Conundrum solved

Recently, a Glasgow Sheriff ruled that a fugitive from American justice had not acquired distinctive tattoos, similar to those born by the guy the US were seeking, as a result of them having been applied recently, by persons unknown, in Scotland, while the suspect was under a general anesthetic. The Sheriff therefor ordered that the guy be extradited.

Last Wednesday, in a judgement just about as certain in advance as the tattoo case, the UK Supreme Court declared that the Scotland Act 1998 did not allow Holyrood to hold a unilateral independence referendum. This was hardly surprising since it was the same conclusion that had been reached back in 2011 by Alex Salmond and his then deputy, Nicola Sturgeon.

I have no idea why Sturgeon chose to bring this misfortune upon herself. Had she wanted to, she could have proceeded in a number of different ways than that on which she did. Her problem initially arose from the Scottish Ministerial Code which asserts that Government legislation cannot be introduced without the consent of the Lord Advocate but there were three ways round this, Firstly, she could have changed the Ministerial Code. Secondly, she could have appointed a different Lord Advocate. Both Joanna Cherry KC and Claire Madison Mitchell KC (who wrote the SNP intervention in the case) are eminently qualified to be Lord Advocate and both believed the Bill to be competent. Thirdly, she could have had the Bill introduced by an SNP back bencher who wouldn't need the Lord Advocate's approval. She did none of these. Instead, having failed to persuade the Lord Advocate that her Bill was competent, she did persuade the Lord Advocate to ask the Supreme Court if Ms Bain might be wrong in being unpersuaded. Unanimously, a Supreme Court, from a bench where English Judges were in a minority and with a Scottish Judge in the chair, ruled unanimously with the Lord Advocate. Indeed with Mr Salmond and the younger Ms Sturgeon.

There is much anger among independence campaigners about Ms Sturgeon's approach. I would invite you, if you have the time, to track down a vitriolic piece from the veteran Yesser Robin McAlpine in this regard or indeed the thoughts of the returned Wings over Scotland, who now sees Ms Sturgeon as a bigger obstacle to Scottish independence than even Mr Sunak. Last but by no means least, STV did a lengthy interview with Mr Salmond himself who, for some unexplained reason, conducted the interview from his garden in late November but who made many of the same points. Maybe, like the decision to backdate the sexual harassment complaints process, it was all just a terrible mistake by Ms Sturgeon. I leave the membership of the SNP to work that out for themselves.

The First Minister is now left only with her plan C, to fight the next UK General Election in two years' time as a de facto referendum. Note the two years' time bit. The SNP Westminster Group could of course resign their seats now and fight a series of by-elections. This would have no constitutional significance but if they were returned with increased majorities then it would be a grand gesture. Noticeably however they are not doing that for it would involve a bit too much dependence on the "if". Or the SNP could call an early Holyrood Election. All they'd have to is get Ms Sturgeon to resign and vote down all alternative candidates for FM for 28 days and the Scotland Act then triggers an election. Again, a nationalist increased representation would demonstrate that Scotland really was in the state of outrage the Nationalists claim, but noticeably they are not doing that either.

If they have these worries now, believe me they are only putting off bigger worries to come in 2024. For if the Lord Advocate's reference was a mistake, then having a de facto referendum which won't be recognised by "Unionist" opinion if the Nats, almost inconceivably, win, but which will certainly be recognised as them "having had their referendum" by the Unionists if the Nats almost inevitably, lose? Well, that's brave. In the Sir Humphrey use of that word. 

So, the Nats are completely stalemated but there remains a bit of a niggle on my side at the suggestion that there can never be another referendum without Westminster consent, That this consent would never be forthcoming is of course a nationalist invention. Michael Gove, who mainly leads for the Tories on these matters, has stated that Westminster would consent if it became clear that independence was truly established as Scotland's settled will. The furthest Labour goes is "now is not the time", although you suspect "the time" will not arise at any point during the term(s) of the forthcoming Labour Government.

