Monday, May 07, 2007
Why fear the Scottish referendum?
The SNP is having problems finding a coalition partner and may go for a minority administration. The sticking point is a referendum on independence. However, rather than run scared of such a referendum could it be the best option to stop the march of the SNP? The media hype around the SNP advances underestimates the under-lying strength of the Unionist parties. Also the nominal ‘defeat’ in the 1979 Scottish referendum contributed to electoral reversal and internal disputes for the SNP in the 1980’s.
Some relevant electoral data:
1. In 2003, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives gained 66.5% of the vote. In 2007 they recieved 65%. They have a majority of the second votes too.
2. The SNP has had similar levels of support twice before - 30.4% in the 1974 General Election and 32.4% in the 1994 European election.
3. The SNP had a net gain of 20 seats. The Lab/LD/Cons had a net loss of 5 6 seats. In net terms it was the small parties who were the real losers in the Scottish election, two of whom the SSP and Greens, are pro-indepence parties.
4. In physical vote terms the SNP polled higher in 1999 when they gained 672,757 slightly higher than 664,227 (although the problems with spolied ballots drove this second number down.)
In electoral terms what has broadly happened in the past three elections was a good Labour performance in 1999. In 2003, disillusionment led to a loss of support for Labour but the SNP did not capitalise on this instead the smaller parties were the beneficiaries. In 2007, a revitalised SNP succeeded in attracting the disillusioned under their banner.
Part of the disillusionment with Labour is a lack of leadership and delivery by devolution in Scotland since the death of Donald Dewar. With the exception of Dewar none of the Scottish political heavyweights were willing to sacrifice a Westminster career for Holyrood. Now that John Reid is standing down from the Cabinet, could he be persuaded to head to Holyrood to lead Scottish Labour’s fight back against Salmond and the SNP?
The impact of a referendum defeat on pro-republicans in Australia is probably worth noting.
Fair Deal @ 11:41 AM
“Mr Stephen said he had made it clear to Mr Salmond that unless and until the SNP removed the “fundamental barrier” of the referendum there would be no coalition.
“We consistently stated to people across Scotland at all times during the campaign that this was our position and it will not change,” he stated.”
From the article Lib Dem leader reaffirms opposition to the referendum.........but they lost. They could be the big losers here. In the North East and the Highlands it’s SNP v Lib Dem in a lot of cases and scuppering the largest party’s efforts to give the Democratic option to Scots of determining condtitutional future appears quite bizarre to me.
I’m sure your Maths are right Fair Deal (the effect of the ballot paper problems could have been 30,000 lost SNP votes mind) - however what is striking about this wave of SNP support is it’s geographic breadth - First Past the Post victories in Glasgow and Edinburgh for instance, winning the list in Lothians, close second in Scotland South. This seems to indicate a move in national terms. Given the media bashing the SNP achievment is quite stunning.
I wonder what happens next.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 12:55 PM“The impact of a referendum defeat on pro-republicans in Australia is probably worth noting.”
Nah. There are significant differences. The SNP have had those types of setbacks before and while a referendum might set it back ten, fifteen years it is unlikely to go away. Second, there are huge psychological differences - Republicanism in Australia really should have won, but if Independence even runs it close in Scotland it would be a boost. Third, it is likely that if a referendum is run with three options, more power for devolved government will come out the winner. That in itself would begin to fundamental ly change the Union.
But I agree - what the hell are the Unionist parties afraid of? This might actually be the best scenario for the SNP. It is effectively a free run . If the SNP are even halfway competent and the opposition misjudge, then it might just tip.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 01:09 PMFD
Would you also advocate a referendum here to call the bluff of nationalists in NI?
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:02 PMI wish to express my joy for SNP win.I’ve always supported Salmond’s campaign,and I believe he’ll be able to become a great leader for Scotland.I’d only desire a solid government,for achieving the hardest challenge:a referendum to establish the independence.It’s fundamental an agreement with Greens and Lib Dems;then I’m sure the major part of scottish will endorse the end of union,after the next magnificent and positive years of SNP government.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:11 PMGonzo
1. I don’t think it would call the bluff of nationalists in NI. There isn’t a bluff to call as they accept that the present position is what a majority want.
2. Scottish and Irish nationalism would seem to me to be inherently different creatures. The SNP’s support is much more volatile and not connected to the size of a particular community.
3. Also IIRC the Belfast Agreement means once you have the first referendum you have to keep calling them every seven years. So it wouldn’t ‘settle’ the question in fact the reverse.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:16 PMThanks FD
In response:
1. True to an extent - there isn’t a majority, although that might not always be the case. But I don’t think nationalists have given up on a united Ireland per se, otherwise they wouldn’t be nationalists!
2. I’ll bow to your wisdom on this.
3. IIRC the Agreement doesn’t say this at all. I can check, but I think a referendum may be called seven years after a previous one, but this is at the Secretary of State’s discretion. In your defence, it is likely that once the first is called, there would be a push for follow-up referendums - but this might be to unionism’s advantage, hence my original question!
