For some time, pundits in the UK media have been predicting a strong showing, maybe even a victory, for the Scottish National Party in May’s Scottish elections. This might reflect a kind of wishful thinking among those who quite fancy the idea of regular, theatrical, and utterly destructive punch-ups between a separatist Scottish executive and the UK government.
But more thoughtful analysts in Scotland, and to be fair to the UK press writers, like the Times’ Peter Riddell, say different. They point out that the Nationalists have been half a dozen points ahead in the polls at some point during each of the last two Scottish elections, yet both results were deeply disappointing for the Nationalists.
The problem for the Nationalists is that what might at first glance represent a chance for voters to make a consequence-free protest vote, turns out on closer inspection to be anything but. And, as the screw begins to turn, the voters in Scotland are once again beginning to reflect on the very real consequences of the SNP offer. For example, are the legions of ex-soldiers, mostly pensioners now, really going to vote for the break up of the British army? Or how about those who value the thousands of ship-building jobs on the Clyde, which extend from UK Ministry of Defence procurement policy? For the business-minded, what about the fact that 90 per cent of Scottish trade is with England? How would that be affected by a separate currency, and a separate fiscal and monetary policy?
In January, the Scottish secretary, Douglas Alexander, forced SNP leader Alex Salmond to say, on BBC Air, that interest rates would continue to be set in London. Think about that – an independent state that would have its interest rates set by another. Without stated entry criteria, the SNP would place Scotland outside the Euro and outside UK sterling. Salmond knows he can’t sell an independent Scottish currency, and had rather hoped the issue of monetary policy wasn’t going to rear its head.
Also, the Scots are not as daft as Salmond thinks. As the election progresses, they well understand the trading implications of independence, and the effect of such nonsense on the world headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland and its ilk. All of this will help frame their views, and voting intentions, on May 3.
But exposing the consequences of an SNP vote is less than half of the story. The significant rest is the Labour leader Jack McConnell’s imaginative policy prospectus. Scottish Labour has put together a series of offers which include skills academies, specialist science centres, an emphasis on dealing with anti-social behaviour – where the Nationalists are as weak as the Liberal Democrats – and swimming lessons for every child. The rest of the UK could learn from the latter.
Bear in mind that Scotland is a place where 85 per cent of the vote goes to parties which are, or in the case of the Lib Dems and SNP, purport to be, left-of-centre. In that context, it’s striking that the SNP, and indeed the Lib Dems, have come up policy-free. The SNP have their single message of separation and their mood music of protest vote; the Lib Dems have their opaqueness – Salmond’s ‘ginger-wig-jock’ joke figure to Menzies Campbell’s nervous and, frankly, confused ‘anti-leadership’ dithering. A question here, put by my colleague, Ian Davidson MP, is whether the pathos of Campbell’s leadership may actually be an asset for Labour.
So, just for a moment, assume that the Scots want a strong economy, decent public services, proper public security and protection from louts – like everyone else in the developed world. And, just for a moment, accept that McConnell and Scottish Labour have their finger, exactly, on where the Scottish public are in terms of identity and service delivery. Trust the Scottish people? Don’t say it too loudly, but the prognosis is okay.