But I don't think that is enough as it does ultimately seem a bit undemocratic so I have solution! The solution to the conundrum lies in the referendum we did have in 2014. Then, there were 2.2 Million No voters. So, why don't we put in the Scotland Act that if, at any Westminster or Holyrood election, Nationalist Parties get more than 2.2 Million individual votes then they would be absolutely entitled to a second (or indeed a third etc if they did it again) referendum. Respects the result of the 2014 vote but doesn't leave it frozen in time. Can't surely say fairer than that?

I praise of boring

 It is time things were a bit more boring. 

Since the beginning of 2015, British politics have been a state of some chaos. We have had a referendum, three General Elections, five Prime Ministers and no less than eight Chancellors of the Exchequer.  Oh, and we have also had a pandemic. And a proper war in Europe. 

And through quite a lot of that time people have been worried. Not always the same people. In the run up to the Referendum people worried they might lose their right to live in the UK. Then others worried that such was the state of the Tory Party, Jeremy Corbyn might become Prime Minister with all that would mean for our Jewish population. Then they worried that leaving the EU with no sort of deal at all would wreck the economy. Then they worried they were going to die or, even if they survived, they would lose their livelihoods as a result of lockdown. Then. just as they'd started to worry about the cost of living, they were distracted by worrying about the possible collapse of their pension fund. Then, when that latter threat receded, they went back to worrying about the cost of living, not least whether they could afford to heat their homes through the Winter ahead. And then finally, to top it all, they found themselves worrying that there might be a nuclear war. 

So boring, for a while, would be good. And, despite his ludicrous false first step over Braverman. I think Sunak will, in a good way, be quite boring. And Sir Keir will bore back, promising a Labour alternative that can also be trusted to be reassuringly boring. Now, while I'm for that Labour Government as soon as possible, I'm realistic enough to think the Tories would be mad to go the Country before the Autumn of 2024. The problem for the Tories then is, just as John Major, our last boring but competent Prime Minister. could never quite get over Black Wednesday, I suspect Rishi will never get over the 44 days of Truss. A Party daft enough to do that once could not be trusted never to do so again, at least until a respectable period of time had passed. 

Anyway, I don't normally write about UK politics and I'm not really writing about that here. For there has been another aspect to the chaos of the last seven years that has caused some fear. That, such was the state of UK politics, a crucial number of middle ground voters might conclude that an Independent Scotland could hardly be worse. Now my point here is not to knock that belief down but rather to acknowledge its existence as a concern. 

The SNP leadership were sufficiently realistic to accept in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum that they couldn't immediately credibly demand another go. But a fair number of their rank and file were not. The Women for Independence group was not wound up for a single day, nor were any number of "Yes" Groups throughout the Country. The All Under One Banner organisation, charged with demanding a re-run referendum was actually set up in October 2014!

Now to square this circle, Sturgeon's 2016 Holyrood Manifesto found a form of words. A SNP run Scottish Government would not seek a second referendum unless there was a material change in circumstance, such as a vote to leave the EU in the then forthcoming EU Referendum.

This was an easy pledge to make. It bought off the marchers with the illusion of a possible second referendum yet, in May 2016, proceeded on the assumption that there was not the remotest prospect we would actually vote to leave the EU. Everybody in the SNP could be happy. Insofar as they are ever happy.

And yet we did then vote to leave the EU. And Sturgeon had hung herself on a hook she has been wriggling on ever since.

However, she has been helped by wider events. If it was inconceivable that we would leave the EU; inconceivable that Jeremy Corbyn might nearly become Prime Minister; inconceivable that Boris Johnson would actually become Prime Minister, let alone Liz Truss, and yet all these things happened, why then was it so inconceivable that there be a second independence referendum within ten years of the first? 

The answer to that question now is boring. Because the answer to that question is boring. 

We are now set for an attritional two years of UK politics. Labour will argue the coming austerity is because the Tories have mismanaged the economy. The Tories will argue that they have learned from their own mistakes and that a Labour Government inevitably means more tax (heavy emphasis) and spend(thrifery).  

