Actually, what if the Tories win?

This is less of a "what if" than my previous post on Labour winning, but there's some questions I'd like to put in the (likely) event of David Cameron becoming Prime Minister this year.

Now, if the Tories take power, it will likely be on the back of a majority in England. Despite their European revival in Wales, the likelihood of them winning more than the three constituencies they currently hold is minimal. And in Scotland, where the party has been good - if unspectacular - in the Scottish Parliament (which they originally opposed) the FPTP electoral system makes it unlikely that they will return too many Scottish MPs. The party are targeting 11, I give them a shot at 5 or 6 on around 20% of the Scottish vote - but that is well short of having anything like a mandate from the Scottish people.

Not that that matters in a UK electoral context. The party will still govern the whole of the UK - the House of Commons is constituted of 600+ seats and majority of seats is all you require to govern. However, let me look a wee bit further at the difficulty facing the Tories in Scotland.

For a start, they have only 1 MP at the moment in David Mundell, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. That role has been given to him largely on account of his being their only MP for a Scottish constituency (but not their only Scottish MP - I'll come back to that). I don't think it is outwith the realm of possibilities that the Tories win a couple more Scottish seats - perhaps Peter Duncan will return in Dumfries & Galloway and John Lamont MSP will have a decent shot at Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk while there are a few other seats (Edinburgh South, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, Argyll & Bute, Stirling, Ochil & South Perthshire) where they may spring an upset. That said, even with 6 MPs representing Scottish constituencies, the party may face a problem: who to make Secretary of State for Scotland.

Now, David Mundell should be favourite (given his current status as shadow Sec State) but he holds that position only because he is the sole Tory MP north of the border. He is not perceived as a strong candidate. Similarly, while Peter Duncan has been shadow SSS previously, he was in the same position. John Lamont - if elected - would be a brave choice, given his youth and relative inexperience. But the mark against him would be he'd still be an MSP and combining 3 jobs a la Alex Salmond won't cut it. He may be a better bet for under-secretary (again, if he is elected). Alex Johnstone would be in a similar boat, but he hasn't made too many waves at Holyrood (and he's been there a good while) and indeed, is perhaps unlikely to win the seat. Any of the other newly-elected Tory MPs would be just that - newly-elected and inexperienced, hardly the commanding figure the party would want going up against Salmond.

Which leaves them in a quandary. Already facing the perception that they don't have a mandate in Scotland - a democratic deficit if you will - they now don't appear to have any MPs in Scotland fit to fill the Secretary of State's role. Which leaves them 2 - not particularly attractive - options. The first is to appoint an MP for an English constituency as Sec State. An English MP as Scottish Secretary? You can imagine how that would go down in the Scottish Parliament. But there are a couple of MPs with links to Scotland. Liam Fox would be an example, or Malcolm Rifkind - who does have experience of the role. However, the latter lost his Scottish seat in 1997 and the Scottish media are unlikely to let him forget that.

Which leaves a second option - one which Labour have availed themselves of recently, subconsciously indicating a dearth of talent on their benches. Appoint someone - with experience, gravitas, a heavyweight - to the House of Lords. Someone, perhaps, who is leading their campaign in Scotland.  Lord McLetchie of the Taxis? Perhaps not. But presumably it is an idea circulating in Tory HQ. 

Of course this move leaves them with several difficulties - not least the democratic deficit of having a Sec State for Scotland who cannot be questioned in the Commons. Equally, would he continue to sit in the Scottish Parliament? His Pentlands seat is one the Tories fought hard to win back (and he ousted Iain Gray in the process) and winning the seat without McLetchie's considerable personal vote may not prove easy in a by-election. Or could he keep his seat - and sit quietly while Annabel Goldie questions Alex Salmond at FMQs, who, presumably, would fire everything back at him as Sec State - and he'd be unable to respond.

It's an implausible situation.  How bad would it make the Secretary of State look?  How powerless?  And for Annabel Goldie, overshadowed by her predecessor - and superior in the UK party?  Would it signal her demise as leader - a position she was reluctant to take in the first place?  Of course, there might be the comedic value of a party leader asking when the FM will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, to which Salmond could look to McLetchie and say something like "garden lobby, five minutes time?".  The press, the public, the MSPs themselves would have a field day mocking McLetchie - it'd be worse than the taxi stuff.

