The referendum campaign in Scotland was one of the most interesting political processes I have ever been involved with, but it is over. I had assumed that once it had finished there would be a fairly speedy return to some sort of political normality, crisis-ridden adaptation to an increasingly unstable world, but that seems to be normality these days. Instead David Cameron's speech at the very moment the "no" victory was announced has moved the constitutional question up to the level of the UK. There is is a lot to be said about this, much of it derived from the debates on the nature of governance in the modern world thrown up in the independence debate itself. Alex Bell's thoughts and Gordon Brown's book aren't bad places to start thinking about these issues and Peter Arnott's analysis of the politics of the moment is petty sharp.
I want to think about something much more specific and practical: the election next May. That is the next point at which the elements that will have to address the constitution of Britain (in its broadest sense, cultural and social as well as political) will be resorted. Given the current state of polls Labour may win an absolute majority, but I would be surprised if they did. The key indicator (in the polls) of economic competence is against them and that indicates that there will be a swing to the Tories as the date approaches. However there seems to be next to no possibility of a Tory majority, beset as they are by UKIP and by an electoral map tilted against them.
Another factor that has not, as yet, been recognized, is the possibility of the SNP winning a lot of seats in the coming election. They currently hold six but if, and this is a big if, the "Yes" vote on Clydeside translates into an increased turn-out and a change in the pattern of voting SNP in Holyrood elections and Labour in Westminster elections, they could end up holding the balance of power in the UK come next summer.
This would actually be a terrible outcome for the SNP as they would be under extreme pressure either to support a minority Labour Government or to go into coalition with it. They would become implicated in managing the slow decline of the British social democratic compromise and in whatever constitutional settlement that Labour will favor. Their capacity to represent the forces looking for a democratic renewal across the whole of Britain and NI, not just Scotland, would be eliminated and they would become a regional party speaking to a special interest, the semi-detached wing of the Scottish Labour Party.
This was exactly the crux that the old Irish Home Rule party found itself in and it never satisfactorily solved it. Their tactical alliance with the Liberals made sense, and allowed the party to be part of a coalition interested in reform of the state, but the relationship with the Liberals caused such tension in the party that after the fall of Parnell the party lost most of its efficacy and its capacity to lead the country politically.
My suggestion, given that this is not an unlikely outcome, is that the SNP should state in their manifesto that they will not enter any coalition, support a minority government, or take UK wide office. There is no need to go to the extreme of boycotting parliament or refusing to vote on a case by case basis. Members have to represent their constituents. They have to insist that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats solve the problem of democratic reform of the UK. The SNP's proposed solution is disaggregation of the Union, their analysis is that it cannot be reformed. They have to act like they mean what they say, and not be tempted to use a tactical advantage, even to secure concessions to Scotland.
And someone should put a copy of Paul Bew's biography of Parnell in Nicola Sturgeon's hands.
Machines and tools
2 days ago
