A guest this lovely Sunday from Rory Scothorne. Rory is an Edinburgh University student, political blogger and part-time music writer who once had a tweet quoted in the Scotsman and won’t let anyone forget it, although he can’t remember what it actually said. He blogs about Scottish and UK politics at Scotland Thinks, where his writing has been generously described as ‘swivel-eyed’ and ‘a load of codswallop’.
There are few certainties in Scottish politics, but you can always be fairly sure that Labour and the Scottish National Party won’t get on. Since devolution, the enmity between Scotland’s two biggest parties has sizzled with the mix of hatred and grudging respect that characterises the most established of foes.
There are obvious reasons for such a gulf. In the high-school playground of Scottish politics, the SNP are the exciting new kid in town, arriving with a style, self-confidence and controversial past that catches everyone’s eye, allowing them to usurp the established authority that Labour’s long-serving head prefect has begun to take for granted. No wonder they’re upset.
To the SNP, Labour’s dogged loyalty to the union and all its perceived inequities is a betrayal of the Scottish people, abandoning us to distant Tory governments in exchange for a few jobs for life on the green benches in London.
Since Willie Wolfe pulled the SNP over to the left, both parties have been competing for dominance of a similar ideological territory, but their inability to separate on policy leads them both down a spiral of personality politics and cheap sniping.
It doesn’t have to be like this.
It’s precisely that ideological similarity that makes the animosity so frustrating. It turns it into an almost fraternal conflict, a tragic spectacle where we’re all secretly rooting for them to put their differences aside and remember their love for each other. Jimmy Reid, Alex Neil and Jim Sillars all started out in Labour and ended up with the SNP, and the transition for them was not about some tectonic shift in values – merely a realisation that the kind of society they hoped for could best be achieved outside of the United Kingdom.
Of course, nobody really expects Labour and the SNP in Holyrood to put that single, profound difference aside and join forces for social justice. The constitution is far too important an issue in this country to be sidelined.
But what about local government? There’s no doubt that the parties instinctively dislike each other just as much at a local level as they do nationally, but there’s not really much sense to that. After all, SNP councillors can’t legislate for a referendum. Nor can Labour councillors vote against one. That central issue that pushes the two parties apart is completely irrelevant at a council level.
That’s why it makes a great deal of sense for the SNP to consider the Labour Party as coalition partners. The voting system means it’s going to be hard for either to get many majorities without coalition, but if they refuse to try working together that will be a struggle. In many local authorities it’s unlikely that the Liberal Democrats or the Greens will manage to get enough of the vote to top up either Labour or the SNP and take them past the halfway mark, while both will be deeply reluctant to join an unholy union with the Tories while that party leads such an unpopular administration in Westminster.
Edinburgh is a prime example of where this can happen. The capital’s Lib Dems will suffer heavily from the compounding effects of leading an unpopular local administration and joining an even more unpopular UK one, and may well be unable to take Labour or the SNP up to the 29 seats needed to form an administration. The Greens won’t win enough either. There could be an SNP minority with a Conservative confidence and supply deal, but that’s a huge political risk considering the Tories’ unpopularity.
If the SNP become the largest party, Tom Buchanan’s recovery from surgery places Steve Cardownie as the obvious choice for the city’s next leader. He defected from Labour to the SNP in 2005, claiming conversion to independence and stressing his frustration with New Labour. I suspect that’s a frustration shared by many of his former colleagues across Scotland, who might just take a certain subversive glee in pairing up with the Nats.
It was, after all, a makeshift coalition of SNP, Labour and Greens that brought down the Lib Dem/Tory proposals for ‘Alternative Business Models’. They’ve demonstrated a willingness to work together on centre-left goals, and coalition would be an opportunity to demonstrate that they can both put their shared social-democratic vision for Scotland ahead of the cheap party politics that demeans public debate in this country. The symbolism of such unprecedented co-operation taking place in Scotland’s capital would be a breath of fresh air in a city that sorely needs it.
#1 by Barbarian on April 29, 2012 - 9:52 am
Interesting article.
At local level, party politics should really be left aside, and in many areas they are to an extend.
But I think this time may be different. The trams for starters. Labour probably don’t want to be left holding the political bomb that may go off if the costs increase again.
It could be that the other parties will simply refuse to join the SNP in any coalitions, or perhaps the SNP will refuse. Certainly that could be the case in Glasgow if no party gets a majority. Then things will descend into the political slanging matches which are beginning to get a little tiresome.
#2 by John Ruddy on April 29, 2012 - 9:55 am
Contrary to what many people might think, I am not against any Labour coalition with the SNP at a local level. We certainly have more in common that we do with the tories, say.
However the key factor at a local level – as it certainly is here in Angus – dependent on the personalities of the councillors involved. The SNP here have a sense of entitlement which has (and I believe continue to) blind them to reality. They’ve spent the last 5 years moaning about how control of the council has been stolen from them by a coalition of other parties. They didnt win enough seats, thats called democracy, they should get over it. They could easily have entered a coalition with us or the Lib Dems, but their arrogant attitude (before and after the 2007 election) meant it was never going to happen.
