SNP. Why Are They Thriving?

[BashfulAnthony]

It's not just the SNP who are thriving; so are the Greens, UKIP, and I think just about anyone but the main Parties.  I believe people are turning to these others because of the disillusion with the established order.

[Jack Knave]

There are a variety of reasons.

1. If you are outside Scotland it is perhaps easy to forget that the SNP are not just a fringe party - they are the government in Scotland for all the devolved powers, which are increasing following the referendum result, and I'd have to say they have done a reasonable job of it.

2. The SNP here in Scotland (and I haven't ever voted for them as yet) are clearly more competent than Scottish Labour of late, who are the only serious opposition to the SNP here, but they have imploded in recent years due to poor leadership and links with the main UK Labour party. I doubt that parachuting in Jim Murphy will be enough to save them.

3. The result of the referendum last year, and the frantic last minute interventions by Gordon Brown etc, might have achieved a No result but not by a decisive margin given that 45% of Scots wanted out of the UK. Independence is still an aim for many Scots, as the post-referendum rise in support for the SNP since then suggests, and it seems that those Labour supporters who voted Yes last September (as I did) will now switch their vote to the SNP in May (as I will).

4. The situation as regards Scottish MP's in Westminster is that should the SNP gain substantially from Labour here in Scotland the shift in numbers could be sufficient to deny Labour either an outright majority or enough seats to go into a coalition: the Tories are not a factor here, and the Lib-Dems are likely to be routed as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories, and depending on the number of SNP seats won then the SNP could have a greater influence in Westminster.

5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.

Whatever happens it should be interesting!

   

Interesting observations and I'd mostly agree.

But on 4 - be careful what you wish for. Sure the Tories aren't in the game in Scotland, but all this means is that redistributing seats in Scotland merely moves around the non Tory seats between other parties. Given that pretty well all political observers think we will be in hung parliament territory again after May the issue will be whether we end up with a Tory lead coalition (or minority) government or a Labour lead coalition (or minority) government. Nothing else is really likely given the polls.

Who is in government will likely depend on which of Labour or the Tories have most seats. So every seat the SNP takes off Labour is one seat nearer to ensuring a Tory lead government after the election.

So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:

1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).

or

2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).

The only fault I see with that analysis is that I believe any coalition will involve at least three parties which will hamper the larger party from doing anything near what they would desire, or be ideal for them, and could result in a GE 18 months later. So on that outcome the threat that if you vote SNP you get Tory is very weak just as it is to say if you vote UKIP you get Labour.

[Jack Knave]

So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:

1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).

or

2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).

Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture.  Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes.  The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre.  The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.

This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.

The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.

Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.

And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?

[ProfessorDavey]

So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:

1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).

or

2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).

Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture.  Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes.  The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre.  The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.

This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.

The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.

Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.

And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?

And there lies the slightly bizarre anomaly.

The SNP are more likely to achieve a Labour coalition by doing less well. If the SNP take enough seats off Labour the result is likely to be that the Tories have the most seats and will therefore run the next government.

Stange but true.

[Nearly Sane]

Er no it's not. In addition to being  the largest party, any party forming a govt would have to be able to face a vote on forming that govt. If both Lab and Snp were capable of a majority then they could stop any Tory attempt to form a govt.

[Jack Knave]

So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:

1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).

or

2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).

Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture.  Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes.  The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre.  The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.

This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.

The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.

Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.

And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?

And there lies the slightly bizarre anomaly.

The SNP are more likely to achieve a Labour coalition by doing less well. If the SNP take enough seats off Labour the result is likely to be that the Tories have the most seats and will therefore run the next government.

Stange but true.

Not strange because I can do the maths and worked out the logic of it ages ago. But you didn't address my poser. For your scheme to work the Scots would have to get together and decide who is going to vote which way to get your desired effect of a Labour coalition with the SNP. I don't think SNP voters are going to buy your fear factor approach to make them vote Labour; who they now pretty much hate - and for good reason!!!

[Anchorman]

This relatively unbiased analysis of the Ashcroft and Yougove polls at the start of this month makes interesting reading.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/02/labour-still-deep-trouble/


I'm surprised (or possibly not) that the election of a new leader to the Scottish Labour branch office didn't generate much of a feel good factor.

