We were beginning to think you guys might be fed up of our boring election predictor chat, so we asked “The Burd” (aka Kate Higgins) if she’d like to contribute something. Â We’re delighted she said yes – so here’s her take on the week’s election campaigning.
If you didnae know there was an election on, well you ken noo. Not content with chopping down forests to swamp us in leaflets, nor disturb our peace by daring to chap at our doors or phone while we’re at our tea, those pesky political types are now hogging the headlines, the airwaves and the ether. No platform is currently safe from folk in search of votes. It will all be over soon enough…
So how are they all doing at the end of the first full week of campaigning?
The SNP:
Ah yes, the shiny happy people. Who want you to vote on their record, and for their team and vision. Except when they’re putting Alex Salmond for First Minister on the regional vote ballot paper. The first leaders’ debate on STV was a cakewalk for the former First Minister who scarcely had to change gears to swat away the opposition. They have a strategy, they have money in the bank, they have a stellar endorsement, they have momentum in the polls, they have catchy themes like Fairness Friday (okay sort of catchy), they are winning the Twitter wars…
Yep, it’s all going swimmingly: what could possibly go wrong?
Well, they’ll have to do something to make that local income tax story go away – expect Labour to make more of the what have they got to hide line in the coming weeks if not. And they definitely have to do something about the Tories courying up to them and playing the funny woman to their straight man. The Scots don’t like the Tories remember?
Labour:
Who would have thunk that we’d be talking about Labour, with its indelible right to govern stamped through Scotland like a stick of rock, as the underdogs? They might be ahead in the polls but it’s now by the slimmest of margins; Iain Gray is struggling to get recognition never mind compete on equal terms with Salmond; their website is safe but dull; all their best policies have been pinched from the SNP, and they just haven’t got the money to compete in the shiny stakes.
But they have invested in their organisation and are doing what they said they would, fighting this election on the doorsteps. Prosaically, they are battling for every vote in every target seat, especially the Liberal Democrat ones. Their theme comes straight from Private Fraser, as portrayed in the just-launched higher taxes ball and chain poster. Â And interestingly, for all that the content lacks a tangible, buzzy coherence, it does at least focus on people, unlike the issue-driven approach from the other parties.
They’re not setting the heather alight, but they’re getting on with getting on.
Scottish Conservatives:
This has been a good week for them, and in particular, their leader Annabel Goldie. After a god-awful start with the launch of their campaign overshadowed by candidate wars in Glasgow. While the other parties crowd around the centre ground, they have something distinctive to say, which at least gets them noticed, even if no one intends to vote for them. Or at least are not telling the pollsters they are. They might not have managed to get Annabel tweeting but there’s a slick media operation at work here. The Haguesque theme is clever, trumpeting a common sense approach to issues while emphasising how they have delivered for Scotland in the past.
No wonder their tails are up.
But scratch the surface and there lurks an unhappy party, with trouble in the ranks and leadership contenders circling like sharks. And while the Auntie Bella routine might go down well with the meeja, the Scots ain’t buying it. She may be having fun at Salmond’s expense but it’s a bit of a shortsighted tactic: don’t the Tories need the SNP to win if they want to go on delivering for Scotland?
Liberal Democrats:
Dearie, dearie me. This Scottish election might well mark a watershed in Liberal politics and for all the wrong reasons. Tavish Scott came across as earnest and instantly forgettable in the first debate; their policies are not distinctive enough from the big two to garner interest; the website is a mess. Mixing Westminster “achievements” with Scottish election missives doesn’t work and simply serves to remind the goodly voters why they are girding their loins to give the Lib Dems a kicking.
The Scots have been casting around for a scapegoat for the mess we are in and it looks like the Lib Dems are it. Can they go any lower in the polls? Well, there are still four weeks to go…
Scottish Greens:
This is where big really is beautiful: if two is a crowd, what hope for the fifth party in Scottish politics to make its distinctive voice heard?
Despite the strong message, articulate and punchy leader and effective pitch for the protest vote, the odds just seemed stacked against them in this election. Few of the reasons have anything to do with anything they are doing.
Leapfrogging the Lib Dems in the polls won’t do them any harm but they do need a bigger bang for their buck. They need media coverage and that means turning up the volume on a hot topic like nuclear power. Time too to stop playing at being a national party and go loco and regional – keep Patrick, replace Robin and anything else is a very good night.
My moment of the week?
