I want to continue my series on the fears I have regarding the outcome of the 2015 general election. Having already addressed my concerns about what the Conservative and Labour parties might do if elected with working majorities (however unlikely that seems at present) I now have to change the premise on which I comment, because other parties will not, for all practical purposes, have much influence unless Labour and the Conservatives fail in that objective, as seems very likely.
I may at some point need to address my concerns about what are predominantly the English minority parties (and based on current forecasts that will be an accurate description of UKIP and, in all likelihood, the LibDems as well as the Greens) but let me for now address the nationalist issue.
The first, and obvious thing to say is that this issue is much bigger than that of the SNP. For example, none of the mainstream parties will hold seats in Northern Ireland after the election, and although Unionists have always had ties with the Conservative Party and there appears to be a natural affinity between the DUP and the Conservatives, that cannot be assumed to be the case. As has also been pointed out by Owen Jones and others, many of the DUP's ethical positions are deeply offensive to many in much if the rest of the UK now: their position may be Unionist, but it si also, hopefully, deeply isolating.
It is also important to note that whilst the Conservatives might be reduced to no more than one MP in Scotland so might the LibDems, whilst Labour might hold only two or three in that country, and LibDem and Tory representation in Wales will be pretty modest in the overall scheme of things (maybe seven Conservative and two LibDem).
I make these points for good reason. The reality is that after this election we will face the most fractured split of seats in the House of Commons that most will have known in their lifetimes. It seems likely that the electorate will decide that the Conservatives and LibDems are very largely English parties. Only Labour look likely to be left with any credible claim to have substantial representation in more than one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
This is an extraordinary situation. If it is only Labour that is succeeding in being more than a single nation party at this moment the debate about nationalism does then need to consider not just the explicitly nationalist parties of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but most particularly those of England as well, which quite specifically includes the Conservatives, for whom over 97% of their seats will be in that one country. UKIP does also, of course, fall into the English nationalist tendency.
I think this matters: it is likely that over the half the forthcoming parliament will be comprised of members from parties whose instincts are naturally bias towards one nation in the Union over the interests of all others.
By far the most worrying of these parties is the Conservatives. They are the only party who are threatening to use their position at Westminster to exclude members of parliament from another UK country from decisions that will impact their constituents. Their claimed English votes for English laws (EVEL) policy on matters such as tax makes this obvious: not all tax issues are devolved to Scotland and as a matter of fact Scottish tax powers will be pitched to English rates for at last the time being whilst decisions on funding in England clearly impact funding available under the Barnett formula. Tax matters also implicitly impact on monetary and fiscal policy if only most politicians understood that fact. To say there can be tax decisions reserved for English MPs alone, or English, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs alone, is in that case just wrong: nothing so far agreed on devolved powers says that is appropriate.
Implicit in this policy is also a claim that sterling is an English currency that others may use with English consent. This, again, is not just wrong, it is deeply patronising, obviously inaccurate when at present this is the national currency of the whole of the UK, and contemptuous of the parliamentary rights of those representing otherwise to suggest that this is the case. The Bank of England is at present misnamed: it is most definitely the Bank of the Union, but the Conservatives are appropriating it for inappropriate purpose and of late I have seen far too many suggesting that it would be inappropriate for it to, for example, take Scottish issues into consideration in its deliberations. I believe that entirely incorrect whether economically, politically or constitutionally at present.
If, then, there is a party seeking to create parliamentary chaos based on nationalism the prime candidate would appear to be the Conservative Party.
What then of the other nationalist parties? UKIP I do not take seriously. I also think that this is the high point in their history. Just as the BNP was once considered a major political force and has faded with the fall from grace of Nick Griffin so too will UKIP decline, in my opinion. It is very obvious that this is a party wrapped around the personality of Nigel Farage and without any other coherent philosophy that binds the remainder of its membership together (unless xenophobia can be described as such). Without any obvious alternative leader to Farage, who is looking increasingly spent both physically and as a political force as this election progresses, it is hard to see UKIP as being on anything but a downward political path in future.
The LibDems will also very largely be a nationalist party after this election: their Scottish base, barring the Northern Isles, where voting LibDem is simply a means of saying ‘none of the others', looks likely to be totally eradicated.
But so too do the LibDems look like a spent political force. Not only will their seat numbers decline everywhere, whatever policy platform they once had appears to have disappeared, with the sole criteria for voting LibDem now appearing to be that which was once peculiar to the Northern Isles, except that it has come to mean ‘the moderate Tory alternative' as the LibDem leadership makes clearer by the day that it could not face working with Labour and that it is not, as a result, a serious party of coalition after all. It's future is, then, linked too inextricably to that of its most recent paymasters in the Conservative Party to be considered separately any more.
