Opinion
jimsillars@holyrood.com
“This is not an election for President of Scotland”
Politics of personality Jim Sillars
I must confess to being pleased with the Herald poll showing the
SNP ahead, given the boast to me by a Labour MSP, just before its publication, that it is not ‘if ’ but ‘when’ her party forms the next government at Holyrood. Within the SNP there is a view now settled by that poll – the SNP
will win because Alex Salmond is head and shoulders above Iain Gray. Tis is the world of hubris. Te world the SNP entered in the Glenrothes by-election, when it believed its own propaganda and the media did too. Remember that lesson. It’s time, before the election really starts and strategy is cast in stone, to come down off cloud nine and back to earth. Te election will be decided by the campaign, whose shape will be
decided by policies for Holyrood, and others such as cuts across the social security system imposed by the Westminster Coalition. Whilst Alex Salmond’s deserved reputation as the major figure in Scottish politics is an asset, it will not be decisive. Tis is not an election for President of Scotland. History indicates that being non-presidential lessens the impact of
the leader on the final result of an election. Churchill, the political giant who was key to winning the war, faced Clement Attlee in the 1945 election. On being told that Attlee was a modest man, Churchill replied that Attlee had a great deal to be modest about. Attlee had the policies, Churchill did not, and modest Mr Attlee won. In 1970, with Ted Heath described by Labour as ‘yesterday’s man’
Harold Wilson, 12 points in the lead in the opinion polls and by far the more popular person, thought it ridiculous to believe Heath could beat him. Te economic statistics turned sour on Labour in the last week, and Heath did beat him. Jim Callaghan was far more popular than Margaret Tatcher as the 1979 election unfolded, and he could not, until the final stages, believe she could beat him. She did, on policy grounds. Despite that historical lesson I am, however, optimistic about the SNP’s chances. A big issue will be who can save the Scots from the Tories down
in Westminster. Labour’s claim to be the one is nonsense. Even if they have an overwhelming majority at Holyrood, there is no power available to them, just hot air, to reverse or stop the Coalition’s actions up here. Labour cannot contemplate any threat to Westminster that Westminster would regard as credible. Te SNP is different. It can
threaten Westminster in the most profound way – by taking Scotland out of the Union. A policy which is the only one that can save us from ten years of fiscal misery, and an absolute drop in living standards of some ten per cent. Ah, but is it not true that the SNP will be seeking a mandate for an independence referendum, not actual independence? If that is the case, it would seem to remove itself as an immediate threat to
the Union, and thus be as impotent as Labour. It is true that calling for a referendum on independence is much less
threatening to the Union than a straight mandate for independence. After all, people who don’t want Labour to form the administration, and are happy with an SNP government boxed-in by devolution, can vote for that – knowing they can vote down independence when the referendum actually takes place. Also, given the SNP claims it couldn’t get a referendum through this time because it didn’t have a majority, and as it’s unlikely to have a full majority in the next parliament, then we can all vote SNP, knowing the referendum cannot take place. Tat begs an important question. Does it follow that because a
minority administration in this Parliament could not get a referendum through, the same will apply to a minority SNP government re- elected in May? Te answer depends upon the result. If the SNP wins a larger share of the vote and seats in May, then the political dynamics undergo a substantial change. Te SNP will be propelled by a new political momentum which Labour and the rest will be foolish to ignore and try to block. As a party member, I would prefer the SNP seeks a direct mandate
to negotiate independence, but as a political commentator, I can see that having sought a referendum mandate, and won more votes and seats on that basis, the new SNP government will have a moral as well as a political authority to, this time, get its way and have the Parliament debate and pass a referendum Act. I am told, however, that even if the Parliament knelt to the new
power of the SNP, there is the Unionist backstop of the constitution being a reserved function, making it ultra vires for an SNP government to hold an independence referendum, and so removing any threat from the SNP that Westminster would regard as credible. But here too Alex Salmond has luck on his side to bolster his case that politics can trump legality; his authority? Te House of Commons debate and decision on the ECHR ruling on prisoner votes. And then there is the Scotland Bill. Tere is no realisation by
Unionists just how they have, de facto, downgraded Westminster’s claim to be the sole authority on the constitution and given the Scottish Parliament a new status on it. By enabling the Scottish Parliament to examine and comment upon the Scotland Bill, a constitutional measure giving effect to Calman, the division of powers on the constitution are no longer black and white but very grey. It would seem that in thinking the Scotland Bill would snooker the SNP, the Unionists have proved more foolish than wise. Salmond’s luck is growing.
The SNP were victorious in 2007
Even the ‘arc of insolvency’ gibe is eroding. Norway, as ever, is doing very well; and Iceland, having let its banks go bust, now has, at 3 per cent, a better growth rate than the UK.
28 February 2011 Holyrood 89
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96