What have you been told about the Scottish election England?

DEAR ENGLISH FRIENDS,

I wonder what you made of the general election results coming down from north of the border on Friday morning?  If you've been taking your news from the mainstream media, including, most shamefully, the BBC, you may have been left with two images - Dire Disaster for the SNP, Total Triumph for the Tories.  Is that how it's been portrayed to you?  If so, here's a few facts that might help paint a clearer picture.

But to begin with I best clear up a couple of potentially confusing points about the Scottish political scene.  Firstly, the voting system used for Holyrood.  We get to cast two votes.  The first, for the 73 single member constituencies, uses the identical system to that employed to elect Westminster MPs.  The remainder of the 129 MSPs are elected through eight regions using a list system.  In the first vote you go for the person, in the second it's the party.

Calculating the regional results involves some complicated arithmetic using the D'Hondt method.  I'm not going to try and explain it in detail, check the above link if you want to know more.  But the primary consequence is that the more successful a party is in winning constituency seats, the less it's chance of taking seats in the regions.  This system was chosen for two reasons.  It gives minority parties (which, at the time, included the SNP) a greater chance of representation than the hugely unfair Westminster system.  And secondly, it makes it highly improbable that any single party could win an overall majority in parliament.  This 'safeguard' was included just in case the SNP increased their support to the point where they might become the government, thus, supposedly, avoiding the possibility of there ever being a majority of the parliament in favour of independence.

And if you think that sounds a bit paranoid have a look at this clip of Malcolm Bruce saying exactly that at Westminster.

Which brings me to my second 'need to know' point.  This constitutional arrangement assumed that there would only ever be the one pro-independence party, the SNP.  But that was before Indyref and the rise of the popular Yes Movement.  In 2016 we had at least three other pro-indy parties in the election.  So don't make the common error of assuming that the SNP and the Yes Movement are the same thing.  (An easy mistake to make of course, even the SNP seem to be guilty of it at times....)  There are Yes voters, like myself, who do not consider themselves to be nationalists.  Equally there have been many people voting SNP in past two years who are yet to be convinced of the merits of full separation, but now see the Nats as the natural party of the centre left in Scottish politics.

In 2011 the SNP broke the system.  They got that absolute majority they were never intended to get.  But that only came on the back of the perfect storm, having few enough consituency wins for them to have some success in the regions.  The result gave them 53 constituency MSPs and13 from the regions, a total well clear of the 65 needed for outright majority.  This time round they were actually more successful - and suffered for it as the system did what it was designed to do.  59 constituencies returned an SNP candidate, so in five of the regions there wasn't really a cat in hell's chance of them getting any list MSPs, despite having a substantially larger number of votes than other parties.  The results from the Glasgow region show what I mean.

Overall the SNP increased the number of votes they received nationally, and polled about 46% in the constituency vote, 42% in the regions.  In the end they were just a few hundred votes short of getting the two extra seats needed for the magic 65.  But that had never seemed likely in the first place.  This was an administration chasing it's third term in office after all.

The SNP are, once again, to form the government.  They remain by far the most popular party in the country, but will now have to adopt a more consensual style, seeking agreement from at least one other party each time they want to legislate.  This sounds like a positive to me.  And it certainly doesn't sound like any kind of disaster.

As for that Tory triumph....  They took 22.0% of the constituency vote.  Marginally behind, yes behind, the 22.6% Labour got.  They did do better in the regions, but still only just made it to 23% (with Labour on 19%, not all that far behind).  In seat numbers the Conservatives won that battle 31 to 24, but the underlying figures show the real difference to be far less than that.  And both parties put together fall well behind the SNP's totals, whether measured in votes or seats.  Some triumph.

Looking back over recent decades, in Westminster elections the Tories have usually polled at around 15%, always under the 20 mark.  In the previous Holyrood election, in 2011, they were barely scraping the 14%.  So 22% does represent a substantial increase.  But it hasn't been at the expense of the SNP.  Instead this increase has more to do with Labour passing them - going the wrong way.  And here it's worth looking at the Tory campaign.

There were two key elements.  The first was to try and pretend not to be Tory.  Much of their campaign literature seems to have avoided much use of the word 'Conservative'.  In it's stead we were being asked to elect Ruth Davidson of the Ruth Davidson party.  No matter what the media might like to tell you, 'Conservative' remains a toxic word with much of the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, it was Wee Ruthie : Tank Commander (sorry, I know most of you won't get the joke, but it still makes me laugh) who wanted to make independence, and the possibility of a second Indyref, an issue in this election.  Backed up of course, by her chums at the BBC et al.  No matter how many times Sturgeon repeated that there were no plans to push for one, and that there would have to be a material change in circumstances for that to happen, Davidson wanted it to be the defining issue.

