I’m trying to write this with a little less hysteria than I fear I may have given into at several points during the early hours of the morning. Â If you were with us for some of the incredibly impressive gains for the SNP, you’ll know what I mean – and I apologise for getting swept up in the hype. Â I’m hoping the cold light of day will help with this – though given I’ve only had 3 hours sleep in the last 36, I might be putting too much hope in the restorative powers of a shower and a cup of tea. Â (Edit – I gave up writing this on Friday and went to bed, so hopefully its better for that!).
I think the first thing to say is this: Â we have a PR system in the Scottish Parliament which was designed (and described) as a means to stop the SNP ever getting a majority in Holyrood. Â That hasn’t worked – and the SNP will have the first majority in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
We also have to put this into some kind of historic context. Â Since the 1950s, Labour have dominated Glasgow, the West of Scotland and Fife and racked up massive majorities in their Westminster seats in these areas over the years. Â That UK seat record translated into similar domination of constituencies in the Scottish Parliament for the first couple of terms. Â The SNP made inroads in particular areas in 2007 but Labour heartlands in Glasgow, the West and the former mining constituencies of Fife remained largely untouched. Â Which is why the result is even more remarkable. Â The SNP have GAINED 32 constituencies. That’s an incredible stat.
Consider this further. Â The SNP now hold 53 of the 73 FPTP constituencies. Of the 20 they do not hold, Labour have 15 of them, the Conservatives 3 and the Lib Dems 2.
Of the Labour-held seats, only the two which they notionally gained from the Conservatives (Dumfriesshire and Eastwood) do not have the SNP in second place. Â The SNP moved into second place in all three of the Conservative-held seats while it was only the participation of independents in both the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands seats which bumped the SNP out of second place in those constituencies – perhaps even costing them the opportunity of winning Liam McArthur’s Orkney seat. Â The bottom line is the following:
The SNP are first in 53 seats. Â They are now second – and the main challenger – in a further 16. Â Only in four constituencies in Scotland are the SNP not first or second. Â That’s a massive sea change – and taps into what Jeff was talking about pre-election with regards the number of seats the SNP had moved into second in in 2007.
Not that it really mattered in some places.  In Edinburgh Central, in Edinburgh Pentlands, in Dunfermline and in North East Fife the SNP came from a notional third place to win, and in Edinburgh Southern they came from FOURTH.  I suppose that just emphasises how massive their victory was.
I want to keep this post short-ish because I’ve a lot of points to make about the election, and I’ll get around to them all eventually – but this is really just to try and get a handle on the size of the SNP’s win. Â They converted a lot of second places into wins, but they also took advantage of weak opposition in a further 5 seats where they were not best placed to win. Â And they succeeded in achieving massive increases in share of the vote – up to and including the TWENTY PERCENT increase which won Strathkelvin & Bearsden for Fiona McLeod.
I think to put the election in even more perspective – consider how little changed in last year’s Westminster election in Scotland. Â No seats changed hands, and Labour increased their already substantial majorities in several seats across Scotland. Â When it comes to elections, we tend to be small-c conservative with regards change – we know what we like and we like what we know.
Thursday changed that. Â It also emphasised how increasingly educated the Scottish electorate has become with regards multi-level elections. Â Perhaps that’s as big a story as the fact the SNP have a majority.
Perhaps not. Â Nothing’s going to take away from the size of that story. Â More analysis to come in the following days.
#1 by Gryff on May 7, 2011 - 12:31 pm
Without raining on your parade, I would be interested in thoughts on the implications for a parliament not kitted up for majority Government, I am not convinced that such untrammelled power is good for scotland, in anyone’s hands. I know a lot of colleagues were walking around stunned yesterday as the majority became inevitable. ‘but this isn’t meant to happen’ ‘but no one has prepared for this’ were fairly familiar refrains…
#2 by Malc on May 7, 2011 - 12:37 pm
I agree – its something I’m thinking about as well. Saying that – Holyrood wasn’t exactly “kitted out” for minority government either and the SNP made that work. So I guess, they’ll deal with however it works. But certainly – its worth thinking about some of the mechanics of it.
I also think part of the concern is the relative inexperience of some of those elected as well. That’s not so much a slight on them, just a consideration that with so many new bodies – from all parties – it may take awhile before Parly gets a grip on some of its responsibilities.
#3 by Doug Daniel on May 7, 2011 - 1:46 pm
That’s a good point. Labour may have technically only lost 9 seats overall, but the sudden influx of list members from heartland areas – people who, if we’re perfectly honest, were not expected to be elected and could rather cruelly be accused of being there to make up the numbers – means over a third of their MSPs are new to Holyrood (I think so, anyway).