Which finally brings us to the SNP. Let me be unambiguous: there are enormous risks in having a large block of MPs in the Commons from a party where most of those members will have very limited experience of operating in that place. But there are reasons to presume that this will not be the problem that might be reasonably anticipated and those all come from the fact that the SNP is a party used to power, government and negotiating with Westminster, whether in the political machine or the civil service. And presuming that the party whip will be tightly adhered to, as I suspect will be likely, then the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland and Alex Salmond in Westminster will be effective. If the Scots are good at anything it is at training politicians, and almost all of them will now be nationalists.
That being said, will the SNP actually get its way? Yes, has to be the answer on some issues. So, it will get to crown the government. The simple fact that it is likely that Labour and Conservatives are likely to be less than ten seats apart after the election (unless every poll is wrong, and they could be, but it's unlikely) and that the SNP might, with 50 seats, empower either to pass a Queen's Speech means that, like it or not, they can make or break either party. That they will not support the Conservatives is not some crime on their part; it is the fault of years of Conservative neglect.
But, equally, I am certain that the SNP will not go into government with Labour. Philosophically the SNP cannot endorse the Westminster right to rule Scotland by joining a unionist party in power, and that is what Labour is. It's really not credible to think they will do that. If there was any red line for the SNP I would imagine this is it. Their role in Westminster will always be on the backbenches.
That though will not alter the fact that Labour should be able to rely on the SNP to pass a Queen's Speech (with the possible help of Green, SDLP and maybe Alliance support too) even if thereafter the SNP may quite deliberately decide to withhold support on particular measures, such as Trident renewal. It would then be for Labour to rally support elsewhere in the House, just as on occasion the 2010-15 government had to rely on Labour support when Tory backbenchers were in rebellious mood.
And this is all we need to know about the SNP in Westminster. The simple fact is that it is not going to be in office. It is not going to write policy. It is not going to set terms. It is not going to be pulling any strings. What it is going to be doing is saying yes or no to the only party whose Queen's Speech it will vote for, which is Labour's, and it will then be for Labour to either work out if it can carry other party's with it on an issue or not. Overall, so long as Labour sticks to its current plans to invest and cut moderately so that non-ring fenced services survive largely intact most of its plans will receive SNP support. Obvious exceptions, like Trident, will survive because the Tories will not dare vote them down on such issues.
Certainly there will be compromises, deals done and negotiations made. But that is always and forever the way of politics, even when there is one party government because most of them are at best rather loose coalitions. Nothing will change, barring the fact that Labour will know it will have a significant task on its hands in presenting coherent policy that will be subject to a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny which will pass only if it passes muster with the House of Commons. I will deal with the Lords separately.
That I call a good thing.
And what I cannot see happening is the SNP using its position in Westminster to secure independence. Why do that when it can stand in Scotland on that platform in 2016?
So, the nationalist issue is a real one. If embraced it could be a force for good. It could enhance parliament and its effectiveness. It could enhance politics.
The problem of nationalism is inherent in the mindset of the English nationalist who believes they have a right to rule that has resulted in the alienation of the Scots, the rise of the SNP, and the undermining of democracy in the UK because of the unwillingness of too many to accept that the Scots can and should make their own choices
And that problem will survive the departure of the Scots from the UK, as will now surely happen. The Conservatives will not win a majority on the rest of the UK, Scotland excluded, in this election. That may well happen again in 2020. If so, and with Wales by then the targets for abuse, the problems of English nationalism will persist. Only electoral reform can address that issue. But that's the subject for another blog.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The role of the SNP would not just be on the backbenches.
As the third largest party they will have substantial presence in the Se;ect Committees.
Accepted
But that is a back bench role
Richard, I think this piece, with its observations on the effect of that masterpiece of gerrymandering masquerading as democracy, namely the Fixed Term Parliament Act, is a valuable addition to what you have said above
https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/who-governs-britain-after-may-7th/
Good enough to get me to subscribe to the blog
Me too.
I have to say that, despite Professor Talbot’s reading of SNP power and room for manoeuvre in a Fixed Term Parliament legal environment, it does seem to me that the likely outcome of May 7th could replicate the circumstances of Gladstone’s third Ministry, from January to August 1886, the so-called “86 of the 86”, when a large influx of Irish Nationalist MP’s led to instability, and the tragic failure of Gladstone’s Home Rule for Ireland policy.
The boot may be on the other foot now, with an attempt to prevent Scotland leaving the Union, but it is worth bearing in mind how Gladstone’s defeat led to 30 years of often violent struggle, which was perpetuated by Lloyd George’s handling of the Ulster crisis, whose effects are still felt today.
Might we be seeing the genesis of a similar struggle between Scotland and the rest of the UK (effectively, only the English part of it). I very much hope not, and that whatever agreement eventually holds between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, that it will be both peaceful and respectful , something HIGHLY unlikely if the Tories stay in power, given their determination to treat Scotland like some inhabitants of an obscure colony.
Best article in the series yet Richard and proably the best article I have yet read on this topic area.
