Be Careful What You Wish For

Recall the reaction of Brenda from Bristol on 18th April when the British General Election was announced: ‘You’re joking! Not another one! Oh, for God’s sake. Honestly, I can’t stand this…’. Brenda had experienced: the 2015 General Election, 2016 Brexit referendum, the 2017 English council elections, and was about to undergo the 2017 General Election. Imagine the reaction of a mythical Helen from Huntly, who had undergone: the 2014 Independence referendum, the 2015 BGE, the 2016 Scottish parliament election, the Brexit vote also in 2016, the council elections in 2017, and then the British General Election (BGE) in 2017. That’s six, to Brenda’s four; all in the space of three years. Perhaps we can understand the scunner factor, especially as Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention on 13th March to have a second ScIndyRef in the next few years.

One month later, Theresa May announced the British General Election. Sturgeon appeared to have done all the right, and obvious, things since the Brexit vote: maintaining contact with May, trying to close off any suggestion that she was jumping the referendum gun (‘now is not the time’), only to be confronted by force majeure.  Having made her bed, she had to lie in it, giving the Scottish Conservatives in particular the issue they craved: ‘saving the Union’. So they fought the local council elections in May 2017 on the constitutional question, not on local service provision, the ‘day job’ of local councillors.

If we had paid particular attention to the local election results a month before, we might have read the runes. If we exclude the vote for ‘Independent’ councillors (10%), and focused on the first preference vote shares of the four main parties, compared this with vote share in BGE 2017, we would have found the following:

Remarkably close, but in the event, not much remarked upon.

The 2017 General Election will possibly be remembered for two ‘mistakes’: May’s search for a mandate to negotiate Brexit based on a landslide victory; and Sturgeon’s manoeuvre to lay a second IndyRef on the table once the outcome of Brexit was sufficiently clear. It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event, and to treat as ‘obvious’ what is anything but, given hindsight being the wonderful thing it is meant to be.

So what does BGE 2017 mean for Scottish politics? The return of multi-party politics – which were there despite the crudities of first-past-the-post. The old saw about the versatility of ‘one club’ politics were there to behold. Second, the revival of the Tories in Scotland, virtually doubling their share of the vote in two years. Third, Labour’s hanging-on-in-there, up almost three percentage points on 2015.

With results come challenges: put simply, what do parties do for an encore? The SNP has to govern without the prospect of ScIndyRef2, and a Scottish Parliament Election in 2020 to boot, which presents challenges enough. The Tories have to face the possibility of their referendum fox being shot, which means they have to get on with their day jobs, at both local and national levels. Labour, whose vote in Scotland was 13 points below the UK party share, has to rediscover its mojo, to work out what it is actually for, and where it stands on the Scottish question. Lib-Dems remain firmly in their niche. Over all of this hangs the vulnerability of the current UK Conservative government, faced with negotiating Brexit. The message? Be careful what you wish for next time around.

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to

David McCrone's picture
post by David McCrone
University of Edinburgh
12th June 2017

Latest blogs

  • 20th July 2018

    Richard Parry reviews a fast-evolving situation as the march of time and need to reconcile rhetoric and practicality constrain policy-makers

  • 13th July 2018

    The White Paper published this week talks about the UK Government making ‘sovereign decisions’ to adopt European rules but, as we know from the experience of Norway and Switzerland, this can be an illusory sovereignty when the costs of deviating from the rules is exclusion from the single market or European programmes. CCC Director Professor Michael Keating looks at whether the UK is ready for this kind of deal.

  • 12th July 2018

    Last week the government released its fisheries white paper. While most of the fisheries and Brexit debate centres on quotas and access to waters, there is also an important devolution dimension. Brexit already has profound consequences for the UK’s devolution settlement and fisheries policy is one example of this. So, in addition to communicating its overall vision for post-Brexit fisheries policy, the white paper was also an opportunity for the government to set out how it would see that policy working in the devolved UK.

  • 4th July 2018

    At the same time as Parliament prepares to ‘take back control’ from Brussels, the executive is in fact accruing to itself further control over the legislative process. CCC Fellow Professor Stephen Tierney addresses a number of trends – only some of which are a direct consequence of the unique circumstances of Brexit – which suggest a deeper realignment of institutional power within the constitution and a consequent diminution of Parliament’s legislative power.

  • 27th June 2018

    Faced with a choice between splitting her Cabinet into winners and losers, Theresa May has sought to keep the Brexit crap game going. She does this by avoiding betting on either a hard or soft Brexit. Professor Richard Rose of Strathclyde looks at the high stakes outcomes facing the Prime Minister. .

Read More Posts