Sometimes it takes one small comment to make you look at things in a new light. The BBC news delivered such a comment last night. Fiona Bruce, reporting on the dispute on the timing of a second Scottish independence referendum described Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon as 'the two most powerful politcians in the UK'.
I trust I will be forgiven for recoiling slightly but a lifetime of political interest has led me to think that such a description would be given to the prime minister and one of the chancellor or the leader of the opposition. But it only takes a moment of reflection to realise that all has changed. No one would have called Donald Dewar the second most powerful politician in the UK. Nor, candidly, would that title have gone to Alex Salmond when he was First Minister. But Nicola Sturgeon? Yes, she does deserve the title.
You could argue that this is because she is up against such weak opposition. Philip Hammond was never a towering figure. As of this week he is a diminished one heading for retirement and not of his own volition. And then there is Jeremy Corbyn. I presume some of his followers still think he has a role. But he is so far from being a powerful politician it is an embarrassment to almost list him as being in contention for the title.
But that's not why Nicola Sturgeon has undoubtedly earned the title. She's there because she stands head and shoulders above all else in the field. Partly that's because she leads a pretty united party in a parliament that seems to go about its business in a much better way than Westminster. And it's because her team at Westminster are, without doubt, the most able group in parliament, partly because almost all of them have real world experience way beyond the political sphere, which is now so rare elsewhere. And they use that skill extremely effectively.
But mainly Sturgeon wins because of her coherence. She knows what she's for. No one can doubt it. And whilst she is frustrated in delivering much that she'd like (Scottish government has been set up as a poisoned chalice by successive Westminster leaderships, and most especially those since 2010) there is no doubt that she unites her team around a passion. Most in England have little comprehension of Scottish nationalism, just as they did not of Irish nationalism before it. And they deeply resent it: I have been told, often, that Scots should be grateful for the privilege of being in the Union. But that, of course, is exactly why it works in Scotland. And it is what drives Sturgeon to deliver a vision that in many ways makes her the most powerful politician in the UK.
I say that because May is so weak. No one believes her support for hard Brexit is anything but cynical. Less than a year ago she was saying it would be a disaster. And no one believes she really cares about most people in the UK or their issues: if she did we would not be seeing the massive cuts in disability benefits now going ahead. What is more, no one, after the last couple of weeks, can believe in her competence. And it looks like she is in power only because of what may well prove to be criminal dishonesty in her party. She's so toxic that if the Scots (because this requires more than the SNP) force a referendum sooner rather than later the defence of the Union could not fall to May, because she would surely lose it, but to Ruth Davidson, who is the last single hope the Unionists have. That's how diminished May is.
In that case, and given that the future of the UK is in doubt, the question of who the two most powerful politicians in the UK might be is clearly answered by May and Sturgeon. But if you asked who is the most powerful, and wholly appropriately considered that answer in the context of whether or not there is a Union, then May might come second.
That's telling. For the Union, For the sorry state of English and Welsh politics. And for the future identity of the people of this island which is very definitely not one country.
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:
Um… how many people voted for Corbyn as leader of his party, and how many voted for May? On that basis, Corbyn would seem to be in a different league altogether from May. Perhaps the two most powerful UK politicians, those with the most supporters, are Sturgeon and Corbyn.
Please do not be naive Bill, because that’s just absurd and helps no one
If Ruth Davidson is the last hope of the unionists then there is no hope at all for it. WM bubble hypes her up: but frankly she is a joke, here.
Agreed, she has reached the apogee of her electoral success. Polling shows 30% of people in Scotland are hard core, no surrender unionists and now they all vote for the Conservative and Unionist party. But there are no more of them and the weans are very, very largely not of that persuasion.
It’s really worrying for the future of the Labour Party and the country that there are people who believe arguments like this. I have to hope that Bill does not really think this is true, but is just trying to put a brave face on things.