The point is that nationalist politics will be irrelevant to this, For the age of chaos is over. When the Supreme Court delivers its inevitable ruling next month, any lingering mirage of a referendum next October will disappear. And, given that, we are then left with either the option of a second s.30 consent (inconceivable from UK Governments of either stripe) or a de facto referendum when the UK goes to the polls in 2024. "It doesn't matter to us if it is a Labour or Tory Government, we are voting in a de facto referendum instead," Good luck with that SNP. No. I really mean that.

This has been an odd period in Scottish politics. But it is about to be bored to death. 

 

No more worlds to conquer

 There is a famous quote referring to the final campaign of Alexander the Great "And Alexander wept, for he had no more worlds to conquer". I have always assumed this had some classical, or at least renaissance, origin but, having researched its source for this blog, it appears to have originated, at least in its now accepted form, with Alan Rickman playing the baddie in the Hollywood blockbuster Die Hard!!

But of course Alexander, having won Afghanistan did have more worlds he could have tried to conquer but, in truth, his army, having looked at the formidable task of invading India concluded it was beyond even them and mutinied. Alexander had no choice but to withdraw. A couple of years later he was deid. At the grand old age of 32.

So, interesting though this is, what relevance does it have to the matter I usually write about, Scottish politics?

This weekend the SNP are meeting in Conference in Aberdeen, their first in person Conference for three years. This is supposedly because of Coronavirus but that did not stop the other Parties having in person events last year.

As you look on from afar, you can see why they were so keen to avoid such a gathering, for the whole thing has a distinct fin-de-siecle feel to it. 

Since 2006 the SNP have been a Party moving forward. They were either anticipating winning elections or celebrating having done so. Sure, there has been the occasional setback but none fatal, all of the momentum was with them. But they have now reached the end of the road. And postponing conferences has now run out of mileage as well.

I kind of anticipated more tub thumping about their prospects in the Supreme Court, at least as red meat for their rank and file. Instead however they seemed strangely resigned to losing there and acutely aware that the lunatic tactic of a self declared de facto referendum delivers nothing if they, exceptionally improbably, win and disaster if, overwhelmingly likely, they lose. "You'll have had your second referendum" will be the unanimous declaration of the opposition.

And then there is the prospect of a Labour Government. It is noticeable that the Nats biggest reverse since 2006 was in 2010, when Labour looked that they might win and had a credible candidate for  Prime Minister. The last time since then it turns out.  

Come (most likely) 2024, that will not be the case. Now, the Nats can try and sit this General Election  out, declaring they have no interest in whether Labour or the Tories win, that they are engaged, instead, in a de facto Referendum but I suspect the Scottish electorate will not share that view.  And any but idiots in their leadership have surely worked that out. And to be fair, at a leadership level, they have a good number of people who are not idiots.

So, I suspect they will have to find a way of getting themselves off the hook Sturgeon, it appears almost unilaterally, has hung them on. Watching that will prove entertaining, not least as it will force them to spell out expressly whether they might vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government. A call which, if it entails doing that without a second referendum, has the potential to cause an actual split. When Brown told the SNP Conference that for Nationalists there was nothing to choose between a Labour or Tory Government, while most people thought "Whit!" he had a ready audience in the hall. 

Except if not the de facto referendum, then what? There has never been much doubt that Holyrood could not call a unilateral referendum but within six weeks or so the Supreme Court will settle that conclusively. Beyond that neither Labour or the Tories will grant them a s.30, so, to quote not Alan Rickman this time but Roy Orbison, "It's over".

And I wonder if the cleverest of all the Nats doesn't know that better than anybody. As First Minister she has won every election she has fought. Interestingly, despite what people might think on Twitter, according to polling in today's Scotland on Sunday, virtually no other SNP politician has even 10% name recognition. If she was to go after the anticipated Supreme Court reverse she would depart, electorally, undefeated and avoid the potential of having to go after a significant reverse at the next General Election. That surely has to be tempting prospect. 

Alexander was forced to retreat by the mutiny of his army. I wonder if the Yes army might be forced to retreat by the mutiny of its general?

We need to talk about "Scots"

 Some time ago, longer than I might like to confess, I was taught that when addressing a jury, you must make your key points first.