It depends what direction these new members take Labour in. If they’re more like Malcolm Chisholm and Sarah Boyack, then Holyrood will be better for it, and the Labour party stand a better chance of coming back stronger. But if they’re just new versions of Andy Kerr and Margaret Curran, then Labour could be in for a rough ride.
Incidentally, I reckon if any party can make a majority work in Holyrood without letting the power go to their heads, it’s the SNP. But then, I’m biased.
#4 by Steve on May 7, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Gryff, I don’t really get this. We had majority Government for the first 8 years of devolution. Admittedly there was a spell of a week or two at the start of each 4 year period while the coalition partners developed a programme for government based on negotiating a shared set of priorities. But once that work was done they got on with it, enjoying majorities on all the parliamentary committees and pushing through swathes of legislation, ignoring nearly all opposition amendments.
One example – there was a vote on fishing which the then Scottish Executive lost due to absences from the Parliament. Instead of respecting this, they simply re ran the vote and made sure that coalition party MSPs all turned out.
Another – didn’t the health committee vote in favour of free prescriptions at one point and the coalition then overturned this in the main chamber?
I’m not trying to have a go at the then Scottish Executive or be partisan, I’m just saying that institutionally in the Parliament and the Executive we’re already well used to majority government.
#5 by Malc on May 7, 2011 - 1:45 pm
I guess Steve, that’s a fair point. I suppose the only difference is that this time its a single-party majority government. But I take the point.
#6 by Gryff on May 7, 2011 - 4:35 pm
That is a good point, but I suppose in a coalition two parties have to negotiate, and there are continuing negotiations, even if they are behind the scenes.
I’m told that in England at least councils have a system of scrutiny whereby committees are all headed by opposition members, so although there will be an inbuilt executive majority on them, the direction from the chair makes sure no one gets an easy ride.
#7 by An Duine Gruamach on May 7, 2011 - 9:28 pm
There was also the Michael Russell/ John Farquhar Munro amendment to the Education Act, to include a statutory right to Gaelic Medium Education. It was of course voted down – voted against included Alasdair Morrison, Minister for Gaelic!
#8 by Shuna on May 7, 2011 - 1:19 pm
I am wondering if the way the parliament works may change from one of opposition being ‘lets oppose everything’ to one of ‘ok we agree on that’?
Maybe with so many newbees this might be aided. The way I look at it is that the general public (not the politically ‘active’) are just a bit fed up of politicians constantly point scoring.
Some of the behaviour of some of the victors (and pundits) yesterday was quite appauling – not very pastoral (I can say that as a minister 😉 ) but there were also some great examples of real dignity in victory (Dave Thomson was one example) – more of that please! To take delight in someone’s career being destroyed is not something to be proud of – especially as many decent people were left jobless yesterday. (And yes I have been guilty of this in the past)
Which kindof leads me to another wee comment about some of the way people have talked about Iain Gray during the campaign- he may not have been the most effective leader but he IS a decent bloke – who has done things in his life that have made a huge difference to others – here in this country and in some parts of the world many of us turn our back on.
The result yesterday was a fantastic result for the SNP and Alex Salmond – you cant take that away from them. But yes lets hope time is given so all our new politicians learn to walk before they run.
Politicians are human beings – they have nerves just like us, feel overwhelmed from time to time just like us, hurt too believe it or not.
Interesting times…
#9 by Malc on May 7, 2011 - 1:54 pm
I distinctly remember being quite impressed by some of the victory speeches actually Shuna – as well as some of the speeches in defeat. For example, Linda Fabiani paid tribute to Andy Kerr’s 12 years as MSP for East Kilbride, and he responded with a very gracious speech wishing her well and thanking the constituency for their support. Following that, I remember Tom McCabe being good as well. Is there anyone in particular you would single out for being a bad winner/ loser?
Incidentally, I hope you are right about opposition being more constructive now. According to Salmond’s speech yesterday, both Gray & Scott had been in touch to say exactly that, so here’s hoping that wasn’t just a post-election consensus, and that it actually lasts.
I’ll get to a post rounding up the big losses (in terms of individuals) from Parly. Guys like Andy Kerr, Tom McCabe, Des McNulty, Pauline McNeill, Derek Brownlee, Jeremy Purvis added much front bench strength, Cathy Peattie was very active on gender issues… actually, its a much bigger list than I thought!
Side note – “career being destroyed”? I’m not sure I’d go as far as “destroyed”…
#10 by An Duine Gruamach on May 7, 2011 - 9:31 pm
Hm, we’ll see. I seem to recall McConnell saying much the same after the results came in 2007.