Bill’s got a point – based on how one defines powerful. I define power by something other than the mandate one holds. Corbyn is powerful in terms of vision, but not at all powerful in terms of getting things done.
I’d agree that Sturgeon is a skilled operator – perhaps the most skilled. But power isn’t skill alone. May still holds the cards in shaping both the day to day and longer term. She can start or end any number of major processes.
With all that in mind, Sturgeon is definitely more effective than Corbyn at changing the government’s direction on any given topic. But she’s also constrained by her obligation to the cause of independence.
If you saw the abject performance of David Davis in the Select Committee hearing, the person supposed to be in charge of our E.U exit strategy, coupled with the shambles of Philip Hammond’s proposed N.I changes, it is perhaps no surprise that Nicola is described in glowing. or is that jealous terms, even by the B.B.C.
I would have thought it obvious by now that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, along with most of her cabinet. As you say, she was a remainer, albeit lukewarm, but, like a lot of politicians, is obsessed by the opportunity to gain power, so, when her chance came, she grabbed the job, but along with it came the poisoned chalice, which is Brexit.
She, May, in my opinion, does not have the ability to deal with the avalanche of problems that are now about to engulf her, not only a second Scottish Independence Referendum, but the not yet formed N.Ireland assembly, the difficulty with Gibraltar, and the possibility of criminal prosecutions against people in her party resulting from the allegations of electoral expenses fraud.
How matters will play out over the next two years I have no idea, but I really do fear for the real people of the U.K, as they are the ones who are going to suffer from the sheer incompetence of this Westminster administration, the worst in my memory, and I have been voting for almost sixty years.
Agreed Alex
There are many possibile futures for England. Sadly there are only a couple probable ones: A dystopian neo feudal Corporate colony,a road we’re quite far down but with so much further to trave or a bankrupt isolated US vassal. Perhaps Scotland and N Ireland breaking away might finally expose the implicit, intuitive assumption, but gossamer thin delusion of English supremacy. Finally a more humble and inclusive England may awaken from its somnabulence. Scotland has been on this journey for decades. Does England have that long?
Does it make you want to change who you vote for in future?
If Davidson is the last hope of the Union, it’s even more dead than it already looks. She is an empty vessel, blowing soundbites according to the direction of the wind at the time. Her sole allegiance is to her party in London whilst claiming to represent the people of Scotland in opposition. Her sycophantic desire to hold on to the Tory coat tails causes dramatic U-turns in her opinions, depending on which side of her party is prevailing. She is little more than a nodding dog trying to look appealing in the back window of a car going over very rough ground. She can’t drive and she’s not even looking the right way. Only a matter of time before she falls off the parcel shelf.
“Most in England have little comprehension of Scottish nationalism, just as they did not of Irish nationalism before it. And they deeply resent it: I have been told, often, that Scots should be grateful for the privilege of being in the Union.”
This is the key point: much more important than the economics of Scottish independence.
I’d extend it by saying: most in England, especially in the Westminster bubble, do not understand that the Union and constitutional matters generally are viewed entirely differently in Scotland and in London. The Scottish Government understand this: the UK Government does not. Hence the constant missteps from the latter.
Perhaps because I feel Irish, and perhaps because I have a great affection for Scotland and much enjoy time spent there, and perhaps because I listen I know there are profound differences
But you’re right, London is clueless on that, so May calls us one country, which is the ultimate crass comment
Likewise: my mother is Scottish, so I was aware from a very young age how profoundly different the two countries are.
The Metro carried a headline ?yesterday: “Scots throw a sporran in the works”. Most English people could not understand why that would be inflammatory, offensive, or irritating. They have a tin ear for identities.
That was utterly cringeworthy
If ever Nicola Sturgeon needs to boost the vote for independence she should just replay last nights BBC Question Time on a loop.
The contempt shown by a Bognor Regis audience for the measured and lucid comments by the SNP panelist Joanna Cherry MP made me embarrassed to be English.