So here they are. Last week, there was a survey of Afghan refugees to the UK. . It discovered they did not want to come to Scotland. Because they believed people here did not speak English. And that conclusion on their part, and its consequence, was the overt objective of our SNP Government. For they did not want them here.

Nationalists across Europe do not want refugees with brown or black skins. Hungarian nationalists do not want them. Polish nationalists do not want them. Italian nationalists do not want them. French nationalists do not want them. Swedish nationalists don't want them. Danish nationalists do not want them and, yes, British nationalists do not want them. I could go on. So why conceivably would Scottish nationalists be an exception to that? Of course they aren't. They are nationalists. 

But Scottish nationalists are trying to build a coalition that requires the involvement, no matter how deludedly, of those who regard themselves to be left wing. So Sturgeon needs a solution that keeps them on board while not confessing her personal politics are little different from those of Orban, Morawiecki, Meloni, Le Pen or (I'll skip the Scandanavians) Farage. And that solution is not to say they can't come here, just that they really, really wouldn't want to. And her mechanism is Scots. "Don't come here. If you thought learning English as a second language was difficult, just think how difficult learning "Scots" is going to be?" So, stay where you are, in England. While we will hypocritically insist you are being terribly treated while, at the same time, putting up an implied  language barrier to you being encouraged to come here.  An entirely fictitious barrier but that's not the point, except it actually is.

Nobody, nobody in England will have told refugees that we do not speak English in Scotland. But plenty in Scotland will have told them we do. That is not my conclusion, it is the conclusion of the refugees themselves. I refer again to the polling

The whole thing is, and I do not hesitate to use the word, racist.

Pretty much everybody in Scotland has a dialect. Ayrshire does not speak like Fife. Nobody speaks like bloody Aberdeen. Again I could go on. But we all recognise that, if we slow down a bit, we can mutually understand each other. In English. just as we would in Newcastle or Truro,. So why, I repeat, are potential immigrants to here encouraged to reach a different conclusion, as they apparently have? That we in Scotland, all of us, speak a different language here. An assertion made by no less than the SNP Scottish Government? 

The why has its own answer.

There is no such thing as "Scots" as a language. It is a dialect of English. Don't take my word for that, take that of Robert Burns. And even he might have doubted that if he had ever been north of Falkirk. 

If you look at who promotes the idea of "Scots" being a language you quickly reach the conclusion that they are invariably white middle aged, and older, men on the blood and soil wing of the SNP. They are entitled to their views. I have no plan to stand outside their meetings , throwing eggs, spitting at them and shouting incoherent abuse. But I see them. We should all see them. And as to the SNP Government giving them public money? We should see that as well and appreciate why.

Conflict of Interest

 The position of Lord Advocate is a curious one. Until Jack McConnell appointed Eilish Angiolini to the position in 2006, it has always required its holder to be a supporter, or better still a member, of the governing Party. But you required also to be a lawyer of standing in your own right. 

I had a lifetime ambition to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, even before there was such an institution, but had I ever reached such a position while Labour still ran Scotland, I would still  never have accepted such an appointment, even if offered. For while I continue to, immodestly, think I have the political skills for the rough and tumble, I was never of the legal eminence required for such a position. For to hold it you need not just the support of the government but the recognition of the legal profession and the judiciary that you are qualified for the job. That's why Roseanna Cunningham was never considered for the position after the SNP formed a government in 2007. She is a formidable politician and she is also a really good trial lawyer but she is not someone with the comprehensive stretch of knowledge to be a law officer. That is no insult to her when I concede a similar fault on my own part.

So, even when the Nats got in in 2007, Salmond asked Eilish to stay on and when she departed office for entirely personal reasons, asked her equally non political sidekick, Frank Mulholland, to replace her. I know them well enough to describe them both as friends. Since they both rose up through the Procurator Fiscal Service neither has never expressed an overt political opinion although I have always suspected Frank is a (soft) Nat and Eilish (whisper it) a liberal Tory.