[Gordon]

My intention is to vote SNP. I fully recognise the result of the referendum last year but, and like many other Scots, I would still like to see Scotland become independent.

The best hope for that would be a UK scenario whereby independence for Scotland becomes a serious option as the result of very different UK political conditions post-May than those of 2014. For example, should the Tories lead the next UK government and there is a UK-wide EU referendum that results in a differing view in Scotland compared to England and Wales, that may be a political scenario in which the UK as it stands just isn't viable.

As I said earlier, it looks like becoming a game of political musical chairs with more permutations, and therefore greater uncertainty, than is usually the case.

[ProfessorDavey]

Er no it's not. In addition to being  the largest party, any party forming a govt would have to be able to face a vote on forming that govt. If both Lab and Snp were capable of a majority then they could stop any Tory attempt to form a govt.

Firstly it isn't a foregone conclusion that a minority government cannot govern - the politics are rather complicated. Parties that bring down a government have to think very carefully how that might be perceived by the electorate in what would almost certain involve a second general election. If the Tories had the most seats (and therefore probably in the eyes of the electorate the greatest 'right' to lead a government) how would it be perceived if that government was brought down by a party with less seats and a party that only stands for election in Scotland. Hmm not convinced I'd buy the likelihood of the electorate taking kindly to those parties in a subsequent general election.

But of course you are right in theory, but this is really an issue about preventing a Labour overall majority - but no-one is seriously suggesting this as likely. So in the territory where Labour doesn't have an overall majority but Labour + SNP do then whether the SNP has a few more or a few less doesn't markedly affect the situation as they are borrowing one from the other. Until, of course, Labour ends up with less seats than the Tories in which case the default would be that the Tories will claim should legitimately be able to form the next Government, and if thwarted in doing so by parties with fewer seats would almost certainly go for a 'snap' Autumn election (which they can still do under the rules but just need a vote) - Labour and the SNP would be dead in the water if they prevented this if they were thwarting/trying to bring votes of no confidence.

So overall the best scenario for the SNP in terms of power and influence is that Labour are the largest party but don't have an overall majority - but of course the latter doesn't seem on the cards and the greatest threat to the former is, well, the SNP themselves.

Strange times.

[Hope]

As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'.  If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days?   

[Nearly Sane]

Just to pick up on Prof D's post, I apologise that my post might be unclear and this has lead to a misinterpretation. I didn't mean to suggest that the parties bring down a formed govt and cause a further election. Rather after the election the parties have to negotiate to see who could form a govt. If there is an absolute majority between lab and Snp then they could even without a formal coalition stop anyone else forming the govt, and then by agreeing to have a support in place either enter in to a formal coalition or a minority Labour Govt with support on a case by case basis.

[Anchorman]

As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'.  If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days?   

A falag is only important because of the concept it represents.
The concept of this disunited Kingdom which the butcher's apron represents would be anathema to many nationalists regardless of the artificiallity of the flag.

[OH MY WORLD!]

So what exactly makes the Union Jack artificial? Your old hatreds? Look what those English did to my great, great blah, blah , blah. Poor mistreated Scotlandshire!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v56nJU-8S0

[Anchorman]

So what exactly makes the Union Jack artificial? Your old hatreds? Look what those English did to my great, great blah, blah , blah. Poor mistreated Scotlandshire!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v56nJU-8S0

Don't you mean the union flag?
A Jack is a naval ensign.
What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?


Since you're fond of links, here's one from the BBC, no less...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20966371

So, since there's nothing enshrined in law, using it as an alternative to toilet roll is quite in order!

[Hope]

What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?

It isn't as simple as that, Anchor in that there is evidence that the 'St Patrick's' saltire was used to represent Ireland before it was adopted by the Order of St Patrick - a British chivalric order - in 1783.  As such, the fact that the part of Ireland most associated with Britain remains in the UK suggests that its retention was actually more representative than it had been of Ireland as a whole.

[ProfessorDavey]

As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'.  If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days?   

