One school of thought surrounding the SNP’s scheduling of an Autumn 2014 independence referendum is that the haunting spectre of another five years of Tory Government after the 2015 General Election will veer Scots towards a Yes vote. The current problem with this strategy of course is that Labour are currently 13% up in the polls.
This inconvenience should not have come as a surprise to anyone within Yes Scotland. Incumbent political parties that go on to win handsome election victories often lag far behind in the midterm polls.
The SNP trailed Labour by double digits nine months shy of the 2011 Holyrood elections, Michael Howard’s Tories kept pace with Labour for over a year before being thumped by the irrepressible Tony Blair in 2005 while John Major famously snatched victory from Kinnock’s jowls of defeat in 1997, contrary to what the polls had been saying. Even political rock’n’roll star Barack Obama trailed the Republicans for most of his first term, ultimately winning a second with relative ease late last year.
The clue as to who will win the next election often lies with leaders’ personal approval ratings. Gray never struck the necessary chord with the Scottish public, Brits agreed that Howard had something of the night about him and Kinnock never went beyond being ‘alright’ in the public’s minds. All were electorally eviscerated accordingly, despite the commanding poll leads their parties had enjoyed.
Ed Miliband appears to be very much a similar pretender to that longed for throne. Labour’s 13% poll lead is not mirrored in the party leader’s ratings given Miliband is less popular than Cameron right across the country, except for a very slender lead in Scotland (29% approval to Cameron’s 26%). For a Labour leader to be jostling for popularity with a Conservative leader north of the border is practically unheard of.
In a referendum context, these somewhat contradictory statistics are bad news for Yes Scotland and good news for Labour. It is fair to say that the public broadly do not understand the nuances of political polls and would largely expect a Labour majority in 2015, and vote in Autumn 2014 accordingly.
And if the threat of a Tory Government was a reason to vote Yes, then the promise of a Labour Government must surely be a reason to vote No.
Many Nats, in their best Charge of the Light Brigade fashion, will argue that nothing can be done, that the die has been cast and that the Autumn 2014 date is immovable. Not so.
The Holyrood term runs from 2011 to 2016 with the Westminster terms from 2010 to 2015 and 2015 to 2020. The Scottish Government could therefore decide to hold the referendum in the Autumn of 2015, still within its current term but quite possibly several months into a Tory Government’s new term.
It’s a gamble; and there are downsides, of course:
The SNP has set its stall out for an 18 month handover between the referendum date and Scotland’s first post-independence elections in Spring 2016. A new timetable would push this back a year into 2017 with the thorny question being whether devolved Holyrood elections would be required when the current term runs out. An SNP victory would be likely in such an event but a devolved Labour Government being tasked with thrashing out a deal with the UK Government would be unpalatable. Issues surrounding a mandate for the treatment of Trident is one obvious can of worms.
A further concern would be the quite reasonable headlines suggesting that Yes Scotland is running scared, that it is already beginning the ‘neverendum’ process of delay and dither to suit its purposes. These headlines would be short lived but potentially damaging nonetheless.
However, the overriding objective for Yes Scotland is getting to 50% and a post-2015 Tory Government with few (if any) Scottish MPs may well be deemed a better environment in which to reach this threshold than the false sense of security of Labour surging misleadingly in the polls.
The SNP gambling on the general election outcome and holding the independence referendum in Autumn 2015 is therefore surely worthy of consideration. Scotland won’t be hosting the Commonwealth Games or the Ryder Cup that year, but it will host the Orienteering Championships, and appositely so for a Yes camp who may require to know their bearings more accurately come then.
#1 by Grahamski on March 7, 2013 - 8:07 am
I see where you’re coming from and it makes sense if you want to conduct a campaign based on scaremongering about the Tories and are not worried about looking foolish and cowardly.
However, I suspect that while most in the YESnp campaign are quite happy to run a scaremongeringly negative campaign using Tory bogeymen they are not quite as happy to portray themselves as foolish cowards…
#2 by Jeff on March 7, 2013 - 8:22 am
I wonder if those who believe the Charge of the Light Brigade was a strategic error were considered foolish cowards too.
A poll (one may already exist) that gives Scottish voting intentions at the referendum if the Tories win a second term at Westmister would shed light on just how foolish this would be.
#3 by Angus McLellan on March 7, 2013 - 3:26 pm
One does exist. Panelbase did it in October. Basic response 37:45 but “if they believed the following year’s UK general election would lead to a Tory-led government or another Tory-Lib Dem coalition” then 52:40. And the prospect of Grahamski’s girls and boys in power helped too, if not as much, as a the prospect of a Labour govt produced a 43:47 split.
That might seem illogical, but it makes perfect sense if Westminster, whether with Tweedledum or Tweedledee in charge, scares some people more than independence does.
