2007

 In just over a fortnight there will be the seventh Scottish Parliament election.

Now the main speculation about the result has been over whether the SNP will gain an overall majority alone despite polling only around 35% of the popular vote or whether they will to have to rely on The Greens to maintain (for whatever importance that matters) an "independence Majority" in the Parliament.

And I accept, based on polling, that's a reasonable focus.

But that's not my focus here. Rather it is what happens if no combination of two Parties together can get to the magic 65 seats needed to govern with a working majority? That's not entirely idle speculation for three reasons. Firstly because Labour is not in truth fighting 73 constituency seats, we are truly contesting in only 30 to 40 but we are working them hard. If we gain any of them they will all be at the expense of the SNP. Secondly, The Liberal Democrats are in a similar position except that they have only, by their own express admission,  10  target seats. But again, if they gain any of them it will be at the expense of the SNP. Thirdly, the Greens, with the exception of one constituency, are focused entirely on the lists. An even marginal decline in their vote there, far from seeing them improve their Parliamentary representation, might actually see it decline. The numbers are genuinely very tight by which, on a not particularly bad result,  they could nonetheless return to the five they secured in 2016. 

So, it is by no means impossible that the Green and Nats together end up with (say 62 or 63 seats between them. What happens then? And for that we have only one precedent. The election of 2007 which first brought the SNP to power. 

The result then was SNP 47 seats; Labour 46; Tories 17; Liberal Democrats 16; Greens 2 and Independent (Margo) 1.

Now the first stroke of genius came in the aftermath of that result becoming clear. Alex Salmond emerged from a helicopter at Prestonfield House Hotel to declare that "While it might not yet be clear who has won this election, it is clear who has lost. "

Yet this was only partially true. Labour and the Liberal Democrats had gone into the election with a combined total of 67 seats and although they had lost five, still commanded a potential Parliamentary vote of 62, three short of an absolute majority but still far more than the Nationalists. But the Lib Dems didn't see it like this, They announced they would be leaving the coalition and going in to opposition. And there was no persuading them otherwise. Now Labour still retained another potential source of votes, the Tories. A formal coalition would have been out of the question but all that would have been required was to secure their votes to re-appoint Jack McConnell as First Minister. Yet the surviving Labour Group would not countenance that. So, in due course Alex Salmond beat Jack for the First Ministers post with the Liberal Democrats and Tories (and Margo) abstaining by 49 votes (his own 47 plus the 2 Greens) to 46. Salmond then proceeded to form a minority SNP administration.

Now, at this point I only pause to observe how different Scottish politics would have been had the Liberal Democrats acted differently. Their preference to embrace opposition remains inexplicable to this day, they equally declined a coalition approach from the SNP.  Or even had the Tories been approached to vote differently. There was at least an assumption on the part of my own Party that an SNP Government would prove chaotic leading to, at worst, our comfortable return to power in 2011. Neither of these assumptions proved true. Indeed Mr Salmond governed comfortably and competently for four years despite commanding only just more than a third of the votes in the Holyrood chamber. And the rest is history.

Now what lessons can we draw from this? Just one. That in the aftermath of an inconclusive election what really matters is who becomes First Minister. Once you are in power the difficulty of gathering sufficient votes to remove you can't be overstated. Mr Salmond demonstrated that.

But that still leaves a second issue this time. To defeat Mr Swinney in the contest seeking his re-appointment as First Minister with only a minority of potential overall votes would require all of the opposition votes for Anas. Not just the Libs and Tories but also those of Reform UK. Now I accept these votes could never be solicited  but they will still have to be cast (or abstained). So, if the polls tighten even slightly, then at some point, possibly even only after the ballot has closed, Malcolm Offord will need to be asked what he would then do. 

"Better" is not enough

 Happy New Year.

The question I address tonight is, on the face of it, a simple one. Why dp Parties win elections?

On 6th May there will be a Scottish General Election and, at the moment, nobody knows its outcome. 

There is a general consensus in the, very few, polls there have been that the SNP will remain the largest Party but beyond that little agreement with my own Party coming everywhere between 2nd and 4th, Reform UK 2nd or 3rd and the Greens 3rd, 4th or 5th. 

But there is, I think, an appreciation that if any Party other than the SNP is to form a five year administration beyond 7th May it will still be us. So, given the widespread dissatisfaction with the latter's performance in Government, we should have something to play for. And highlighting that reality is clearly Anas's strategy. 

But it is not enough. It is all very well to suggest that the vote has nothing to do with the future of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister or indeed to distance us from the mis-steps of his administration. Even if that strategy succeeds, people still need a reason to vote FOR US, rather than one of the various other opposition forces on the ballot. And that is where we are currently falling over. For beyond suggesting in some always unexplained way that the NHS or education, or transport or any number of areas will be "better" under us, we never explain how we propose to make that so. Indeed what exactly are the changes from the status quo in all, indeed any, of these areas we propose to implement? Silence is the answer. 

This has to change and change urgently. The same policies carried through "better" will convince nobody.

Now, I am no policy expert in any of these areas but I might make a few suggestions. The Angela Constance matter became a story of interest to virtually nobody beyond the Holyrood bubble but the underlying issue is one with much wider resonance. We should be committing to a public inquiry into grooming gangs started within 3 months of us coming to office. Our silence on the current FWS case against the Scottish Government over men in women's prisons needs to be ended. These proceedings will almost certainly not have come to an end by May 6th but we should be clear that they will end there. A Labour Administration will concede the matter in Court and undertake that within one month of us coming to power there will be no men in Scottish women's prisons. It is difficult to see the argument with which Swinney could counter either proposal while remaining remotely onside with Scottish public opinion.

We should be committing to a purge of funding to "charities" and quangos whereby the Nationalists have maintained their grip over "Civic Scotland". To be completed within one year.

We should also be committed to changing the voting system for Holyrood to STV before the 2031 poll to remove the absurdity of Parties only bidding for your "second" vote.

We should further be ending the devolved benefits system which has achieved little or nothing but renaming UK benefits at, as shown in today's Scotland on Sunday, vast administrative expense. 

None of the above will alone get us back in the game but they would at least put to bed the idea that all a Scottish Labour Government would be is the same but "better". And that would be a good start.