So yes, while some questions may be answered if the Tories win (the likelihood of Gordon Brown staying on as Labour leader is minimal) many more remain.

Read more...

Referendum: "Bring it on"?

The SNP are due to announce their legislative programme for the coming session this week. This is apparently the cue for the respective party leaders in Scotland to come up with hysterical soundbites in the hope that the newspapers pick up the quotes... and that people start to recognise who they are.

It's the proposed Referendum Bill that has the opposition parties' knickers in a knot. This is despite the fact that the Scottish Government set out their plans for this when they entered office and detailed their proposed referendum in the White Paper "Choosing Scotland's Future" (pdf - page 44). So we've known for a couple of years - at the very least - what the SNP planned to do when they got an opportunity: hold a referendum on independence. But that hasn't stopped the hysterics. No no.

Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament, Iain Gray:

"Over a year ago, Labour offered the SNP a referendum on a straight question, and they ran away. Alex Salmond will only ever consider a referendum that is rigged."

"Of course people want a say in how the country is run, but right now I think they are saying that their top priority is economic recovery and protecting jobs."

Right. On point one, I think Iain Gray's memory is failing him slightly. When Wendy said "Bring it on", Gordon slapped her down, saying "Not on my watch, Missy." On point two - the idea that the referendum is rigged - total tosh. Opinion polls with the SNP's preferred question see independence do no better that on other polls. And on point three, is Iain Gray really trying to speak on behalf of other people? And how will he ever know, if he never asks them? And, presumably, if people are, in fact, more concerned with their jobs, they'd let you know that in a referendum - by voting no? Just a thought.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie:

"At home and abroad, Alex Salmond's government has been found wanting. Fewer than a quarter of the key government indicators are on track."

"Alex Salmond is leaving a trail of broken pledges and promises in his wake. On the domestic stage as on the international stage he is letting Scotland down."

Okay. I wonder what she defines as "key government indicators"? If it is key policy pledges, I'd say its probably 50/50 - for every abolition of tuition fees there's a ditching LIT. But that is minority government. And she has pledged that the Tories will support the SNP on an "issue-by-issue basis - except on a referendum."

Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott couldn't be found to give an opinion, so instead chief whip Mike Rumbles said:

"The SNP's Referendum Bill is dead in the water. This is a futile waste of taxpayer money and parliamentary time. We already know that there is strong cross-party, majority opposition to the Referendum Bill."

Which is typically undemocratic from everyone's favourite Illiberal Undemocratic party. Why bother testing public views in a referendum when we can just make the decision for ourselves? Excellent use of democratic values right there. (Quotes from Scotsman and Herald).

What is my point? Well, former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth sums up my view rather well, when he suggests that a referendum should be held as soon as possible to end the uncertainty surrounding Scotland's future. Of course he thinks it would "call Alex Salmond's bluff" to do so. And I'd probably be inclined to agree - if opinion polls are anything to go by at the moment, independence is looking less and less likely as the constitutional preference of the many in Scotland. At the moment.

Which makes the opposition parties' opposition to a referendum all the more bizarre. Here's an opportunity for them to make huge political capital out of something, the ability to have actual, physical proof that Alex Salmond and the SNP do not speak for the majority of Scots when they call for independence, yet they prefer not to allow the people a voice.

If you've read this blog before, you'll know two things about me - that I broadly support independence for Scotland and that I am a PhD candidate examining Nationalist parties in government. The second point gives me more licence to say this: I have absolutely no idea what the opposition parties in Scotland are doing on this issue. I get that it is a risk to allow people a vote on something that you are not keen on. But when polls suggest that less than a third of the electorate support that which you do not, surely it is time to take a deep breath and ask them? Then, when you get the answer you want, it kills the question for at least a generation.

Ah, but there is the problem that these are self-thinking people. I mean, what if they changed their minds? Are you really willing to bet the Union on the ability of people to make a rational decision in a referendum? Tricky... very tricky.

Read more...