One thing I would like to explore. You rightly point out that most of the new SMP MP’s (if elected) will be inexperienced politcians, but that the SNP whip will help keep them in line.
The 2nd part I agree with, but the first part I want to explore more.
As MP’s many are inexperienced Yes, but for the last 2 years (or longer in some cases) these people have been at the heart of the Yes camapaign. Pounding streets daily and nightly, speaking at hustings all over Scotland, becomimg viral youtube stars in their own right. In short they are used to politcis and are hardened campaigners, so Westminster won’t be that daunting.
Also and the best bit. The majority of these new MP’s (if elected) are REAL people with REAL life experince. They do not come from a harderend politcal class. They represent the wide spread of Scottish socio-economic classes and with that I think with will inject a dose of reality in the Westminster system. Remember also each and every one of these people will be there because they believe in a cause. They are not in it for their own aggrandisement they have a mission and they know it.
Thank you again for this great article.
Another great article on how the SNP could wield power is this one here if you care to read it:
http://www.commentisntfree.com/how-to-bring-down-a-government/
Interesting points….
Will muse on them when I can
No time today
A cool, clear-headed, informative and balanced analysis. I find the conservatives’ swift drift from attempting to rediscover votes in ‘the north’ to apparent acceptance (already proactive strategy?) of sole focus in southern England astonishing for such a pro-union party : it’s as if they have given up on the other parts of the union ever voting for them. Similarly, labour has hardly pulled out many stops to shore up a crumbling structure in Scotland and the legitimacy of the political union now can only be sustained by cross-party agreement. That constitutional convention is decades overdue and needs to be substantial and engaging, like last year’s referendum process, if the union is to survive much longer. Look forward to reading more from you, Mr Murphy.
The nightmare scenario: a Tory/Ukip/DUP/LibDem coalition – perfectly possible if, as predicted, Tories are the biggest party. That would be the result of the disgraceful lies perpetrated by the Tory press – most voters are too lazy to check the facts. Although whether Clegg would get his way is rather dependent on he and his right-wing colleagues retaining their seats.
I can’t allow myself to dream of Richard’s predicted result.
As ever you raise some excellent points but I am more wary of UKIP than you are perhaps. The people I work alongside are predominantly very pro UKIP or Tory.
Brits may not like skinhead thugs and black shirts banging on about immigrants because it somehow sullies the union jack. But they love Toffs however, and the UKIP leader does his best to come across as one of our ‘social betters’. I think he could end up with some seats – I really do.
Personally I like Sturgeon but if her plan is indeed to spend less on the Scottish people (too ignore their needs) so she can fund an economic and sovereign separation for Scotland and those who voted ‘yes’ then I think it will be a very short honeymoon indeed for the SNP and Scotland. I doubt if Scotland can go it alone. And to be honest, I think HM government would drive a really hard bargain and rip off the Scots, whilst cheerily waving them on their way afterwards.
I’ve reflected a lot about nationalism in these isles for some time. Rather than separation, what I would love to see is stronger local and regional government with real bargaining power in their relationships with central government based on a role around balancing the effects of power from the centre.
This would be the best deal for the country. Instead we just miss out the middle ground and go from one extreme to the other. It really is bad statesmanship.
If we did have stronger local government enshrined in some sort of constitution, I think that the nationalists in this country would not have a leg to stand on. They would not be necessary because people outside of London would feel that there was a body protecting their interests.
And as you rightly point out, people are drawn to such nationalistic parties in the first place because the main parties are not really doing that.
What a mess.
As usual your piece is very informative.
I have two questions.
If the Conservatives win more seats than Labour, how do you think the public and media will view a “coalition” led by the second-largest party? Will the Tories try to govern as a minority government?
The Tories will try
But the law is clear – it is not parties but MPs who are elected and MPs come together to form governments
If a group of smaller parties can forma government it is 100% legitimate
And I will support that right
A thoughtful piece thank you Richard that makes a lot sense. And I speak as an Anglo-Scots mongrel
The Tories seem to be aping UKIP yet again, this time with their English nationalist pitch. And South-East England at that. It must be obvious even to them that this will alienate Scots even more and bring another independence referendum forward. I can only assume that is actually what the current Tory leadership and their supporters want to happen. So much for ‘Unionist’. An article on CapX illustrates the kind of hysterical material being issued http://www.capx.co/the-snp-is-now-a-mystic-cult-wholly-divorced-from-reality/
Absolutely it is a Parliament of the Union and is in no way an English parliament, even if they do represent an overwhelming majority. A study of internal conflict in countries would show that when a majority group hijacks power and institutions for its own benefit and dismisses minority groups, sooner or later fragmentation or worse results.
Perhaps the most optimistic scenario is that a substantial SNP presence at Westminster allows the Scots to feel more engaged and better represented there, and supports the devolution of government and power across the nation as a whole. But I’m not holding my breath…