#4 by Paul Martin on March 7, 2013 - 9:35 am
In last nights Appleton Tower Indy debate, Kezia Dugdale specifically indicated that what she believes is required is not independence, but a change of UK government. So we’re already seeing a crude barefaced attempt by SLAB to conflate The Referendum and General Election in the minds of Scots voters.
During my adult lifetime I’ve lived through 8 UK parliaments, with 5 Tory PM’s heading them up. The fact that any UK parliamentary outcome is therefore a lottery for Scots voters doesn’t seem to phase Kezia, when there’s the (ahem) mirage of a 2015 Labour win.
The nightmare scenario of course is a NO vote and the Tories throwing middle-England a bone, and sneaking back in. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
#5 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2013 - 9:36 am
Actually Jeff, the main problem with your idea is that the Section 30 order runs out at the end of 2014, presumably for precisely the reasons you think they should push it back to 2015!
#6 by Jeff on March 7, 2013 - 9:40 am
Ah, didn’t realise that Doug. Sounds like my idea is a non-starter and Cameron won a wee battle there with that proviso.
I still think these polls will be hugely problematic if a Yes result is partly-dependent on fears of the Tories getting back in.
#7 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2013 - 10:39 am
I don’t think the polls will be a problem. Miliband is useless, he’ll never be Prime Minister. Come Autumn 2014, I think it’ll become pretty clear that Labour are not going to win in 2015. Besides, when you take into consideration that the No campaign’s central tenet is “separashun is terribly uncertain”, then surely the Yes campaign can use the uncertainty over who will win the 2015 election as a prime example of why the union offers no more certainty than independence? It’s an easy point to make to people: “Labour MIGHT win the next election… But they might not. Do you really want Scotland to continue to be at the mercy of the whims of middle England?”
Also, don’t forget there is an election in 2014 as well. We shouldn’t underestimate the chances of UKIP winning the most seats in the European elections – there is a lot of scope for UKIP to do better than 2009’s result, with votes from annoyed Europhobic Tories and disenfranchised Lib Dems to be dished out. Not to mention those who voted for the BNP last time, who will surely see UKIP as a better home for their vote. If UKIP win in 2014, then both the Tories and Labour will go into anti-EU-immigration hyperdrive. I’m sure I wasn’t the only Scot watching last night’s Question Time and thinking “there’s no way we’re Better Together with this bunch of raving, racist nutters”, and a UKIP win in 2014 would be open season for that sort of bile.
#8 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2013 - 11:27 am
more than 400,000 scots voted tory in 2010, more than a 1/4 of a million voted tory in 2011 (list).
Why is it you think there people should be excluded from the political process in scotland?
#9 by Indy on March 8, 2013 - 8:42 am
No-one thinks they should be excluded – they just shouldn’t get to win when actually they have lost.
#10 by Iain Menzies on March 9, 2013 - 1:09 pm
which would be fine if what you were saying wasnt scare mongering.
Really your one step up from saying that just cos the Prime Minister isnt a jew doesnt mean the world isnt run by jews.
#11 by Toque on March 7, 2013 - 11:45 am
2014 is a better date for the SNP because England will be at the World Cup and Scotland won’t, and even the most unionist Scots will complaining about biased BBC coverage whilst wearing the shirts of England’s opponents.
#12 by Jeff on March 7, 2013 - 11:49 am
I don’t think they should be included Iain but I suspect that these hundreds of thousands of people would largely vote No whether the referendum was held in 2014 or 2015.
As I say, the game is simply getting to 50%.
#13 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2013 - 5:23 pm
Yes the game is simply getting to 50%, but that in and of itself is rather tragic. Would 50.000001% of the vote result in indy? well probably, but if that was the result i for one would want a ratification vote.
The point tho is that what your suggesting has nothing to do with making a better nation, its all to do with who you dont like politically. Almost make sme wish for independence, for i think that indy would be the quickest way back for the right in scotland, and oh how funny it would be to see the reaction of the ‘progressive left’ in scotland when it happens.
#14 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2013 - 9:56 am
Presumably you would also want a ratification vote if it was 50.000001% No?
#15 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2013 - 5:25 pm
Would i want one? No.
But i wouldnt object that much.
If the result was thnat close, well you can hardly call it the settled will of the scottish people, since people who didnt vote on account of having the flu would very possibly be enough to change the result.
So with a result like that it aint unreasonable to take the view that things should be looked at again once an agreement is reached between HMG and SG.
Or do you think people should just have to accept whatever is agreed by the SNP?
#16 by Ross on March 7, 2013 - 2:05 pm
Seriously disagree with this though, of course, worthy of some thought.
“And if the threat of a Tory Government was a reason to vote Yes, then the promise of a Labour Government must surely be a reason to vote No.”
