What the hell happened in Scotland? Nine years ago, the SNP carried all before it at the famous 2015 election. What it dubbed the "Westminster parties", Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, were reduced to a single seat each while everywhere else on the constituency map of Scotland turned SNP yellow. A partial uprising of these parties two years later was put down at the return match in 2019. The SNP not only ran the Scottish government, that election gave them 48 MPs. It was common sense getting back to where the Westminster parties were in 2010 would take a generation. And then, last Thursday, what was a peculiar result in England and Wales was nothing but disastrous for the SNP and the cause of independence. The party dropped to just nine seats and lost half a million voters. Labour's support increased by 350,000 votes and gave it an additional 36 seats. The Liberal Democrats increased their seats by two, despite dropping 30,000 votes and the Tories, in line with the disaster in the south, saw their support halve but with the loss of just one seat.
This only tells part of the story. Aggregating the independence parties (SNP + Greens + Alba) totals just shy of 830,000 votes. The unionist parties (the above, plus Reform) is 1.56m, almost double. Turnout was down to 59.2%, only 0.4 above the 2001 low point. In every constituency support for Labour grew and nationalist voters either stayed at home or defected directly. This does not bode well for the next round of Holyrood elections, unless Labour in office makes a spectacularly cack-handed job of governing. How was this catastrophe visited upon the SNP?
There's the conjunctural. The SNP haven't had the best time of it. The departure of Nicola Sturgeon was followed by the tawdry spectacle of her arrest and the overhanging police investigation into SNP finances. Humza Yousaf's brief tenure as party leader and First Minister didn't improve the SNP's standing. In fact, this more or less occasioned their slippage in opinion polls with more support flowing to Labour. His unilateral abandonment of the Bute House coalition agreement with the Greens contributed to the impression that he was not on top of his brief, so he had no choice but to cede power to the right leaning John Swinney/Kate Forbes duumvirate to avoid a humiliating confidence vote. This is against a background of decaying social infrastructure. The Scottish school system has posted declines in science, English, and maths. Poverty in Scotland has stubbornly persisted at around a fifth of the working age population since the SNP came to power. The same house price problems manifest north of the border - though in 2023 new build completions and new build starts went down. NHS waiting lists continue to increase. While these areas are within the SNP's gift to do something about, it would be unfair not to mention the fiscal straitjacket imposed on Holyrood by the Tories. They've borne the brunt of decisions made elsewhere.
The larger problem, however, is the collapse of the SNP's strategy to achieve independence. Having committed itself to the constitutional road to a second referendum, its battles with the Tories and the courts slammed the door on its possibility. And without the prospect of independence, what purpose does the SNP have? The radical nationalist reply, which amounts to campaigning harder on independence, found the extent of its support in the derisory vote Alex Salmond's Alba vehicle registered. Related to this, because another referendum is out of scope, where large numbers of the Scottish electorate are concerned it has receded in salience. It's become a second order issue. As YouGov polling showed, the national question was listed as an important concern for just 27% of 2019 SNP voters. It lagged behind the economy (35%), cost of living (54%), and the NHS (67%). Despite running a policy-lite manifesto, Labour's mantras of economic growth, action on the NHS, and the other fissiparous raft of pledges spoke to enough Scottish voters to draw them back from the SNP to give them a punt. That and, at least according to several post-election vox pops, making sure Labour got enough seats to turf the Tories out of government.
In these circumstances, and after a long period of running Scotland, it was a perfect storm for the SNP. With Keir Starmer now safely installed, the onus is on how the Scottish government now plays its cards. Another round of butting heads on independence doesn't seem a wise move, but there are openings on holding Downing Street to account re: its bread and butter pledges, and on its promises to devolve more powers to the nations and the regions. It's just the SNP's worst luck that in Swinney and Forbes they have two leaders singularly unsuited to capitalising on this centre left moment.
Image Credit
4 comments:
Well, if it is just an eclipse the Sun will emerge again from whatever is blocking it. It may be the SNP is destined to mirror the trajectory of the Parti Quebecois, unable to win independence and fluctuaying in votes so that sometimes it is the provincial government, sometimes the offical opposition and somtimes in the doldrums.
More optimistically (or it may be pessimism) you need to decide if Changed Labour will actually solve the many problems that face the UK and take us to the social democratic uplands. If not, then the SNP can await the disillusionment, refreash itself and in 2029 win the seats that it was second in.
You need to note the levels of support for Independence among the under 40s in Scotland and, as you remind us about England, every month a few thousand are taken from the Tory vote by Father Time. Same in Scotland. And by then the SNP can claim that the generational timespan betwenn referendums that Unionists demand will have passed.
As a thoughtful political analyst I would have thought you would have a word for the process of "establishment capture" that always happens when an insurgent party gains power, or a share of it. The 'establishment' like to call this facing up to reality, and the subsequent absorbtion of status quo friendly policies, 'real politik'. The end result is almost always the collapse of the vote for the newbies.
We have seen it happen time and again. The LibDems under Clegg were subject to it - I realise that they were not offering anything genuinely new, but they were new faces and seemed to be an alternative to the same ol same old. They rapidly disappointed thsoe naive enough to expect something different.
The Greens in Germany went through a similar trajectory. Excitement and hope followed by disillusionment and backlash.
The traditional parties also suffer from it to an extent. But they have a depth of tribal support to fall back on, and so are able to recover more quickly, and also to lose less spectacularly - normally. This 2024 election is an outlier here. But there is a formula between how long a party has been in opower, how dominant they were, and the extent of popular frustration and the strength of the backlash.
New parties are also more personality dependent. Often their appeal is built around one idea and focused through their leader. Salmond was able to pass the baton to Sturgeon, but the lack of a successor (ideally with a fish-themed surname) caught them out. As did their failure to show any progress either in achieving independence or in mitigating the crushing grip of Westminister and the austerity it imposed.
Some sort of scandal is almost inevitable, and new parties are much more susceptible to this because their appeal is largelt that they are NOT like the usual politicians. When it turns out they are...
Extraordinary that you don’t know about the “Isla Bryson” effect. I can’t post the graphic so I’ll just describe it.
SNP lead over labour, December 2022. 26%
January 2023, “Isla Bryson” convicted and initially sent to a female prison. Lead 11%
Sept 2023, membership drops by approx 1/3. Lead now. 0%
Also, the Greens stood against the SNP in every constituency, and the result was a “Reform” effect in splitting the pro independence vote.
Somebody bring out the "zany correlation graphs from history" for Ken's benefit, if they can be bothered talking to a wall.
I'm sure that the "Isla Bryson effect" is a cause celebre in the circles of TERFs, transphobes, and their allies. Whether it exists to anyone outside that is a different question, which I immediately find myself asking; and whether there's any real evidential basis to it at all is another question still.
Post a Comment