This contrasted with the ignorance and smug arrogance of the Tories as epitomised by the MP for the 18th century – Jacob Rees-Mogg – who clearly saw the ‘Scottish question’ through the lens of a colonial administrator.
I might have to watch it….
Remind me, what was it that King George V said about Bognor?
Happy St Patrick’s Day by the way and well said Alex!
The complexities of the Brexit negotiations are mind-boggling. I’ve never known a more incompetent set of politicians. Am I alone in thinking that PMQ is like watching squabbling 5 year olds?
Much as I disliked the last Tory majority government 1979-1997 they were a talented bunch. Should I be worried if I find Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and John Major to be amongst the sanest politicians at the moment.
I don’t know what is going to happen over the next few years either but I do fear for the UK and especially England.
You seem to be unaware of May’s Scottish ancestry in part, coal miners in Clackmannanshire. Moreover in the 18th Century they were “bound labour” under Scottish law, that is a form of servitude akin to slavery. It puts matters in a slightly different light.
An interesting historical fact but I don’t see what light it sheds on the current situation in the UK.
The poll in today’s Telegraph (18th March) makes me think that rUK will be plunged into BREXIT (with a vengence) but Scotland will become independent. If that is the outcome, it is the ordinary people of England who will suffer and for whom you should feel sorry. Scotland will flourish and grow.
All of this was avoidable but maybe sometimes hard lessons have to be learned.
I think Mrs May’s position would now be untenable in the UK, if the Labour party represented a half decent opposition.
My understanding of British history suggests that whilst initially a union, once the Stuart dynasty of monarchs were overthrown, the Scots had imposed on them a rule the majority opposed and enforced by “British” troops culminating at Culloden and from that moment onward we ended up with an English dominated union. Some of the English attitudes described here are almost reminiscent of the attitude towards India before it became independent.
You are really talking only about England’s historical pre-occupation with security as their reason for Union. Aside from that, and below the parliamentary level, Scotland continued to function in every way as a separate country, a situation reinforced by its dominance in many areas of British and imperial activity. What you have now is the fading importance of the security, religious, imperial and (post war) the social democratic reasons for maintaining the Union, and the consequent reassertion of Scottish civic society. The difference between the two countries is England’s proprietorial attitude to the UK and its tragic inability to come to terms with the fading background to Union and its own fading importance.
Nothing illustrates the fact of two countries better than the ‘poisoned chalice’ of devolved powers designed deliberately to cripple good governance in Scotland. That is the act, not of a political enemy, but of an external power which is at war with you and that’s a sobering thought.
It’s a shame really that Sturgeon wants to lead her party out of the Union. If she stayed in it with the passion centred on fighting the injustices of the this nastiest of nasty Tory administrations in the justice she may end up being more powerful as many diasaffected English voters look to her for hope.
That is an interesting idea but right now Nicola Sturgeon believes that #scotref will produce a majority in favour of independence and she thinks that Scotland can become a sucessfull small country.
It might be asking too much of her to rescue England as well, but I would hope that Scotland might lead by example and awaken England out of its BREXIT coma.
In 1745 The Burgh of Ayr sent a company to fight for the Protestant monarch, King George II along with others in Scotland and were present at Culloden. In 1772-3 it was the Scots and Irish Bankers, along with other non English, who crashed the City, the economy and also the American Colonies. As for The Raj, not for nothing was it called The Scottish Raj, check out the Colvin’s and Skinners etc. That the Scottish lairds and aristocracy would allow themselves to be humbled by anyone is difficult to believe. Many Londoners felt it was the other way round, which was why they rioted so often.
Simon Jenkins has just, in a very sour and vindictive Guardian article, described Scotland without any irony as a ‘dissident province’. The Guardian’s ignorant and offensive coverage of Scotland has been a big disappointment to many of its former Scottish customers.