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:54 PMScottish and Irish nationalism would seem to me to be inherently different creatures. The SNP’s support is much more volatile and not connected to the size of a particular community.
This much at least is true, though it is only the 6 county entity which has created this effect in Ireland. In Ireland before partition opinion differed and fluctuated as to the wisdom of total, rather than partial separation from Britain.
The problem is that the Independence option seems to be even more popular than the SNP:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5331992.stm
As this was not a SNP commissioned poll, it might just be accurate.
Calling the Liberal Democrats and Labour ‘Unionist’ parties is really a misnomer. They are primarily Liberal Democratic and Socialist parties, the leadership of which happens currently to be taking a pro-devolution anti-independence line.
Almost all Scots are Nationalist: no-one is campaigning for greater integration with England, or to shut down the Scots Parliament. What is at issue is the degree of separation from England. It’s rather like deciding to go self-employed: ideally you would like to, but you are not sure that it would be a success.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:26 PMGonzo
1. I didn’t mean to imply they had given up just they accept it isn’t a present or short-term possibility.
2. Some data for you on the rise and fall of the SNP’s fortunes here.
The coincidence it its first significant gains and the discovery and production from the North Sea Oil fields is interesting to note too. Can scottish nationalism as a force outlive North Sea Oil?
3. You may very well be right on the referendum bit and the SoS.I still think the situation over a Scottish referendum would be more clear-cut than in NI but you may have a point of Unionism trying to turn such a referendum to their advantage.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:29 PMPR
1. A Times poll in April 2007 showed that stronger powers for Holyrood is the most popular option even among SNP voters. Essentially public disappointment with devolution has been blamed on a lack of powers, not necessarily the correct diagnosis but the common view no less.
2. If the SNP were so confident of wider public support then why did they spend so much time rowing back from a quick referendum and toning down their rhetoric?Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:44 PMActually FD the Unionist parties lost 6 seats all together. Small correction :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2007/scottish_parliment/html/region_99999.stm
However what you seem to miss with all due respect is something touched on by Dewi. In that there really has been a sea change in Scottish politics, to dismiss as ‘disillusionment’ a 20 seat gain is frankly astonishing. If this were even remotely accurate why did so many staunch labour voters rally around their cause? are they somehow immune from being disillusioned? and why did so much of this disillusioned vote find it’s way by magic into the SNP pile? The reality is that Scots voted for a party who will govern with the best interests of all the people of Scotland at heart.
The Labour campaign was frighteningly negative, they pulled no punches. An extremely hostile media it must be stated frightened the pants off people. Both fought an anti-SNP campaign on the basis that it wasn’t an election campaign to Holyrood, but an actual independence referendum. The level of success they had in this cannot be understated! we do not know the numbers but there must have been some who were influenced by such a sustained campaign. Despite all of this the SNP still managed to pull off an incredible victory.
The SNP won the popular vote for the first time ever,something that Labour has not lost for 50 years both the first past the post and list popular votes were won by the Nats. They won seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh for the first time at a general election. And something that has not been highlighted destroyed labour domination of almost all local councils Scotland wide. Labour lost a third of their council seats in total, losing 161 councillors. The SNP gained in every council bar one and now have the most councillors with 363. The first Asian elected to the Scottish Parliament is a sign of progressive inclusive future governance by the SNP.
I would think that not all who voted SNP on thursday are necessarily pro-independence. I would be willing to bet my house though that a very large minority of the 30 odd percent who voted Labour would not be hostile to it either. Tory intellectuals are beginning to advocate a total split rather than the wasteful half-way house at present. So Don’t read the result of the election for Unionist parties as a sure fire indication of Unionist victory at an independence referendum.
It seems that the Labour party is in denial at the moment, almost as if they think Tony Blair will rush to their rescue and reassure them that they have in fact won after all. Jack McConnell has not even had the decency to ring Alex Salmond and congratulate him on his victory fair and square. In the media they are making noises about ‘waiting in the wings’ to take over power etc… the degree to which they have spat the dummy is alarming!
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 05:08 PMI was an organiser of the SNP in the mid 80s.
At that time I concluded that Scottish and Irish nationalism were qualitatively different.The modern SNP espouses a civic nationalism.
There was very little “blood & soil” emotions in the SNP activists I knew 20 years ago.
I do believe, allbeit from a vantage point of the West of Ireland, that there is a sea change in Scottish life now.
The new voters coming onto the electoral roll do not possess the cultural cringe of their parent’s generation.Labourism is the real loser in this election.
I think it is fair to say that Scotland has enetered its home rule decade.
The analogy to the Parnell/Redmond times is not off the mark I think.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 05:30 PMDewi
I think you are correct to highlight the extent to which the media campaigned against the SNP in this elelection.
People I spoke to in Scotland during the election campaign (family & friends-all of them from a labour voting background) thought it very different to previous election campaigns.
They expected the media to be,in a way, neutral.
This was not the case this time.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 05:37 PMPE
Thanks for the number correction will amend.
