Scottish politics thread

which reduced them to one MP and a huge loss of MSPs.

I dont think any of us can ignore last week TJ. Nor the MSP voting intention polling that has them currently neck and neck with the SNP. That’s a party that took a severe kicking, but not a party that was “finished”.

Yes that is correct.  My guess is at the next holyrood election labour will be the biggest party but even with lib dem support too small to create a functioning government.  what happens next?  MY guess is they will do a deal with the Tories to freeze out the SNP and that will be very damaging

Two sets of assumptions in there tho – so its just a discussion point

Two sets of assumptions in there tho – so its just a discussion point

Yep, interesting points too. It just stood out to me that “I’ve heard this before”.

I suspect there’s some differences between our two Westminster constituencies that result in different perspectives. Such as Reform getting 7.7% of the vote and double what the Lib Dems or Greens managed, almost triple Alba, and only 0.1% behind the Conservatives.

I have finnally had time to look at the scots results a bit more.  Much as I suspect6ed the vagaries of FPTP have really mucked it up with labour the beneficiaries hugely.

Labour 37 mps on 35% of the vote

SNP 9 on 30%

Lib dems 6 on 10%

tories 5 on 12%

Reform 0 on 7%

Greens zero on 4%

I reckon give it a couple of years and the Starmer Govt will introduce some form of PR across the UK, and all the smaller Party’s, including the Tories, will support it.

Yes the SNP got a kicking, but we did have a different ‘battle’ to win.

I may be mis-remembering but didn’t Alex Salmond only get his first finance bill through with the support of the Tories? I’m sure they were after a commitment for 1,000 more police and AS was happy to oblige. Of course, he was also unable to pull the funding for the Edinburgh tram project as he was outvoted on that one by a “grand coalition” of all the opposition.

Both true Scotroutes – but that was with Goldie – a reasonable and able Tory ( as much as such a thing exists) and because labour and lib dems will automatically vote down anything from the SNP .

He did what he had to do.  Thats how holyrood is supposed to work but labour refused to co operate on anything.  Just concentrated on wrecking .so it was accept a reasonable compromise from Goldie or collapse the government.  Goldie was also smart enough to make her price something Salmond could live with.

Again just makes my point that Labour have behaved badly in Holyrood.  They could have had huge influence in Holyrood but squandered it all on wrecking not co operating.

On that first finance bill labour could have said – do this or do that and we will support or abstain – instead they just vote down anything the SNP want.  Refused to even discuss compromise

Yes that is correct.  My guess is at the next holyrood election labour will be the biggest party but even with lib dem support too small to create a functioning government.  what happens next?  MY guess is they will do a deal with the Tories to freeze out the SNP and that will be very damaging

I think there’s a lot of water to pass under the bridge first and you might just find Starmer shows them how to lead not fight.  I’d be amazed to see any formal deal with the tories, unless the next Scottish tory leader does the sensible thing and breaks the party away from toxic WM Tories.  They are still fairly toxic from the Thatcher years north of the border, so probably a generation before they are partner-able at holyrood in the public eye without contaminating their partners.  In a two vote system Reform should be able to do better, but I think that may overstate why people were voting reform in the first place.

If I was Starmer I’d promise a mechanism for a nation to decide to leave the union (probably with a high barrier like 50% of the electorate voting yes).  That would flip the discussion from Nats bad and Unionist good to – Nats don’t have the maths, but we’ve provided the route out if enought Scots want it – nobody is being held against their will.

If I was Starmer I’d promise a mechanism for a nation to decide to leave the union (probably with a high barrier like 50% of the electorate voting yes)

High barrier? Did you mean 60%? Seems more decisive to me rather than a statistical blip.

I dont think any of us can ignore last week TJ.

Certainly can’t ignore Alba losing their deposit on every single seat they stood in. Says a lot for the hardcore indy vote or maybe nothing at all as enough people don’t like them and see them for what they are.

I certainly think if Starmer plays this right he could change a lot of minds. So far he’s making the right noises, if he under promises and over delivers then at least nobody can accuse him of breaking pledges. Who knows, I’d be delighted to have my previous conceptions proven wrong.

High barrier? Did you mean 60%? Seems more decisive to me rather than a statistical blip.