And it worked, to an extent.  It needn't have been the case, but the faultline in Scotland's political landscape is the fracture between Yes and No.  What's interesting is how that split appears to be aligning itself, more and more, with the traditional fissure between left and right.  Being pro-UK becomes ever more a right wing choice, and vice versa.  The Tories have made themselves the de facto party of No.  Not for nothing are they The Conservative and Unionist party.

But here's the thing.  There is a hard core of Scottish unionist voters who believe that remaining a part of the UK is essential to Scotland's future.  They are never, ever, going to vote SNP.  Or, probably, for any other pro-indy party.  I'd imagine that includes pretty much all of the people who voted Tory, and a percentage of those for Labour and the LibDems (remember them?).  That figure looks to be somewhere around the 30% mark.

On the other hand, there's a hard core of Nationalists who will vote Yes whatever the circumstances, and have a tribal allegiance to the SNP.  That one's harder to calculate, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that's about 30% as well.  (Personally I suspect it's higher, but that might just be my confirmation bias....)

And in the middle.... those who could fall either way, depending on events.

That looks to place a limit on the Tory 'comeback'.  They could still grow their vote, maybe get somewhere around that 30%, but it's hard to imagine, in the medium term, the seismic shift needed to see them in government here.  Especially when the Cameron regime is proving itself to be worse than even those of Thatcher.

Meanwhile the SNP are still sitting pretty.  They only need one party to support them at any one time and they have a majority.  Their most natural ally would appear to be the Greens (and I really, really, really hope they work closely with Andy Wightman on land reform!), but that won't work every time.  Personally I'd have liked to see an SNP/Green coalition, adding some much needed radicalism to Nat caution, but with only two votes needed each time I can see why that's not an option.

The one party they must not work with is Wee Ruthie's.  Not that I think she would.  The Tory leader is defining herself as the anti-Nicola, and has no place to go beyond that.  When the SNP worked with the Tories in 2007 it was through pragmatism, and predates both the arrival of Cameron and Indyref.  The latter changed the Scottish scene dramatically.  Working with Tories would be hugely damaging to Nicola - and vice versa.

That leaves two parties.  If I was Willie Rennie I'd be pimping my team at the government, offering to be of help in passing various bits of legislation.  It looks to be the once chance the LibDems have of gaining some relevance outside of their heartlands and rehabilitating them as a serious player.

The biggest question though is - Whither Labour?  Not so long ago the dominant force in the country, they are now the third party and in disarray.  They came up with some decent policies, not least on tax, but it all felt a bit half hearted.  There were even some noises about having second thoughts on Trident and maybe allowing a free vote on independence.  If Kezia had declared for Corbyn there might have been a chance, but it all came across as a bit too Blairite, and that's part of their problem.  It's a bit too close to Tory.

So they are going to have to decide which way to turn.  Work with Ruthie, thus perpetuating the 'Red Tories' label, to oppose the government?

Or look to cooperate with Bute House on progressive legislation, aiming to get back some of that centre left ground?  And, in the process, maybe acknowledging formally that there are still some Labour supporters who might well be considering independence as the best option.

This isn't an easy choice, with hatred of both Tories and the SNP being visceral within sections of the party.  Plus there's the bigger problem - it isn't necessarily their choice to make.  Previous leader Johann Lamont complained that her London masters treated Scottish Labour like a "branch office".  That might be fine for the Tories, their raison d'être even, but for Labour, and to a lesser extent the LibDems, it's becoming a drag anchor.  Will Corbyn and co have the sense to give Kez the freedom required?

Of course I write all this from my own biased standpoint.  I voted SNP/Green (for reasons I outlined in an earlier post) and am, overall, pleased with the outcome of the election.  There is still a pro-Indy majority of MSPs (I bet your English media forgot to mention that bit) and the SNP's more extreme tendencies will be curbed.  There's an outside chance we may see some more radical policies implemented than appeared in the SNP's rather managerial manifesto.

And that's important, to people like me, if the case for independence is ever to be made successfully.  With the new powers available to them, the government need to demonstrate why Scotland can be not just different, but better than the UK.  Green influence on environmental policy will be crucial in this.  Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is going to have to keep defending the cruelty and incompetence of Cameron's cronies, a brush she may regret being tarred with.  Plus we have this daft EU referendum to come, the fallout from which is uncertain.

The Daily Fail and their ilk seem to think that Friday's results have made Indy less likely.  I wouldn't be so sure about that.....

Regards,

Blyth

(If this has helped you get a clearer picture of what's going on up here please share it with your friends.  We're getting a bit fed up with being misrepresented!)