General election 2001 answered quite unambiguously two important questions about electoral politics in Scotland. First, the old chestnut – is there a ‘middle Scotland?’ Here, the answer is a resounding yes, and let no-one doubt it. Our traditional strength, from the West Coast, up the Central belt and through Fife to Dundee, endures and must never, of course, be taken for granted. This year, majorities were down slightly owing mainly to the disproportionate effect of the low turnout, but our dominance nevertheless remained impressive. Notably, the Scottish Socialist Party (part of the Socialist Alliance) on our left flank fell 30 percent short of its much-trumpeted 100,000 vote target, managing barely a three percent vote share.
However, our 1997 all-time high haul of 56 seats came due to our success in removing Tory incumbents in affluent areas like Stirling, Eastwood, Dumfries and Ayr. And this time around, just like Labour gains in ‘middle England’, these seats were either consolidated or actually swung further our way. In the former bracket is Edinburgh Pentlands, where Advocate General Lynda Clark again defeated former incumbent Sir Malcom Rifkind, against the best efforts of the Tory elements of the Scottish press. In the latter bracket is Glasgow Eastwood, formerly the Tories’ safest Scottish seat, where the hyperactive Jim Murphy defeated the – now former – Scottish Tory Party Chair and increased his majority to over 9,000. So not only is there a ‘middle Scotland’, but, thanks to popular governance and hard work on the ground, much of it is presently ours.
But not quite all. And that takes us to the second question. Has devolution weakened or strengthened the case of the SNP? In answer, only one Scottish seat, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, changed hands in the election. And although this result provided the Tories with their first Scottish constituency since their 1997 wipe-out, it was more noteworthy as a symptom of the SNP’s weakest performance in years, leading to a meagre 20 percent vote share.
The six seats won by the SNP in 1997 were all won against Tory competition, a combination of disaffected, rural Tory voters and urban Labour voters, who have been schooled over the years in those constituencies to believe Labour cannot win. This year, some of those Tory-SNP voters returned to the Tories. But, more excitingly, in constituencies like Perth instinctually Labour voters, who have helped the SNP over the years in preference to the Tories, began to realise that if the formidable Anne McGuire’s affluent Stirling can be new Labour territory, so can Perth.
The general election showed how our ‘middle Scotland’ appeal has combined with early signs of a successful devolution settlement to seriously undermine the foundations of the SNP, without providing any meaningful dividend for the Tories. And that’s why I believe the touchstone seat to watch for the 2003 Scottish parliamentary election will be the archetypal ‘shire’ seat of Perth.
Jack McConnell, now Scottish Education Minister, fought for Labour that ‘hopeless but worthy’ constituency in 1992. In the 1995 by-election and 1997 general election, it was the turn of Douglas Alexander, who took the seat to what was then viewed as the limits of Labour exploitation, but still a long way short of victory. Yet this year, much to the surprise of both the SNP and the Tories, Marion Dingwall took 25 percent of the vote for Labour, only 1,000 votes short of the other two.
With a still-moribund Scottish Tory Party, the SNP haemorrhaging in the shires and off the back of a spectacularly successful general election, there is every reason for the Labour Party in Scotland to enter the run-up to the 2003 elections on the offensive. And every reason for some of us to pop to Ladbrokes and take an early punt on a Labour victory in Perth!