Jenkins can be vile
And sometimes annoyingly right
Today he’s in the first camp
The full quote from Jenkins was: “In a democracy, if a dissident province wants partition from a dominant neighbour, that should be its decision”
His article was in favour of a second referendum. For heaven’s sake, why do people always look to take offence?
Dear Richard,
I’m heartened to hear some positive press about Nicola Sturgeon, even if I have to read a blog to get it, because it certainly doesn’t come through on any of the National Press.
I agree with you about the quality of the SNP team at Westminster and how they go about their business. Indeed they are a capable lot and there are many more of them in the Scottish and European Parliaments.
It just amazes me that, despite massive opposition from the establishment, which is only set to increase, one feels,we are sitting at about 50/50 in the polls. They prefer to talk about the past though, as though nothing has changed in the interim. Meanwhile verything has changed in the interim.
I am late in coming to politics. As an ex teacher, a mother and grandmother, who has been frankly disenchanted with politics for most of my life, I wakened up to politics pre-2014 when I knew I had a big decision to make. Given that my grandchildren would have to live with the result, I wanted to make the most informed one that I could. As someone who’s internally motivated, with a lot of self belief, it didn’t take me long to back the principle of independence. After all, why would anyone refuse self-determination. It’s like saying you don’t want to grow up. I knew there would a lot of work ahead and so I embarked on a course of self education. It has been a rapid learning curve. The Independence movement has a lot of grass roots activists who are thoroughly engaged wit the issues we will face as an independent country.
It surprises me not one jot that most of England is out of touch with Scottish politics.
It’s no wonder they have such a skewed opinion of the Independence debate and the Scots in general. The BBC are bound by their charter to promote the union. It’s very definitely not a fair fight. The sooner we concede that it’s David versus Goliath the better. (remembering how that story ended though, I am filled with hope- and not fear)
One of the main problems is that the English in general have a very poor understanding on nationalism in general. We are the Scottish National party -for the whole nation- not the Scottish Nationalist party. A fine distinction granted, but an important one.
To understand where the SNP are coming from, we should make the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. The SNP believes in the latter.
ethnic nationalists, as far as I can see, emphasise exceptionalism, “born into” citizenship, common roots, blood inheritance and so on. Perhaps the emphasis is less on shared political rights and more on pre-existing ethnic characteristics. This would certainly fit the Brit nat mentality. And perhaps what could be said to unite people against others —as we saw during wartime — or recently with the culture of xenophobia that has taken root in the far right. Unfortunately this doesn’t help people overcome division such as race, gender, class or division of resources.
This is diametrically opposed to the ethos of SNP. The last thing the SNP are promoting is exclusivity. If the SNP are nationals, then they are civic nationals. Civic Nationalism emphasises rule by consent, democratic pluralism, liberty and strength in diversity. It provides the framework in law, legislative possibilities and political participation to reconcile differences.
We in the SNP are deeply concerned about Brexit and not just on the economic front which is frightening enough. We are worried about the cruel new culture of isolationism that has been unleashed. We welcome and need our European nationals. (I’m embarrassed that I even need to make that statement because it shouldn’t even have to be said.) We are alarmed that we are entering a world that has seen a new and worrying war against human rights with Le Penn and her party’s history of fascism and racism and we are determined to resist the tide of hate. The turn of events in Europe and the US should be a rallying cry for progressives in all parties. If we don’t defend our values then they are no better than meaningless.
For those who think the SNP is anti-English, you must think again. This is a deliberate lie carry out by certain sections of the media who are hell-bent on stirring up war between Scotland and England putting Scotland in its place. I have far too many English friends in the SNP to buy that lie. We in the SNP, (and we are not the only political group who want independence ) whether we are Scots, English, Canadian, French, German, Dutch, Indian, Irish, Pakistani or any other nationality, believe in progressive politics of inclusivity and the value of interdependence among nations, a view that runs counter to the fear-filled sentiment of the exclusive nationalism of Brexit and the right wing press who dominate the news. That’s the main difference between Scottish Nationals and British Nationals. Quite frankly the staggeringly ignorant remarks of the London Mayor at the recent Scottish Labour conference had our collective mouths dropping in disbelief.
