unio in Catalonia - competing electorally in one region, promoting themselves as the defenders of the nation and demanding more power for their historic nation.


Anyway, its something I've been thinking about. Any (further) thoughts?

Read more...

Glenrothes: Analysis

Well, after Glasgow East I indulged in a spot of analysis, so I thought I'd do the same for Glenrothes. I think my immediate post-match analysis (so to speak!) pretty much covers it, though I'll go into a bit more detail here.

Labour - undoubtedly a good night. By winning more votes than his popoular predecessor John MacDougall (19,946 to 19,385) Lindsay Roy ensured that Labour would hold the seat next door to the Prime Minister's. Based on the huge turnout and the upturn in economic circumstances (with Labour coloured glasses on of course) Roy was able to hold off a 5% swing to the SNP. The Scotsman attributes the win to a "Brown Bounce" which I'm not sure really exists. I just think Labour were very much able to get their vote out. Also don't think people were quite as willing to give the Prime Minister another kick - especially after he was kicked so hard in Glasgow East.

SNP - For the SNP it was a disappointing night. After suggestions (promises?) from the First Minister that they were going to win the seat, they had to settle for slashing Labour's majority from 10,000+ to 6,700. Not quite the result they had hoped for. Despite falling short, the party have succeeded in increasing their vote share by 13% and adding 5,000 votes to the SNP's pile in Glenrothes however, which is a good result. The BBC questions whether this result has burst the SNP's bubble. I'd argue not really, for a couple of reasons - and this is not spin.

First up, as an academic, it is easy to spot electoral trends. In Westminster elections - which voters still treat as primary elections - they look for a party that can act on the UK stage. They are much happier to give their vote to the SNP in Scottish Parliament elections where they see that the party can make a difference. Second, Glenrothes is vastly different from Glasgow East, both in terms of the make-up of the seat and the political circumstances. The SNP run the council here (in Glasgow it is Labour) which has contributed to the perception of incumbency - and they've had to defend their record. Plus the urge to kick the Prime Minister was not as pronounced here.

Conservatives - for the Tories, well it was a mixed night. They did well to overturn the Lib Dems and finish third, but they lost their deposit. However, Glenrothes is not exactly fertile voting territory for the Conservatives, and the fact that they've beaten out the Lib Dems for third suggests something for them to cheer about.

Lib Dems - Oh dear. Without attempting to bait Stephen or Caron, where to start. For the second by-election in a row the Lib Dems have fallen to fourth and lost their deposit. And I could replicate this post here. Apparently there was even talk that the Lib Dems - with nearby seats in North East Fife (Menzies Campbell) and Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) could even win the seat. With that in mind, how did the party only end up taking 947 votes? I know - it was a classic two-party fight (something which I pointed out here) which squeezed their vote. But for a party that claims to be the third party, the "real alternative" government, surely this is not just a bad result, its an unmitigated disaster?

I know I'm a bit unfair to the Lib Dems in criticism sometimes - and this may look like I'm diverting attention from a disappointing night for the SNP. You'll have to trust me that is not my intention - for I even did this after Glasgow East (when the SNP won). I'm just struggling to see what the Lib Dems stand for now - and I think, so were the voters in both Glasgow East and Glenrothes. Much was made of their win in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, but if the party are not careful, Willie Rennie probably won't be returning to Westminster after the next election... and Ming Campbell won't exactly have a cakewalk in North East Fife (though he should be safe enough). So Stephen and Caron, I know you guys were both out in Glenrothes and for that I'll praise your dedication. But two lost deposits in a row - are you fighting a lost cause?

So here we are. Congratulations to Lindsay Roy MP on winning the election (and proving my hunch correct!). Each of the parties has lessons to learn from Glenrothes though.

Read more...