The factors will be delivering Labour values and Labour policies. We have set out our stall, and if working with the SNP will deliver them, then we will do so and I will be in favour of it. Perhaps the lack of local policies in literature is the SNP playing a game so that they can be coalition partners with any of the other parties – not being tied to anything in particular?
#3 by Ben Achie on April 29, 2012 - 10:07 am
I was young once, and I still ask “daft laddie” questions, as they are an antidote to mediocrity and squalid compromise. But the problem is the inevitable tribalism of Scottish politics.
Football teams are maybe a good analogy – why don’t Rangers and Celtic get together? I suspect a great many Scots would be delighted to see that happening, but I wouldn’t bet a bawbee on it coming about!
#4 by James on April 29, 2012 - 10:36 am
The real problem is with the specific game both the SNP and Labour think they’re playing. Politics in this way of looking at the world isn’t about local elections – it’s about Scottish and UK politics. That’s why Twitter has SNP activists who’re urging SNP votes this week “for independence”, or Labour people arguing about David Cameron. The function of local government is to support or resist, as appropriate, the next tier up. And a Labour/SNP administration wouldn’t know which way to face when Ministers call. Do whatever they want? Resist them no matter how sensible? It’d be a mess.
#5 by Barbarian on April 29, 2012 - 11:31 am
That’s a pretty good assessment of the problems.
Things may get worse, since with national issues dominating the headlines, councillors will be under orders from high up not to associate with their opponents.
#6 by Rory on April 29, 2012 - 2:10 pm
I don’t actually think there would be much to pull the two sides apart, even when ministers call. Sure, there are issues outside of the constitution on which the parties disagree, but not much that’s serious enough to push anyone over any red lines.
If anything, more Lab/SNP coalitions could force both sides to put more consideration into how they can work together rather than cheap point-scoring. Stephen Noon’s most recent piece on the ‘bubble’ of the parliament is a great argument for a less partisan politics – mainly because it demonstrates how unpopular that stuff is with voters.
I also think council groups have a bit (although not much) more autonomy in these things than you give them credit for, but then again that might be another idealistic ‘daft laddie’ argument, as the commenter above so kindly put it…
#7 by Biscuit on April 29, 2012 - 11:52 am
A very insightful article.
As a citizen of Edinburgh myself, for me, a coalition between the SNP and Labour would be ideal. If both would get over their, some would say, minor differences, they could make such a positive impact in the city.
Obviously we (Labour) do have a lot more in common with the SNP than we do with the Tories, and if we started to work together, maybe over time we could eventually abolish the Tories from the UK government for good.
My main issue is that the SNP have always seemed a little big for their boots. They have always known the standing they have in Scotland, and I think they wallow a little too much in this, rather than doing what’s actually right for the country. I think the ‘exciting new kid in town’ aspect of the SNP, teamed with the experienced nature of the Labour Party, could make a really big difference here.
Thanks for writing this. It’s nice to see that someone shares a similar view. Keep up the good work! And don’t listen to the stuffy old critics that tell you otherwise.
#8 by Aidan on April 29, 2012 - 11:57 am
In discussing this really excellent article on Twitter I was reminded of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
#9 by Rory on April 29, 2012 - 2:13 pm
Ahaha, I was considering ‘Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?’ as a title.
The death-by-handshake bit probably sums up why I didn’t make a similar point about Glasgow. I get the sense that razing the city to the ground may be preferable to coalition over there.
#10 by Richard on April 29, 2012 - 2:48 pm
Type your comment here
Oh, the irony!
#11 by John Ruddy on April 29, 2012 - 3:54 pm
Yes, it’s rather delicious isnt it. All round the country in 2007, coalitions between parties were formed. Some of them between parties other than the largest party. The difference here, isnt that you wont find in Labour’s literature in Fife, for instance, complaints about how parties which came second and third got together to “deprive us of a majority”. You will find that in SNP stuff in Angus in 2012. 5 years on and they cant believe they lost the last election.
#12 by Don McC on April 29, 2012 - 6:48 pm
The SNP are only “too big for their boots” if you use Scottish Labour as a benchmark for what any Scottish political party’s place should be in the UK.
This is demonstrated quite succinctly by Scottish Labour’s latest moan, sorry, I mean criticism, by sports spokesperson, Patricia Ferguson, that the Scottish Government have hired The Army and Navy Club in Pall Mall to promote Scotland to the businesses that will be at the Olympics. Don’t the Scottish government realise that it’s the London Olympics and Scotland should know its place?
#13 by Dr William Reynolds on May 1, 2012 - 7:32 am
I am an SNP member who would be very relaxed about an SNP-Labour coalition.Actually,even an SNP-Green coalition,or an SNP-Labour-Green coalition.
As a veteren SNP activist,I have seen how labour have behaved when they have defeared their political opponents.I don’t doubt that some SNP activists also took an opportunity to rub it in when the boot was on the other foot.However,mostly my experience was that we encouraged members to be respectful towards our political opponents.I always took the view that if we were to work with them in the future,we needed to talk to them.