We are going in different directions Scotland and England. We are, as you say, a different people and at the moment we seem to have very different ideas on social justice, from a market driven tax haven, to the privatisation of the health service, we just don’t want any of it.
The SNP do not believe that we in Scotland are ‘better’ than any other nation, but just that we can think of ourselves as ‘as good as’ any other nation, something that our masters in Westminster seem to find very difficult to get their imperialist heads round.
Siding with Better Together was a massive mistake for Scottish labour. Had they joined forces with Nicola Sturgeon they could have lived to tell the tale in Scotland and may have won back their grassroots back after independence.
I see some of them have broken ranks and started a Labour for Independence movement. Good on them.
Finally, it’s quite extraordinary that Kezia Dugdale’s father is a member of the SNP. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Wouldn’t like to be a round that table for Sunday roast!
Thanks a lot
Appreciated
Very cogently put. It resonates with me.
Absolutely agree Independence supporters are not anti-English, I am English and have lived and worked all over Scotland in the last 20 years and I have only had one anti-English experience and ironically it was from an elderly No voter, when I was running a local Yes stall in 2014. He told me to ‘Go Home!!’, I said that as that was only going to be about six miles away it probably wouldn’t help him very much. I assume he was scared and just totally flummoxed to find what he must have considered a living oxymoron. He probably thought how could I as an English person support Scottish Independence. So I take that one incident as the exception that proves the rule.
Scotland and its independence supporters are outward looking and interested in the many ways to run a country well. There is really nothing like the opportunity of a freshly independent country to make you assess what exists currently and what might work better. I thought I was well informed pre-2014 but in reality I wasn’t. What the last independence referendum did was make me examine the structure of the UK state, how Westminster is run and how it manages things. I then compared this to various modern northern european democracies (and also our own Holyrood, which pleasingly runs 9-5.30, has a creche, uses buttons to vote etc etc). I realised then that Westminster is never going to change, its never going to move to Manchester or operate like a normal modern democracy. Too many people except the status quo and indeed love the ‘tradition’.
That pre-independence journey is what got me reading your work Richard back in 2013, finding out about the enormous unwieldy UK tax code, I thought a newly independent Scotland could have a short, logical tax system. How about taxing assets like they do in Denmark or a Land Value Tax. Anyhow just to say thanks for opening my eyes to the un-reliabilty of GERS.
Your points about the anachronisms of Westminster are well made
Scotland is wisely avoiding many of them
Using PR is a start, of course…and my be retained
Support for another referendum is only around a third of Scots – and were it to be held again today the leave camp would still lose, though possibly by a smaller margin.
The SNP are a single issue campaign group. Their stewardship of Scotland has hardly been a shining example of governance, given the problems Scotland are facing with education and the NHS, which have both suffered under the SNP (despite receiving more money per head of population than rUK).
Then of course we have the SNP’s MPs themselves. I’m not sure how you have come to the conculsion that they have more “real world experience” than the MP’s from other parties, but certainly they have their fair share of bad apples. From memory three of them are being investigated for wrongdoing, including one being charged with fraud.
Sounds to me that you are busy trying to win favour from the SNP after burning your bridges with the Labour party.
Support for Brexit was about I one third of the U.K.
And no I am not seeking favour: I have no desire for political office or favour. I am interested in what works and does not politically and ditto economically
If I’d wanted office I’d have run for it
“Support for Brexit was about I one third of the U.K.”
The referendum was 52% in favour….you simply cannot count those who didn’t vote as a vote against. It doesn’t work like that.
The current polling for Scottish independence shows little change from the last “once in a generation” vote. The polling for another referendum at all stands little over a third.
Has anyone told you you’re a pedant?