No 50% of the ELECTORATE not the votes cast.

The other thing Starmer could do is increase devolution dramatically – like we were promised a decade ago.

Personally I would be happy with a proper federal UK.  I have said for a long time a Commission to look at the UKs constitutional setup in its entirety including PR$, Lords abolition, devolution etc.

50% of the electorate is a ridiculously high barrier when a 70% turnout is high.  Thats just saying you can never have it.  Dictatorship of the minority.

No 50% of the ELECTORATE not the votes cast.

Ah, yes, that makes more sense.

I reckon give it a couple of years and the Starmer Govt will introduce some form of PR across the UK

I reckon that’s just wishful thinking, unfortunately. There are several compelling pressures against it, including:

– no party in power wants to give up the prospect of a further 5 years in power at the next election

– PR would destroy the two main parties, as they would both fragment into more narrow left and right versions of themselves – it’s a brave leader who would choose to do that to the party

–  it is such a massive constitutional change that it would have to be a clear manifesto commitment or involve a referendum – and we have seen just how predictable they are.

If we assume that Labour do win in 26 but don’t get a majority and with the SNP as second largest party, it would be daft for the SNP to oppose everything Labour bring forward. That is what Labour did from 2007 onwards and all it got Labour will have been 19 years in opposition

It seems like it is frequently claimed here that Scottish Labour are little more than a branch office of the UK Labour Party. If this is the case why would the Scottish Labour be permitted to go into coalition with the party who are Labour’s official opposition at Westminster?

No 50% of the ELECTORATE not the votes cast.

Oh, if that’s the new bar then I want to also see it for EVERY election. :wacko:

1 If they don’t they may not be able to get some/any legislation passed.

2 There may not be any formal public agreement but “backstairs” negotiations on every proposed bill.

3 Scottish Tories might split from their UK counterparts.

Ah, yes, that makes more sense.

And you’d be happy with this for everything, even stuff you’re in favour of?

Quite agree gordimhor.

Good point Chris – I think the hatred of the SNP would drive them that way.  I do not think the maths will add up so that either labour or SNP can get even close to a majority and even lib dem MSPs well not be enough for labour to govern.  I do not think labour would be able to get a finance bill thru without either SNP or Tory support and I believe they would choose tory

One of ther things I expect a labour administration to do is to align further with Westminster – so increased privitisation of the NHS, No more scottish child payment, no more free tertiary education, no more free personal care. because apparently these things are unaffordable in England.  But maybe they will be sensible and produce a finance bill that the SNP could support but I doubt it

My guess is at the next holyrood election labour will be the biggest party but even with lib dem support too small to create a functioning government.

I think the hatred of the SNP would drive them that way.

Well, of course TJ, if Labour government didn’t have a majority, it would only have trouble functioning if the SNP couldn’t get over its tribal hatred of Labour to work together on issues thay they agree on.

There would be lots of opportunities for the SNP to vote with a Labour government considering you think there is nothing between them aside from constitutional issues. Apart from health. And education. And personal care.

I believe the SNP would work with them but labour will refuse.  thats certainly fits in with the history of the last 20 years of Scots politics.  What the SNP will not do is give unquestioning support – it will have to be discussion and tradeoffs – like mature PR democracies.  the SNP have shown willingness to work with anyone.  Scots labour will not work with the SNP or Greens – see their behaviour on Edinburgh council.

Its obvious that Scots labour would rather work with the tories than the SNP – thats the reality of what we see.  Ian Murray was the founder of the labour / tory pact.  That must have been done with consent from London

And you’d be happy with this for everything, even stuff you’re in favour of?

Yes, and FYI I’ve never been opposed to independence. I said before the referendum was even made certain it should be a 60% or similarly significant majority. Something so significant should never be allowed to pass thanks to a statistical blip, we’ve all seen where that leads.

Yes, and FYI I’ve never been opposed to independence. I said before the referendum was even made certain it should be a 60% or similarly significant majority. Something so significant should never be allowed to pass thanks to a statistical blip, we’ve all seen where that leads.

No Govt in my lifetime has had 50% of the vote, never mind 50% of the electorate – full on Catch-22.

What are you on about? I’m talking about a referendum, not an election.

What are you on about? I’m talking about a referendum, not an election.