Has to be Alan Cumming’s endorsement of the SNP – this is an A list celeb at the top of his game whose endorsement was thoughtful and articulate. Unlike others who have gone global, his graft for his achievements is something we still recognise and so, yet to snub him, his opinion will be respected. It made Labour’s wheeling out of Alex Ferguson look tired and formulaic.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on April 2, 2011 - 9:48 am
Tavish was “instantly unforgettable”? Not even I would go that far.
Other than that its a good and fair round-up.
#2 by Malc on April 2, 2011 - 9:58 am
You think his was a memorable performance?
#3 by Douglas McLellan on April 2, 2011 - 10:14 am
I am misunderstanding? Surely it should be “instantly forgettable”?
#4 by Malc on April 2, 2011 - 10:17 am
Ah… probably. I’ve misread both your and Kate’s line. I’m pretty confident she meant “instantly forgettable” and I’ll change it – but Kate, let me know if we’re wrong.
#5 by James on April 2, 2011 - 10:28 am
I’ve checked and you’re right.
But I don’t agree with The Burd about Tavish. He’s screwed, sure, but I do think if I knew literally nothing about the parties other than what I saw in the debates, and had to pick one of those four (heaven help me) my pen would be edging towards his box. Please don’t take this out of context – in real life I’d obviously rather eat dirt than vote Lib Dem.
#6 by Douglas McLellan on April 2, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Eat dirt? You are taking this Green Lifestyle thing to far!
#7 by Holyrood patter on April 2, 2011 - 10:04 am
On Alan cumming I absolutely agree, wasn’t some stage managed joint press release were he puts his name to guff about how tremendous Iain Gray is (a la sir Alex) but what seemed like a genuinely organic articulation of just why he felt the nats were the best for the job
#8 by James on April 2, 2011 - 10:11 am
Without wishing to diss Mr Cumming, on the process I would note that the key is authenticity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
#9 by Steve on April 2, 2011 - 10:36 am
I live in Malcolm Chisholm’s constituency. He knocked on my door the other day and I said I would vote for him. I like the guy.
But having just seen labour’s ball and chain poster, I’ve changed my mind. I can’t vote for this negative rubbish.
#10 by Steve on April 2, 2011 - 10:49 am
by the way i’d just like to mention this for completeness of course, nothing to do with my own political leanings 😉
Two polls putting the SSP on 4% is good news for SSP voters like me and if the SSP can build on this they might just get an MSP or two elected.
#11 by James on April 2, 2011 - 10:51 am
Perhaps the “empire built on perjury” that is Solidarity will go away for good soon. I do hope so. The good people were on the other side.
#12 by Jamie on April 2, 2011 - 6:49 pm
Surely without Tommy solidarity don’t really have anything to offer. Sad that they’re still running, but I expect a lot of their voters will drift back to the SSP.
I am concerned about George Galloway running in Glasgow though.
#13 by Kate on April 2, 2011 - 4:50 pm
Thanks editorial team for sorting out my uns from my forgettables – it was late, it had been a long week, I was tired…
And thanks to the BN team for giving me space to post this election round up. Very much enjoying being part of a team, even if it does turn up to be temporary!
I have a squatter (a very welcome one) on my blog space today and have been disappointed with the tone of some of the comments. I was a bit feart of a similar reaction but glad to see not.
Am I the only one to think though that it is all getting unnecessarily personal and pejorative? And that as much of that comes from SNP oriented commenters, it can’t actually do them or more importantly, their party much good?
#14 by James on April 2, 2011 - 5:07 pm
Good god, I’ve just seen Indy’s comments. Poke with the beak properly deserved there.
#15 by Steve on April 2, 2011 - 5:20 pm
Agree, for what it’s worth I always try to keep it civil. Same on Twitter too, the 2 big parties are getting a little anxious and it’s coming across.
I think (but then I would) that labour and snp want this whole campaign to be about how one is better than the other without discussing the fact that they both intend to preside over a period of significant spending cuts that neither have any intention of doing anything about. This election is so far about who we trust to wield the axe, some choice!
That’s why the greens in particular (and hopefully the SSP) are picking up support.
People in Scotland care more about vulnerable people and public services, and are less selfish, than the big 2 give them credit for.
#16 by Malc on April 2, 2011 - 6:05 pm
I’ve been fed up of the relentless negativity and aggression for months. Apparently you are either “for or against us” you can’t be somewhere in between. Which is a shame, because more often than not, that’s where I find myself. There are so many shades of grey in politics, that things don’t have to be as black and white as election campaigns make out. And that, for me, makes the campaigns pretty bad.