But, on Frank going on to the bench, from 2016 we had James Wolfe as Lord Advocate and if he is a raving Nat then I am the King of Siam. And since 2021, we have had Dorothy Bain.

"Top lawyer" is a phrase much loved by the tabloids, usually followed by "stole money" or "slept with divorce client" or "struck off for lying to Court". Few of these people are in truth "top lawyers". But anyone who has held the office of Lord Advocate is truly a top lawyer. 

And the Lord Advocate is given a specific, guaranteed, role under the Scotland Act 1998. Not only must someone hold that role as the independent head of the prosecution service in Scotland, but they must also, in terms of the ministerial code, sign off on the legal propriety of any Bill introduced to Holyrood as being within devolved competence. 

And that is what Dorothy Bain has refused to do on the proposed "advisory" Referendum the SNP propose to introduce at Holyrood. 

But she has agreed to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court as to whether her own refusal to sign off on the Bill might be wrong. 

Now, I am not a top lawyer but I was taught forty years past that proper legal practice requires you to articulate both sides of the argument if making an argument in law before a court. Indeed I will do so (twice) in the next two weeks in cases of much lesser importance I am currently to conclude on the basis of more or less agreed facts but disputed law. 

So, top lawyer, Dorothy Bain, has done that in her published written submissions to the Supreme Court. You'll find this easily available in this internet age. And I would defy you to conclude, with reference to the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and Pepper v Hart,  that she herself has not concluded the overwhelming argument is against her. I'm also not clear why, to give it bulk, these submissions consist in almost half of a recitation of history for those members of the Supreme Court who might have never gone to school or indeed read a newspaper. But possibly someone down the line of command was being paid by the page. Anyway, let's wait and see what Lord Reed thinks about that. 

But, anyway, that is not my concluding point. This morning, apparently, the SNP have decide to intervene in the Supreme Court, to argue that the case argued by the Lord Advocate, appointed by the SNP Government, is not the position of the SNP. An intervention to which the Lord Advocate must agree or object. I  might not be a top lawyer but I can certainly recognise a conflict of interest when I see one. So let us await events

Constitutional thoughts from my garden

 Good afternoon and greetings from my garden where, improbably in the West of Scotland in June, it is actually sunny and warm enough to sit in the shade to see a lap top screen.

As you are probably aware Sturgeon once again this week "restarted" the campaign for a second independence referendum with a paper which had as much rationale as one from Cowdenbeath suggesting that, since Manchester United and Liverpool play in red, if Cowdenbeath only started playing in red then they would soon be just as successful in European competition. 

But I'm not here to mock Sturgeon (beyond that) but rather to try to bring together in one place various propositions surrounding this initiative which remain misunderstood by political commentators who, frankly, in many cases should have better informed themselves. I don't think I'm saying anything new, just trying to bring it together in one place.

The easiest way to do this is by asking various questions of myself and then answering them, For the sake of brevity I will only cite sources where absolutely essential.

Question 1, Could Scotland unilaterally declare itself independent? 

Patently not. There are various legal obstacles to this but altogether more practical issues in to the bargain. HMRC and The DWP are UK institutions without access to which we'd have no way of collecting taxes , paying for public sector wages and, even if we had access to resources, paying pensions or benefits. That, rather than dry constitutionalism, is why events in Catalonia were such a farce.

Question 2.  Would that change if we had a unilateral referendum and voted for independence?

No, why would it?

Question 3.  Could the Holyrood Parliament hold a unilateral referendum anyway? .

No. The constitution and the Union are matters reserved to Westminster. Any attempt to do so would be stopped in the Courts but it wouldn't even get to the stage of that as to even introduce such a Bill the Ministerial Code requires the approval of the Law Officers, which would patently not be forthcoming given the law is so clear. Indeed, by the SNP's own admission they haven't even asked them. And does anybody think that if Alex Salmond thought he could just do this then he wouldn't have done so in 2011? 

Question 4. So what is Sturgeon's "Wizard wheeze"?

The Nats think they can get round the problem immediately above by introducing a Bill declared to be expressly "advisory" which might get Law Officer consent. More importantly which might get through the Courts.

