Crivvens, the idea of an SNP-Labour coalition refuses to die. Here’s Iain Macwhirter in the Herald:
The rule seems to be that, in Scottish politics it’s easier to work constructively with parties you don’t agree with than with parties you do. Labour and the SNP now agree – independence aside – on most of the big issues, such as NHS privatisation, comprehensive education, free university tuition, more powers for Holyrood. But unfortunately they hate the sight of each other. Could they ever bury their differences? Most polls suggest that this is the coalition partnership Scots would most like to see. A grand coalition, perhaps, against the Tory cuts. Scotland’s two national parties working together for the common good.
At first glance there’s something to this. But I think it simplifis things a little too neatly and that’s before you consider the constitutional question (though, again, I agree that we might as well have a referendum and settle the matter for, as Alex Salmond recognises, a generation). In the first place, both the SNP and Labour consider themselves “Scotland’s Party”. They are opposed, certainly, to the Conservatives but they’re also opposed to Westminster, regardless of which party is in power in London. Their task is to “defend” Scotland come what may even if that means insisting that sensible public-sector reforms in England are not necessary in Scotland.It’s not going to happen. But something inside tells me that, eventually, it must. There is so little left to argue about, now that independence is on the back-burner, that the two parties are having to generate artificial controversy.
But of course it doesn’t end there. Labour see the SNP as upstart usurpers, threatening their cherished position as the “natural” party of government. The SNP membership, meanwhile, correctly view Labour as a Unionist party. With support for independence no higher now than it was when Salmond first strode into Bute House it may seem as though the constitutional question has sidled into irrelevance but it’s certainly not irrelevant to the true believers on either side.
Meanwhile, if an SNP vote can be construed as a declaration of cultural identity it’s also, in tandem or overlapping with this, an express challenge to Labour’s Caledonian hegemony. Commenter Thig ar Latha makes a point here that I’ve also insisted upon: the SNP heartlands in Perthshire, Moray and Aberdeenshire vote SNP to thwart Labour just as much as they do as an expression of national identity. The perception that the Tories were failing to bat for Scotland helped the SNP much more than SNP policies ever have. It’s about a state of mind not a question of political economy.
SNP campaigns are built upon two things: national identity and a social democratic politics it hopes will make inroads in the central belt. Sure, some nationalists believe in both arguments but for many it’s one or the other and when it comes to winning constituency seats the former has tended to be more powerful and persuasive than the latter. Not all SNP voters are to the “right” of the party leadership but many of the voters in the seats the SNP actually wins are. That doesn’t matter to them very much since, much of the time, they’re more interested in the idea of a party that will “stand up for Scotland” and one that will, at Holyrood, “stand up against Labour, Glasgow and the Central Belt”. Again, a Labour-SNP marriage at Holyrood would not, I think, be popular with SNP voters who have no great taste for west and central Scotland Labour politics.
Of course, in the unlikely event of independence one might over time expect a realignment of Scottish politics in which, even more formally than is the case at present, it becomes Glasgow and the West vs Everyone Else. That might produce a centre-right revival in the rest of the country as the differences between liberal Conservatives and conservative Nationalists slowly diminish. Alternatively, of course, the SNP could continue as a kind of catch-all party. It might want, figuratively of course, to be Fianna Fail but might actually end up more like Fine Gael.
That’s one possibility and perhaps an unlikely one. Nevertheless… As it stands, I wonder if Machwirter is making a similar mistake to that committed by some Unionist pundits four years ago. Some of them advised people to vote Labour as a means of stopping the SNP and “saving” the Union; now some on the left want an SNP vote or even an SNP-Labour coalition to “save” Scotland from the coalition at Westminster. Neither scenario is terribly appealling. Macwhirter shows why:
The two parties could put together a credible coalition programme tomorrow. The top line would be fighting the savage public spending cuts being imposed by the UK coalition. This would please Scottish voters who are fed up with the parties arguing about relatively trivial issues – such as Alex Salmond’s reluctance to publish his advice on the impact of a local income tax, or snow chaos, or upgrading the IT for collecting the tartan tax.
But of course, it’s not going to happen because the bonds of enmity are too strong between Scotland’s two tribes. Labour don’t have the courage and the SNP don’t see why they should give lacklustre Labour hacks a sniff at power. It would take a crisis of tsunami proportions to overcome this historic division. But look at the public spending numbers and you can see a big wave coming.
Even if you accept that the party manifestos are similar (independence excepted!) it does not follow that their voters are. This kind of “national government” would, essentially, pretend that Scotland is more or less a one-party place. But it isn’t and voters know that and can’t – I hope! – possibly desire this kind of outcome. Right?
Comments