#17 by Caroline Johnstone on April 2, 2011 - 6:07 pm
Steve. I so agree with your comments re big 2 though have to say SNP have the social media thing pretty much sorted. But neither seem to accept responsibility for where-we-are-now, have the courage to take the massive action needed to make Scotland safer and fairer or give us honest promises of how to deliver services with massive budget cuts. I worked in the public sector for several years (including at senior level where there was a senior manager for each employee in our department/empire!) – and to promise no compulsory redundancies may be a vote winner but it shows a clear unwillingness to deal with the facts. Protect frontline services at all costs and make half if the managers redundant to free up the money to do that. This would demonstrate they had the will to change and do what’s right by the ordinary people of Scotland!
#18 by Kate on April 2, 2011 - 7:22 pm
I agree with Caroline and Steve – nearly! I would have loved it had John Swinney stood up at budget time and said we’ll be having no truck with these cuts but I do think we need to look at what we are getting for our bucks. Record investment does not equal record returns and our public services and how we configure them do need reform. But I agree fundamentally with Steve – way back in what seems like the mists of time now, the BBC polled on the cuts and what to protect etc and no one picked up on the key finding in my view which was that people would prefer taxes raised than services cut. All the parties have ignored that , except of course for the Greens and the SSP (outside Parliament). People do want honesty and integrity – I think the game being played out just now on the campaign trail about who can make the biggest promises will be viewed by voters by suspicion. People will make their choices knowing full well they are being sold a pup and so will use different criteria to decide who to vote for (IMHO!)
#19 by douglas clark on April 2, 2011 - 11:56 pm
I, for one, love the election predictor chat.
#20 by Indy on April 3, 2011 - 12:02 pm
SO I am being negative and aggressive am I?
The total death toll ascribed to the Nazis amounts to some 20 million. Men, women, children butchered in conditions of unimaginable horror, including members of my family.
I don’t feel the need to apologise for being deeply offended at the suggestion that the party I am a member of is part of the same political grouping as Adolf Hitler.
Rather, I think that it is those who simply gloss over such offensive and profoundly stupid remarks who have allowed their own sensitivities to become degraded.
But seeing that I am clearly out of step with the zeitgeist I’ll not pursue it and just say cheero.
#21 by Jeff on April 3, 2011 - 1:36 pm
Well, for what it’s worth Indy, I’ve only just read the post and comments now and don’t
understand why you’re getting stick. To compare the SNP’s aims for an independent Svotland with Naziism in any way is lazy at best. I’ve never understood how people can celebrate the freedom the new Eastern European countries but deride Salmond as “provincial”. Not all nation’s leaders get to be Obama and Sarkozy.
Amyway, what can you do…
#22 by Dubbieside on April 3, 2011 - 3:16 pm
Indy
Well said, I was also offended by the suggestion that the SNP was similar to the policies of Adolf Hitler. I was also offended and amazed by the criticism you received by standing your corner.
A question to all those that rounded on Indy, do you agree with the writers assertions? if so could you please point out to me the similarities.
Indy do not say cheerio, we need to stay and fight our corner for what we believe is right. Jeff, (sorry I almost called him Mr Breslin but that is “aggressive” and we cannot have that) is open to criticism and will fight his corner, so we need constructive debate or Better Nation will become as sterile as Blubber without Brian.
#23 by Indy on April 3, 2011 - 3:42 pm
Lol I was not saying cheerio for ever, just to this topic as I see nothing to be gained from discussing it further.
#24 by Malc on April 3, 2011 - 4:46 pm
Indy,
For what its worth, I think there’s a bit of an overstatement of cases going on here.
I’ve been teaching nationalism (as part of a look at political theories) this term. Interesting to point out that in the four classes I taught, the Nazis were only mentioned once, and then only by a German student noting why he wasn’t fond of the ideology. However, equally interesting is the fact that most students still considered nationalism negatively – that is to say, they saw it as inward-looking and self-protective, rather than inclusive and internationalist. I wouldn’t make the case that the SNP need to say why they do not represent that kind of nationalism, but they do need to make a positive case for their brand of nationalism – in order to remove any indication that they might fit into this bracket.
But its a problem in nomenclature more than anything – they are a nationalist party, as are the BNP and the Lega Nord, as were the Nazis. If only they’d called themselves something different! But to be sure, I think what has been said to you was harsh – but consider why. It wasn’t to do with the actions of Nazism, more the motivations behind it – and those of Irish Republicanism and Zionism. The motivations of each – the protection/ advance of a “nation” (however you define it), the looking after of its “citizens” (however you define them) and the policies then pursued to promote or help those citizens – are similar, at a base level, to what the SNP want to do.