A falag is only important because of the concept it represents.
The concept of this disunited Kingdom which the butcher's apron represents would be anathema to many nationalists regardless of the artificiallity of the flag.

Why is it anymore artificial than the notion of a country with a border drawn on a map.

Nations are completely artificial constructs too. Sure some (purely Island nations) make sense geographically, but anywhere where there is a land border is artificial.

[jakswan]

So, since there's nothing enshrined in law, using it as an alternative to toilet roll is quite in order!

Sounds like nationalism to me, Brits always such rebels.

[Anchorman]

What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?

It isn't as simple as that, Anchor in that there is evidence that the 'St Patrick's' saltire was used to represent Ireland before it was adopted by the Order of St Patrick - a British chivalric order - in 1783.  As such, the fact that the part of Ireland most associated with Britain remains in the UK suggests that its retention was actually more representative than it had been of Ireland as a whole.

-
if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.

[Hope]

if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.

And from where were they originally 'planted'?  Mostly Scotland, if my understanding of Irish history is correct.   

[Anchorman]

if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.

And from where were they originally 'planted'?  Mostly Scotland, if my understanding of Irish history is correct.   

-
James VI certainly planted Scots Protestants, Hope - but the Tudors beat him to it, planting English families in the Dublin area - and the infamous 'pale'. Besides, you can bet that any family with a surname starting "Fitz", has Anglo-Norman roots.

[BashfulAnthony]

Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon  last week,  and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be.  She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.

[Anchorman]

Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon  last week,  and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be.  She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.

I first met Nicola when she was a teenager.
I've met her a few times since, and, as far as I'm concerned, she's far less tractable than Salmond ever was - and more left leaning.

[Rhiannon]

Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon  last week,  and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be.  She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.

I missed that. What were her ideas about how Scotland would cope with the low oil prices tgat are predicted for the next few years and how does she propose to support those areas tgat will be taking huge hits in the current slashing of jobs and projects in the oil and gas sector?

[Rhiannon]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/oil-prices-plummet-leading-academic-4800452

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/08/nicola-sturgeon-denies-oil-price-plunge-harm-scotland

Where Sturgeon is correct is tge the UK governments have mismanaged the oil and gas industry. The coalition were given expert advice on how to maximise the industry's potential and protect it from a crash exactly like tge one we have now and Osbourne junked it in favour of Justine Greening's (erroneous) advice that a windfall tax was a vote winner. The result was mothballing of projects and a mistrust of the UK government within the industry that of course affected Scotland the most.

Where she is talking crap however is the idea that we will be seeing hundred dollar barrel oil prices by 2016. If the industry (and Scotland) are lucky $70 dollar prices will be reached some time in the next five years but nobody expects to see $100 dollar/barrel anytime soon, if ever, and even that doesn't touch the $113 the SNP modelled their economic policy on. Leaving aside Sturgeons admission that Scotland would have effectively got lucky in avoiding 2015 oil prices (presumably official policy is to cross one's fingers that it didn't happen again) the best estimates are for a fifty dollar/barrel deficit between forecast and reality in oil price in a fledgling economy with no stable currency, no reserves and a reputation for reneging (or threatening to renege) on its debt.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where she is talking crap however is the idea that we will be seeing hundred dollar barrel oil prices by 2016. If the industry (and Scotland) are lucky $70 dollar prices will be reached some time in the next five years but nobody expects to see $100 dollar/barrel anytime soon, if ever, and even that doesn't touch the $113 the SNP modelled their economic policy on. Leaving aside Sturgeons admission that Scotland would have effectively got lucky in avoiding 2015 oil prices (presumably official policy is to cross one's fingers that it didn't happen again) the best estimates are for a fifty dollar/barrel deficit between forecast and reality in oil price in a fledgling economy with no stable currency, no reserves and a reputation for reneging (or threatening to renege) on its debt.

Given how reliant an independent Scottish economy would be on oil and the current oil price I think we can safely say that Scotland dodged a bullet last September. Had they attained independence it would have been serious squeaky bum time in Holyrood economy central at the moment.

The overall UK economy can readily ride the vagaries of oil price fluctuations - the Scottish economy on its own couldn't.