Wait and see. I predict that the fact that Scotland has (and probably will continue to have for future elections) a whip hand in government formation might be the stimulus needed to convince people that a system that accidentally enhances the value of a small number of electors needs fixed, if only out of a sort of sub-racist anger. I can see the right wing tabloids making hay over it and causing changes to be made.
If such a campaign begins to get traction, I can see a PC, SNP, LibDem, Green, UKIP, Labour informal coalition acting as a midwife to bring about change that would avoid any future majority Government. Each party would have specific and individual threats and opportunities to support some form of PR.
The SNP’s hand is deceptively weak, and if their supporters are preparing for them to have a whip hand in government, or have disproportionate influence in any way, they’re going to be disappointed.
Incidentally, a single Tory poster (rather masterfully done, as political posters go, mind) was enough to get Miliband in a tizzy over any possible SNP coalition. Just wait until the Tories really start throwing the dirt (remember Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP’s, characterisation of the English as a “cancer” in the referendum campaign, for instance) to really see Labour under pressure to rule out any deal with the SNP at all.
I’m largely with Pjen on this (one specific) point.
I think most people see FPTP as a system that, if nothing else, keeps fringe parties out.
If SNP do get 4% of the vote, and 50 MPs, and hold great political sway (if not a place in coalition government) absolutely that’s something that won’t go unnoticed, and will ignite discussion on alternative systems (much more than the AV vote did).
I don’t think there’s any racism involved. But the SNP are not popular south of the border. I bet the newspapers will make a lot of any bill that the SNP is involved with that affects England directly.
As I have pointed out before, a block of 40-50 MPs is enough to make governance of the UK quite different for several reasons.
First, it will be seen by die-hard Labour as having stolen its Scottish MPs and its chance of a majority for the foreseeable future (I really do not think that the big two will get above the 38% threshold necessary for majority Government.)
Second, the Conservatives will have no representatives at all in Scotland as my local MP is forecast to be defeated by the SNP.
Thirdly the swing party status of the LibDems will have been removed, both by loss of seats and being outvoted by the SNP.
Fourthly, the Greens and UKIP will have few seats, and little chance under FPTP of improving their position over the next few elections.
There are several possible outcomes, all of which benefit the SNP.
One, confidence and supply with Labour. SNP have an effect on policy and annoy many English voters, while being seen as champions in Scotland.
Two, Conservative minority government, with or without LibDems, hobbled by an effective left of centre blocking vote. Scotland once again governed by a rightist government although it voted leftist.
Three, Grand Coalition giving a centrist government with built in instability that could further fracture both the major parties, benefitting Greens and UKIP and thus leading to dilution of their supporters.
In the mean time, the SNP have total control over much domestic policy in Scotland, in a position to argue on several fronts for at least Home Rule, and likely to retain control of Holyrood and have influence in Westminster for as long as they remain in the union.
I am a moderate and somewhat reluctant supporter of Independence, but each of those possibilities feeds the clamour for independence up here. If separation is to be avoided it will take great statesmanship by Unionists; I have seen little of that since September and expect poor statesmanship that has been apparent with Cameron and Osbourne to continue as a dog whistle for the next few weeks and months.
With skill and luck, the Union might be saved by a new constitutional settlement involving greater powers for the minority nations and maybe true English devolution. Without such an effort, I can see Scottish separation become unstoppable.
And has, in Scotland, been seen as an anti-Scottish move, making people far more likely to vote against Labour ( the majority preferred government in Scotland is a Labour minority supported when necessary by the SNP!)
It is an example of the law of unintended consequences- a move by a Unionist party that stokes the fires of independence long term for a short term electoral gain.
That, I think, is the point of wider significance than just the Scottish question: it’s particularly characteristic of Cameron, but the strategically counterproductive effect of tactical manoeuvring is yet another reason for the great voter turn-off of the last 40 years or so (mention above of a 38% threshold for majority government overlooks the problem of low turnouts - what legitimacy is there to a government that can’t get more than a quarter of the electorate out to vote for it?).
Under our current system two thirds of the seats are unlikely to ever change hands without a political earthquake such as is happening now in Scotland.
Full STV in multi member constituency means no safe seats. AM systems allow party lists which do.
There are no safe seats in STV if the candidate is unpopular, unlike AV and FPTP which guarantee that certain constituencies will return a candidate so long as the have not done something very wrong; there are certain Labour and Conservative seats where a total incompetent would be elected no matter what.
This has been covered on Scotland 2015 as well as on the Daily Politics. Also in the Record and The Scotsman.
Recent polls have shown a majority of Scots questioned give a preference for a Labour supported by SNP government in Westminster - not surprising when 45% intend to vote SNP.
And you think that STV will turn those electorates into marginals?
A candidate who wins 35% of the primary vote is rarely beaten in STV unless there is a substantial preference deal bordering on conspiracy in the offing and compulsory (i.e. non-exhausting) preference voting e.g. the electorate of Blair at the Australian 1998 Federal election