The SNP has blown British politics apart – and the UK must now change if it is to survive

Paul Cairney suggests that right now, we should take a step back to think about how big this SNP win is. This article orginally appeared on The Conversation.

I sat in the media area of the Glasgow count, 50 metres from the Scottish National Party (SNP) crowd. From 2.30am, every few minutes, they would first cheer another SNP win and then gasp at the huge swing in their favour. They hoped it would happen. Maybe they even expected it. The polls suggested they would win big. Yet the expectation is not the same as the actual result. This was something else: a sense of real excitement at something remarkable happening in Scottish – and British – politics, again and again, in quick succession.

So in the hours and days to come, much will be said about the implications for UK government and the future of the union. Right now, we should take a step back to think about how big this SNP win is. In Scotland, Labour has dominated the number of seats in Westminster for decades, and the last and only time that the SNP reached double figures was in October 1974. Even after the SNP became the biggest party in the Scottish parliament in 2007, it secured only six (20%) MPs in 2010. Now it has virtually wiped the floor with the other parties on the back of record-breaking swings in its favour, and there is no such thing as a “safe seat” in Scotland (for anyone else).

Opponents of the SNP have been talking about the perils of voting for the party and the likelihood of a second independence referendum. Instead we should be talking about the SNP’s near-complete dominance of Scottish elections despite losing the first referendum. The SNP is described by its competitors as a one-aim party. It is time to put that image to bed once and for all, and to recognise its skill as a major political party.

What will he do this time?

But what of that wider constitutional question? A gaping hole has been blown in the current incarnation of that UK. When 55% voted No to Scottish independence in September 2014, David Cameron immediately linked further constitutional change in Scotland to reform in England. He made the result about two distinct audiences in Scotland and England.

To protect the union, he needs to do the same again after regaining power in Westminster: celebrating victory on the back of votes in England but respecting the Scottish result in a meaningful way. He should not simply dismiss the SNP as a soon-to-be ineffective party in opposition, sitting next to the defeated Labour party. Otherwise, he may as well kiss goodbye to the union, since the SNP is no ordinary opposition party. Let’s consider three main choices.

The temptation for the Conservatives will be to select what it sees as the safe option, to argue that Scotland voted No; the party kept its promise to hold the Smith Commission on further devolution; and that all parties signed up to its recommendations, which will be put into legislation as soon as possible.

If the party sticks with Smith, the new devolved settlement will seem dated before it is implemented. It currently has no other source of legitimacy in Scotland. This will look like just another short-term fix – another shot at constitutional tinkering after a stitch up between the UK political parties. It will not satisfy a population that just ensured an almost clean sweep of SNP seats.

A settlement that makes sense

The Conservatives could go further and give the SNP more of what it thinks it wants – such as greater movement towards fiscal autonomy (it will almost certainly not offer a second referendum, and nor should the SNP take it). Yet if it already came up with a new devolved settlement a few months ago, this response will suffer the same image problem: a quick fix by a party with minimal credibility in Scotland.

Finally the Tories could do what they promised for England: take a step back to consider the future of the union and key parts within it. To get around the legitimacy problem, it needs to propose to the SNP something like a new constitutional convention, set up with meaningful representation across civil society, to ensure that its recommendations have weight and do not seem like yet another sticking plaster produced after inadequate deliberation and consultation.

It also needs to ensure that, if more powers are devolved to Scotland, the settlement actually makes sense and can be understood easily by most people in the UK. Otherwise, David Cameron may quickly finds himself in a situation where it looks like he no longer cares about the union and Scotland’s place within it. That could take us perilously close to the abyss.

 

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 info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Paul Cairney's picture
post by Paul Cairney
University of Stirling
11th May 2015
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

Read More Posts