Well, sure, but referenda have no particular constitutional status in this country, and if the requirement for approval was 50% or 60% of the electorate, then the status quo would never change.

Well no, but since we’re talking hypotheticals what does that matter? :unsure:

Someone proposed another independence referendum with 50% of the electorate as a threshold. I agreed and when challenged gave the basis for that.

Nobody is talking about elections or where referenda sit constitutionally.

I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.

I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.

I don’t. I think it should be part of the devolution settlement for all of the constituent nations. Much like I feel each devolution settlement should be the same for all.

I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.

This is a total non-issue, a circlejerk that makes absolutely sod all difference to the actual lives of ordinary people. It’s a grievance complex looking for a grievance. There is already a totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine. There is zero legal problem for nationalists. The problem has been a failure of support among the electorate when it comes to the crunch. Instead of spending blethering about an academic non-problem that would takes years of tedious discussion to “solve”, nationalists should focus on making the idea more attractive.

Another referendum is a long ways away, the SNP and others were desperate for it after Brexit, as it would have been an easier win for them to get, but now, it’s gone the other way unfortunately, governing has done the SNP no favours recently, world conflicts are making leaving the UK a concern, and the EU are moving right of centre and all focus is on Ukraine, it’s not an easy route to providing assurance that independence will work out better in the long run with so much unknowns around.

Over the next 5 years Scotland needs to get as much out of this Labour government as it can, and eek out as much powers as it can get to strengthen areas that it could have positive management off.

There is already a totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine

Really?  What is that?  Ask for permission cap in hand to Westminster?  NI has a legal and transparent route to reunification.  Scotland does not have one to independence.  Its in the gift of Westminster

the SNP and others were desperate for it after Brexit,

covid came along and Sturgeon made the judgement that it was not the right time ( much to the chagrin of many in the independence movement)- and anyway Westminster would not allow another referendum.

What precisely is this “totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine” then?

What precisely is this “totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine” then?

The instant removal of all people who use the word ‘lorne’ to refer to square sausage.

What precisely is this “totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine” then?

The exact same one that happened in 2014. You don’t have a legal problem. You have a “not enough people are convinced independence is a good idea” problem.

ETA: this is a classic example of how obtuse, abstruse (and dare I say caboose) grievance politics about legalistic constitutional toss sucks the air out of Scottish politics.

So nothing that the scots can do about it – its just go begging to Westminster cap in hand.  If westminster refuses then nowt we can do about it.  Transparent maybe.  Fair certainly not.  Why could we not have a clause like they do in NI?

Why could we not have a clause like they do in NI?

A clause in what? Think it through.

This is such a boring, oxygen-sucking conversation that is only of interest to constitutional law enthusiasts. It is of precisely zero practical use. I am going to do myself a favour and never discuss independence or this constitutional toss ever again. There are so many more interesting topics in Scottish politics beyond this stultifying search for marks of oppression and victimhood.

I guess that means pca can’t provide us with an example of the “totally transparent pathway to independence” which according to pca we already have

I think we could see where PCA was coming from when he dropped the ‘separatist’ term, and followed it up with the vague allusion to the SNP being a right wing populist party.

Leaving that aside, I rather suspect the independence question is very much on the back burner for the next decade if Starmer can do enough to secure a second term – I did feel that 2014 would prove to be a ‘use it or lose it’ moment, largely because I worried that Cameron would cave to the the Eurosceptics, and we’d find ourselves out of the EU and saddled with another Tory government if we didn’t seize the moment. Must admit I didn’t think the Tories would ever sink as far as they did. Whatever happens with the independence journey long term, I’ll be happy if Swinney and Starmer act on the conciliatory rhetoric of the weekend, and we see some tangible benefits to Scotland from having a Labour government in Westminster.

A clause in what? Think it through.

Added to the Scotland act like NI does for the GFA

and followed it up with the vague allusion to the SNP being a right wing populist party.

right wing?  Increasing taxes on the richer and higher benefits for the poorer?  Free tertiary education?

Populist?  Pissed off a lot of folk with the GRA and with restrictions on fishing etc.

They are left wing and follow and ideology ( currently – they may move back to the right – there is a serious debate / split in the party)

Go on PCA – its great fun watching you try to square the circle