I’m not saying that comparison is a fair one – but that’s at least why I can understand people making the link. The challenge for the SNP is to maintain the civic brand of nationalism and to make it much more positive, outward-looking and internationalist. If they do that then perhaps some of the negative connotations will go away.
On an unrelated note – glad you are sticking around. I thought you’d gotten fed up of the chat!
#25 by Colin on April 3, 2011 - 5:51 pm
It wasn’t to do with the actions of Nazism, more the motivations behind it – and those of Irish Republicanism and Zionism. The motivations of each – the protection/ advance of a “nation†(however you define it), the looking after of its “citizens†(however you define them) and the policies then pursued to promote or help those citizens – are similar, at a base level, to what the SNP want to do.
Which of our political parties, in your view, don’t share these aims?
#26 by Malc on April 3, 2011 - 7:16 pm
Yeah – that’s a fair enough comment. I suppose its more pertinent to nationalism than other ideologies. The point I was trying to make was that nationalism uses these things as its PRIMARY informing ideology, whereas socialism and liberalism is informed by a positive view of human nature, conservatism by a sceptical view. I’d make a case that other political parties (Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems – etc) use this as their primary concern which THEN informs what you see as the aims I’ve outlined. Its a minor distinction, but I think it is important to this discussion.
Anyway, this wasn’t our debate – and I’m sorry I dragged you (Indy) back into it – but I felt that was a distinction that needed to be made.
#27 by Indy on April 3, 2011 - 5:16 pm
Look I really don’t want to get into a debate about this but in fact “the protection/ advance of a “nation†(however you define it) and the looking after of its “citizens” is common to every country on earth – with perhaps a few completely dysfunctional exceptions like Libya.
Pretty much every government sees those two functions – to pursue the national interest and look after its citizens – as its primary objective. Surely that is obvious? It is not a strange ideology. It is what everyone else does.
As for saying that the SNP should be more internationalist etc to counteract the impression that we are narrow-minded parochial and harbour racial supremacist type tendencies. I’m sorry but this is really nonsense.
Firstly, that is not a generally held perception – which is why I find it strange that the article was solicited. So I don’t think we really have to answer the challenge that we are the “wrong” kind of nationalist because very few people think we are in the first place.
And the reason for that is because the SNP is – if anything – more internationalist and certainly much more multi-cultural than the unionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with the research showing that voters from an ethnic minority are more likely to vote SNP than for any other party? I don’t know where it comes from but I have heard it quoted and it also chimes with my own experience.
Would it be likely that ethnic minority voters would be attracted to the SNP if there was a perception that the SNP was a racist or bigoted party? Common sense surely says no.
And of course the SNP was the only party to actually elect anyone from an ethnic minority in the last election and will do so again.
Ironically I believe part of the reason why people from an ethnic minority are very receptive to the SNP is because they don’t have the same hang-ups about independence and Self-determination in general that some indigenous Scots still do – the woman who wrote the article being a prime example.
#28 by The Burd on April 3, 2011 - 8:07 pm
Hi all – happy to host the ongoing debate on the blog and post where it should be ie mine and not here?
#29 by DougtheDug on April 3, 2011 - 8:43 pm
Any reason why my comment on April 2, 2011 – 7:36 pm never made it through moderation?
#30 by Jeff on April 3, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Hi Doug. Your comment was: “Your squatter linked the SNP to the Nazis. When the word pejorative comes up the words stones and glass houses come to mind.”
I can’t speak for Malc and James but I at first didn’t put it through because I’m a bit of a wimp when I hear the word “Nazi”. Then, once I had read the Burd’s post and Indy’s comment, I thought you had got “the squatter” wrong. I believe Indy is the alleged squatter but it was not he who “linked the SNP to the Nazis”, so I decided against putting your comment through again.
Hope that all makes sense!
And, to be honest, this’ll be the last comment on this issue here at Better Nation. The debate is over at the Burd’s blog where the guest post was actually written if you wish to pick up there.
#31 by DougtheDug on April 3, 2011 - 9:45 pm
If you could make this the last comment it would be appreciated.
Burdzeyeview referred to Sara Sheridan as her, “squatter”. I simply repeated her description. #13 by Kate on April 2, 2011 – 4:50 pm
The use of, “Nazi”, was simply repeating the description of the SNP by Sara Sherdian.
The opinion in the second sentence was mine alone.
#32 by Jeff on April 3, 2011 - 9:54 pm
Apologies, looks like I got the wrong end of the stick (now THAT’S the last comment ;))