Surprised to see that there has been no mention of the Ashcroft polls of constituencies in Scotland that voted for independence in September and had previously elected non-SNP MPs. This supports the previous polls that suggested on a simple national poll across Scotland, the SNP was due a landslide. Now the latest poll with 1000 people polled per constituency rather than 1000 polled across the whole of Scotland suggests the same- that Labour could be left with four seats and LibDems with one, and even my constituency could move from Conservative to SNP!
We are only three months away and the swing to the SNP seems to be holding up well. Even if the results are not quite as good as predicted, it does look like the SNP are likely to be a major player in forming a government in May.
It’s a thing of great beauty; a Labour/SNP coalition in which the SNP bails out Ed Balls’ economic policy (austerity-lite) by making the abandonment of the Trident upgrade conditional: BOOM! £100 million freed up over the relevant period an which laregly fills a nasty black hole.
Or alternatively one where the more libertarian and more leftist SNP help Labour to St being frightened into pretending to be a conservative-lite party and return to its communitarian Methodist roots much as the LibDems have limited the extreme rightists of the Tory party from some of their extremist policies over the last five years.
The reality for the SNP is that almost any outcome of the next election plays into its long term goal of independence or at least real Home Rule. The worst possible outcome would be a clear majority Labour government as that would remove the pressure that a left-right split between Westminster and Holyrood creates, thus decreasing trust of London. A majority Conservative or UKIP coalition would result in implementation of extreme EVEL legislation that would further alienate the Scots. A grand coalition would be interpreted as an anti-SNP panic measure. Every result is interesting from an SNP point of view as further devolution along the lines of the Smith Commission, inadequate as that is seen to be, has been guaranteed by all three parties.
I think a Labour/SNP coalition just suits too many people…
There is a potential second leg to that; Cleggy get’s it in the neck from the good people of Sheffield and Vince the Mince (or Farron) takes them back to their roots. Still good for Labour.
There was a good discussion about that on Scotland 2015 (the Scottish Newsnight) last night. The SNp are the unexpected beneficiary of the vagaries of the first past the post system chosen by Westminster MPs. This system unduly awards seats to parties with concentrated areas of support- the Conservatives are over represented in the rural and suburban south of England and Labour are over represented in the North and London. The LibDems had extra seats in the celtic fringes for years for the same reason. The same anomaly means that UKIP with more than double the national support of the SNP or LibDems will be lucky to get a couple of seats whereas the SNP will approach 40 and the LibDems 30. Both major parties have colluded in this in an attempt to ensure that governments without the need for coalitions are formed; that system is now breaking down and indicating a series of coalitions now that the Labour/Conservative share of the vote has reduced from 90% to less than 70%- FPTP only works for highly polarised electorates.
In the Scottish Parliament a 45% share of the vote just gave the SNP a bare majority; in the Westminster vote in three months they are likely to take a considerable majority of the Scottish seats.
The answer is electoral reform and constitutional change, but no-one wants to take the risk, so we will edge piecemeal towards the uncontrolled dissolution of the United Kingdom rather than seeking a middle way with fair elections and guaranteed powers for the minority members of the union.
I am a reluctant supporter of independence for Scotland- believing that it is Scotland’s right to claim it, but that it may not be in Scotland’s best economic interests nor in England’s or the UK’s!.
The question is- are there sufficiently skilled politicians available to conclude a constitutional settlement that is fair to all concerned?
I think I said roughly the same somewhere earlier in this thread. Any Unionist Party in a formal or informal coalition with the SNP will have to be extremely wary of being perceived as anti English (or even neutral) when negotiating on Scottish and English rights. Any situation where the coalition Unionist party is seen as bending over backwards to accomdate the SNP will become a public opinion disaster in England.
But the point is that some accommodation will need to be made to maintain a government. That looks like it will mean either a deal of some sort with the SNP or a grand coalition.
One may alienate the English and the other the Scots.
We need a determined attempt to create a new constitutional settlement for the whole of the UK.
I agree to an extent. Some accomodation may be required. The important word being some. I deliberately used the word “perceived” when describing any sort of backlash against a coalition between a unionist party and the SNP. This is why I believe any English dominated unionist party will be forced to play hardball. English voters will not tolerate anything they see as being against their own interests(all done in a sleazy attempt to obtain power at Westminster - this is how it will be portrayed). Many SNP voters are imo softer on independence this time around(many are disaffected pro unionist voters after all). This gives the SNP some leeway electorally. I don’t believe any unionist party in England will have quite the same luxury.
The impression I have is that the original committed SNP voters are as inflexible about independence as ever. It should be remembered that many YES voters were Tory, Labour or LibDem or Green or SSP voters normally and many may have been abstainers. Many of these latter have now joined or decided to support the SNP. This bas paradoxically increased and diluted the potential YES vote to the point that according to a series of polls since September suggest that a small majority would now vote for Independence and a large majority desire considerably more devolution than has so far been offered.
So we have a conflict between Scots who in a majority want more devolution but hang on to voting on English matters as a strategy and tactic and believe that EVEL is a conservative attempt to disenfranchise leftist parties on the one hand, and English who resent Scottish ‘interference’ in ‘English’ affairs.
What IMHO is needed is a clear constitutional settlement where each nation controls those parts of the agenda appropriate to it, with some federal structure to deal with external issues and intra national settlement for wealth equalisation and other parity issues such as decisions on matters like EU membership.
If all goes well we may end up with a rational and accepted system of government; if not we will continue with the current muddled system, or worse, see the whole system implode under its own inadequacy.
Speaking of the Telegraph, would you believe that nearly half the population don’t know that there’s an election this year and two thirds can’t name the Prime Minister?