#11 by John Ruddy on May 7, 2011 - 4:08 pm
I agree Shuna. In the immediate aftermath of their amazing and deserved victory, many nationalists were showing a big degree of hubris. At the count in Angus, they were revelling and laughing at the mass of Lib Dem deposits lost, for instance, and dancing (literally) for joy at the destruction of many Labour MSPs who had devoted their working lives to their constiuents. This was more than simply the joy at a hard earned victory, or delight at the success of their colleagues and their party.
I find it hard to believe that any other parties activists would behave that way, albeit that it took Graham Dey to calm them down – and even then only slightly.
I worry that this is what we (not just labour) will have to suffer the next 5 years – having our noses rubbed in the SNP victory at every turn, for no other reason than the fact that they can.
#12 by Doug Daniel on May 7, 2011 - 9:38 pm
“This was more than simply the joy at a hard earned victory”
This was more than just a hard earned victory, and I think the fact you call it that perhaps indicates why you seem to confuse the emotions going through the heads of nationalists during yesterdays results as “hubris”. This result was massive, the kind of thing that they “rewrite the history books” for, and if you can’t see that, then yes, you probably are going to feel like you’re having your noses rubbed in it for the next five years… But not because of nationalists doing so intentionally.
As for finding it hard to believe other parties would act that way, I point you towards the speeches of Curran and MacNeill last year, as well as Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy’s comments to the BBC after being re-elected last year. I don’t think Labour have any basis from which to lecture other parties on how to be gracious on the back of a big victory.
#13 by cynicalHighlander on May 7, 2011 - 4:48 pm
“career” sorry politicians are not supposed to be careerists trying to further their potential earnings by climbing up to the red benches as seems to be a lot of the unionist ambitions. As far as Gray goes maybe you can enlighten me why telling lies as he has invariable done makes him a good man, invisible SDA document for one of many.
#14 by Lindsay on May 7, 2011 - 1:27 pm
pleased to hear John Swinney say they will continue the style of minority government over the next 5 years. Hoping that means remaining open, accessible and willing to listen to others.
#15 by Malc on May 7, 2011 - 1:56 pm
I think 4 years of minority government will serve the SNP well over the next 5. They’ll have gotten into the habit of talking to opposition parties on issue-by-issue basis, and I hope that continues. As Salmond said, they have no “monopoly on wisdom” so I expect to see Bruce still negotiating with others – even though they don’t mathematically need it.
#16 by Doug Daniel on May 7, 2011 - 9:22 pm
This is probably helped by the fact it was the SNP’s first ever term in government, so consensus politics is really all they know. I just wonder if it will take the complete replacement of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories with new parties before we can see the positive parliamentary behaviour we all want to see. I know the Tories and Lib Dems had a good stab at it last session, but then they messed it up with their ridiculous stances on minimum pricing, among other things.
#17 by Richard on May 7, 2011 - 1:28 pm
I’m still struggling to grasp the size and historic importance of the result. I don’t think even Alex Salmond could have dreamt this scenario up. It’s going to be a while before it seems real.
#18 by Malc on May 7, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Me too. I’ve studied elections in detail a lot over the last 10 or 12 years. I’m a keen student of these things. It completely took me by surprise on the night – which was probably obvious in my commentary!
Pingback: The wisdom of Henry McLeish |
#19 by cynicalHighlander on May 7, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Tavish has stood down as leader of the LDs interesting times ahead.
#20 by Danny1995 on May 7, 2011 - 6:22 pm
Cathy Peattie’s losing speech is on youtube and contains sour grapes.
#21 by Brian Nicholson on May 7, 2011 - 7:19 pm
That is unfortunate as Tavish Scott was a good man and one that I sincerely respected. His party has done him as disservice and at least should fight to get him a Lordship as recompense.
Although I am a nationalist, he is one that I would welcome into our party if only he could see the wisdom of an independent and aspirational Scotland.
#22 by Brian Nicholson on May 7, 2011 - 7:29 pm
While I understand and agree that some comments in victory were over the top, we all need to remember that people are human. As the good reverend reminded us, we often react emotionally and say or do things that in hindsight we would have preferred to have not done.
Many SNP activists have been slated regularly by opponents, Labour for the most part, and have been ridiculed as Gnats and separatists. In victory, triumphalism may have gotten the better of some, just as defeat brought out bitterness in others.
It is now time to heal the divisions and work for a better Scotland.
#23 by An Duine Gruamach on May 7, 2011 - 9:33 pm
One wise head Labour could use now would be Ewan Aitkin’s. If only he had been on the list!
#24 by Shuna on May 7, 2011 - 11:10 pm
Type your comment here
Amen to that!