We have a Tory Government now and will have had one for years when the referendum comes. Under your proposal, we’ll still have a Tory Government. Just a slightly new one. Can’t really see what has changed there from a narrative point of view.
That added to the Games, Ryder Cup, Homecoming, Bannockburn and most importantly, in this political period, the weakest Unionist leaders there probably ever has been means we will never have a better chance of independence.
This is the best chance. If it can’t be won in 2014 then it may be that Scotland just doesn’t want it. Something we might have to face up to.
#17 by Haartime on March 7, 2013 - 3:59 pm
Surely it will all depend on what the UKIP voters will do. Tory + UKip narrowly out polls Labour by 1 or 2 % . Will those inclined to support UKIP vote tactically in the 2015 election knowing that the Tories are offering a referendum vote on Europe (if Cameron doesn’t cave in to his backbenchers and hold it sooner) whereas the other parties are pro-Europe. It could be a very tight election
#18 by Welshguy on March 7, 2013 - 4:25 pm
I’m never convinced by the various arguments along the lines of “X party in Y situation has never achieved Z before, so they can’t this time”. Sure, the fact that governments who go on to win consecutive elections tend to trail in mid-term polls; but while this is an indicator that the Tories might do better than expected in 2015 it by no means means that we should completely ignore the polls and consider a Tory victory inevitable. Similarly, Cameron’s advantage over Miliband, while important, doesn’t guarantee anything.
There’s a first time for everything and I suspect you could take every General Election ever and find *something* about it that would be completely unique and unprecedented. The fact is that we won’t know what’ll happen in 2015 until 2015. That said, if anything seems more foolish than assuming that current Polls will represent the result in 2015 then it’s assuming that they definitely *won’t*.
#19 by Allan on March 7, 2013 - 9:34 pm
Obviously, Doug has found the large hole in your argument Jeff. Otherwise this is something that would haver been worth considering, bearing in mind Yes Scotland/SNP’s less than successful opening arguments.
What was interesting was the snapshot polling regarding the influence of the Wesminster Election on the Indy Referendum. I suppose that this provides Yes/SNP with an unexpected flank against No/Better Together.
On another note, I take it Ms Dugdale didn’t mention the Labour policy event in London that had invited a representitive of Wonga to discuss Tax policy?
#20 by Indy on March 8, 2013 - 8:53 am
I think the outcome of the next GE election is important but not crucial for the Yes side.
Perhaps the more interesting point – made to me by a Labour member – is what happens to the Labour Party if they win the referendum, working side by side with the Tories but giving their voters the Kezia Dugdale line – and then the Tories win the GE?
My friend opined that Labour might never recover from that. He is of the view that, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, the SNP will be re-elected in 2016. But if things work out with a No vote to indy and a re-elected Tory government, he thinks the Labour vote may well collapse in the same way that the Lib Dem vote has collapsed. So actually Labour may have more at stake than we realise.
That is just anecdotal but you wonder how many other people in Labour may be thinking along the same lines. I suspect Douglas Alexander is, hence his Convention idea.
#21 by Chris on March 8, 2013 - 1:02 pm
Type your comment here
No one has actually ruled out a neverendum have they? You’ll get other chances after this one if you can secure a vote in parliament.
But a Yes vote is irreversible. Anyway I don’t agree that we need a ratification vote. If yes wins by 1 vote or loses by 1 vote that should be the end of the matter. Possibly for 25 years if No. Certainly forever if Yes.
#22 by Chris on March 8, 2013 - 5:09 pm
I think it seems rather obvious that a referendum wasn’t put to the last Scottish Parliament as the SNP were waiting for a Tory government.
When the last Scottish Election gave them an outright majority they put the referendum as far back as possible in the hope of a Tory government. No mention of this delay in the manifesto and mentioned in passing in the last weeks of the election campaign.
But the agreement stitched the SNP up. Fooled by the chance to give it a grand name “The Edinburgh Agreement” FFS and to be able to set their own question they signed up to a fixed deadline Yes/No referendum.
And so we are in this interminable process. Taking longer to hold a vote than it took Labour to hold a vote and have the first elections to the Scottish Parliament. Delay after delay after delay and still yet no mention of the date of the referendum. Solely delayed as far as possible in the hope that something will turn up.
The laziness of this strategy is shocking. Never mind winning hearts and minds, never mind tackling the difficult questions head-on, just keep on plugging away and hoping for something that will turn up so that the referendum is held on the first day in three hundred years when there is a possibility of a Yes majority.
#23 by Iain McGowan on March 9, 2013 - 10:44 pm
Changing the date is a non-starter, Doug Daniel got it
right, the Edinburgh agreement runs out on 31 Dec. 2014 and Cameron will not go for an extension. It
would also look like the Yes side were running scared
and confidence would plummet. The referendum will
have to be held as arranged and fought as hard as
possible on the issue.