There is no evidence for anything you say here about support for a referendum or Scottish public services. These are simply opposition soundbites which are repeated ad nauseam by a lazy and dishonest media for the benefit of the gullible.
Some simple research would show you that Scotland’s health service performs rather well and, failing that simple research effort, you might want to ask yourself why the chaos reported nightly from the English health service does not feature in Scotland. Is that due to ‘more money’ (aka the old subsidy lie) or is it due to much better integration of all health branches and of health and social care in a service free from the disintegrating effects of privatisation ?
Single issue parties do not govern for ten years with support throughout of around 50% of the electorate.
I cross the Border between Scotland and England regularly. As an expert in such matters could Richard advise as to the most profitable goods I might ship back and forth in the large white van I intend to purchase should these two countries end up in quite different trading blocs?
Sigh……
If VAT were imposed on food in one of the countries we could see van loads of meat and cheese being smuggled !
I think that Scots like myself who live in England should be allowed a vote in any referendum on independence, as if the SNP does win, it leaves us as having to apply to become citizens of a diminished ‘Little England” (as British nationality will no longer exist) which is not what we want to become or maybe being deported to Scotland as undesirable aliens !
I’m hoping I might be allowed in…..
I’m not sure I understand how Mrs May makes it into the top two. The only reason I can think of is that people believe she will be successful in achieving what she seems to have dedicated the last nine months to; torpedoing Brexit from the inside.
Steven Tyler,if you bothered to check your facts you wouldn’t have bothered to post. Take look at what SNP has actually achieved and be prepared for some head scratching. Not what the papers are saying? Not what the BBC are reporting? Who knew?
https://www.snp.org/record
Oh come off it! Are you saying we should judge the SNP’s record by what they say on their website? Pull the other one Grace.
International surveys have shown that Scotland’s education system is poor https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/06/english-schools-core-subject-test-results-international-oecd-pisa
Same with health care.
People such as Richard are mistaken if they believe Sturgeon is universally liked in Scotland. Many Scots can’t stand her. She’s just a normal politician in that regard.
As for the quality of SNP MPs, I recall Private Eye did a spotlight series on about a dozen SNP MPs after they were elected at the general election 2015. Turns out they have as many miscreants, shysters and crooks as any other political party.
The SNP is a single issue party. It is in the business of campaigning, not governing, because its domestic record is so poor. Day to day matters such as health and education are a chore, a distraction from the only issue which they have anything to say about – independence. Government is a distraction for these people. In that respect, May and Sturgeon are remarkably similar, with Brexit being May’s equivalent of Scottish independence.
So, you don’t like the SNP. I did not say you should
But objectively they’re the best political operation in the UK right now. You may not like it, but that’s fact
……………..”Turns out they have as many miscreants, shysters and crooks as any other political party”. That may well be true, but as with the current 29 Tories under investigation for electoral fraud, let’s wait for the official verdict.
1. Independence is for the Scots to decide.
2. Why should I believe the polls, especially yougov, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the conservatives!
3. Every Scot I know, and I know a fair few, would vote for independence.
4. If you have Irish or Scottish family, apply for their citizenship!
England: A sinking ship.
Isn’t the only feasible way forward some sort of proper federal structure for a new uk trading block? The situation relating to Scotland, Northern Island and Gibraltar is being ignored, as if the majorities there did not matter, for goodness sake!I’m sorry to say that if the survival of the Tory party is at stake, then its back to the 1970s bloodshed and bitter conflict .Just look at the competence of David Davies as our Tory Brexit flagwaver if you don’t believe that scenario is possible.
Surely the work needed to renovate the Houses of Parliament is the right time to create a new centre of governance and create a new accountable democratic structure at the same time.
I’m also very concerned about nationalist fragmentation playing into the hands of Murdoch and other trans national companies. There again, VWs diesel- gate activities show how much use the EU was! Where next, Richard?
I think I have answered this with my comments on Gordon Brown