As for most of the rest thank you for the party political broadcast for the SNP. For example,
“If this were even remotely accurate why did so many staunch labour voters rally around their cause?”
They didn’t. The Labour Party % was down from 34.6 to 32.2, they lost 7% of their 2003 vote (1 in 14 of their voters). Lib Dems grew by 0.8% and Tories dropped by 1%.
The SNP should be toasting their advances and having one hell of a party but as the numbers show they have been here before, they could have had a similar result in 2003 and they face a pretty solid bloc of over 65% of voters.
As for your comments on Labour in Scotland nothing would surprise me about their arrogance and incompetence.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 05:53 PM>>As for most of the rest thank you for the party political broadcast for the SNP.<<
LOL! fair do’s!
I wasn’t very clear, I meant that Labourites wererallying around labour, not the SNP. I was pointing out the flaws in your point about ‘disillusionment’ People really did rally round Labour to an extent not predicted. Why weren’t they disillusioned? simply because it was not painted as a straight forward Parliamentary election. Also the consistency of the polls predicting a Labour defeat may have contributed.
>>The SNP should be toasting their advances and having one hell of a party but as the numbers show they have been here before, they could have had a similar result in 2003 and they face a pretty solid bloc of over 65% of voters.<<
Labour face a larger bloc to regaining power. If you mean to say they would have such a bloc facing them in a referendum I have already covered that point. They wouldn’t!
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 06:08 PMPrince - SNP lost seats in a council !!! - Which one and how did that happen ???
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 08:10 PMHaud yir horses Dewi.
I never said they lost any seats. I said there was only one where they didn’t gain extra seats. This was in the Orkney’s where no party won a seat. They were divvied up amongst all kinds of assorted relations. ;¬)
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 08:39 PMI very much doubt there will ever be a referendum on independence, it wouldn’t even be worth having unless pro independence parties won over 40% of the vote, which I can’t see happening anytime soon.
Labour would be very foolish to challenge the result, besides they are only a heart attack away from being the largest party again.
Let the SNP form a minority government. Give Alex Salmond enough rope and it wont be long before he’s swinging from the rafters.
I give him two years max without a coalition. By then a rejevunated Labour party under Brown will reestablish their dominance in Scotland.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:59 PMPE - Orkneys of course - sorry. Let’s just hope Alex keeps a cool head.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 10:15 PMDodrade.
You sure know how to predict the future. How about the 3:30 at Newmarket the morra?
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 10:18 PMWaiting for the Gordon Brown statement:
“The UK have no selfish or strategic interest in Scotland”
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 10:21 PMHe’ll need to Dewi.
The lib-Dem’s are playing hardball and even the Greens who were speaking so positively yesterday are still not on board. Goldie the Tory leader predicted ages ago that the Parly would have to work together as she foreseen that post election no coalition would be possible.
The sticking point is the referendum. The Lib’s refuse to go into coalition if their senior partner is trying to break up the failed union. God knows what the problem with the green’s are. After the voting fiasco (Westminster’s fault mainly) the inability to have stable coalition government might reflect badly on Scotland.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 10:28 PMI think the LibDems are making a mistake,they should be a bit more flexible when it comes to the independence referendum.As for the Greens,I must admit if any party went into a coalition with the SNP,I would have thought that they would have been the first to sign up no problem.I’m a bit puzzled what the issue/issues are that’s stopping them from doing that just now.On a personal note speaking as a Labour voter I have absolutely no problems with a referendum on independence , in fact I would welcome it ! I think most Scots want a referendum whether they support independence or not.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 12:50 AMDewi, of more relevance,
“The Labour party have no selfish or strategic influence in Scotland”Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 09:08 AMDodrade:
I wouldnt be too sure about Labour re-establishing its soviet grip on North Britain.
Salmond was correct IMHO.
This was a sea change election.Generational and seminal.
Labour’s power in Scotland was based on local patronage.
Classic dominant party system a la Fianna Fail here in the ROI.
If that is broken for any length of time then the dominant party itself starts to atrophy.
Salmond’s view was always “if the Scots taste a little power they will want more”
Even if the Lib Dem option on a future plebiscite was victorious-ie devolution plus more powers-then the march towards separation continues.
That gradual, cautious approach probably suits the good folk of my native land.
The end of an Auld Sang it isnt
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 01:39 PM“I think the LibDems are making a mistake,they should be a bit more flexible when it comes to the independence referendum.”
Why should they be? They made their position crystal clear during the campaign. They are against independence and an independence referendum. Everyone seems surprised that they meant it.
There shouldn’t be an independence referendum because there is simply no real demand for it from the electorate.
As for phil’s comments, it was inevitable that the SNP would get in at some stage, if it wasn’t this election it would be the next. But even Salmond himself said there would be future Labour first ministers.
The best comparison is Quebec, where the PQ first broke Liberal dominance in 1976 and have alternated in government since. However Quebec is still in Canada and the PQ have slipped to third place. The SNP’s position is even weaker than the PQ as they have little prospect of ever forming a majority government and passing a referendum bill, never mind winning it.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 07:36 PM