Question 5. Would it get through the Courts?

This could only be decided once it was passed. It is well established law that the Courts can interfere in Holyrood's activities as they go on (Whaley v Watson) but the relatively recent decision in Keatings v The Lord Advocate indicates they'd be reluctant to do so. 

Question 6. So it would be up to the UK Government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court?

No. This is easily the most common misconception repeated as late as this morning by Martin Geissler on the BBC. In terms of s.29 of the Scotland Act 1998, legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament outwith its legal powers is not law and can therefor be ignored by private citizens and public and private corporate  bodies. My best theory as to how things would then play out is that in a Council not controlled by the nationalists, the administration would instruct their officials not to comply with any central government instruction to start to organise such a referendum as it is not law and force the Scottish Government to take them to Court. Alternatively any Scottish citizen could bring proceedings to declare the legislation null and void. That's what happened with the named person legislation. Michael Gove has already said on the record on TV that the UK Government themselves would not bring a legal challenge. Something simply ignored as journalists dance a jig to a nationalist tune.

Question 7. Who would win such a litigation?

That depends on the terms of the Act as passed. If it contained an express declaration that "The result of the  vote in this referendum will be of no consequence whatsover.". or they even made that concession in court itself then the Nats might win..  The  latter concession is not as absurd as its sounds . They did of course win the court case to strike down their ban on fracking by advising they hadn't actually banned fracking, they just had said that they had. Alternatively, if the court took the view that they could then look to the purpose of the vote and conclude that it was to advance something itself ultra vires of the Parliament they might well lose. The balance of academic opinion is in the latter camp but it is a balance and nobody has seen the putative legislation.

Question 8. Which court would decide this?

In the first instance the Outer House of the Court of Session and on appeal the Inner House. It could in theory go to the Supreme Court but only if the Party then in the losing position chose to send it there. You could therefor see the SNP Government asking the UK Supreme Court to overrule our highest, purely domestic court but somehow I doubt it would come to that.

Question 9. What happens if the legal challenge succeeds? 

That's the end of the matter. Forever. For it would be established that Holyrood could never hold a referendum, even an "advisory" one, on  a unillateral basis

Question 10. And what happens then?

You'd need to ask the SNP that.

Question 11, What happens if the legal challenge fails?

There is an advisory referendum. We don't turn up on the basis that the SNP would only accept the advice if it was advice they wanted to hear. That was precisely the outcome in 2014.

Question 12. But doesn't that mean they'd win? 

Well yes and no. You see, back when they first suggested holding an advisory referendum, as long ago as the 2007-11 Parliament, this might have been, if allowed, a useful tactic. But we have since had an actual referendum with an unprecedented turnout. A referendum where the nationalists got 1.6M votes while losing. Now that referendum took place in an unprecedented blanket of media coverage. That would not, outwith the pages of The National (circulation 20,000, supposedly), be repeated. And if you made the effort to vote Yes then it was in the belief your vote would trigger actual independence. That belief wouldn't be there either in 2023 (ha ha ha). They most certainly would win this one horse race. They might even, with a huge amount of effort, get a million votes. But,  the day after, all the UK Government would say is "The SNP have spent £20M of public money to establish that fewer people want Scottish Independence now than did in 2014. We could have told them that for nothing."

Question 13. What happens then?

You'd need to ask the SNP that.

Hopefully that answers all the questions addressed to me via twitter. If I've missed anything anybody needs to know please get back to me on twitter as I've blocked replies because I get ridiculously spammed here by people advising me how to cast a spell to get my wife back, Advice I don't need partly because I don't believe in spells and partly because she has not left me. Although, admittedly she has spent a ridiculous amount of time out shopping for doorknobs so, perhaps, who knows.

And with that I think I've earned a beer.

Why all the fuss?

 In the last ten days the SNP have worked themselves up to more and a more of a lather over events in our Councils following the May 5th Election. In summary, Labour has formed minority administrations across Scotlland in places where they did not have the largest number of councillors and yet no other Party (in urban Scotland, essentially the SNP) had an overall majority.

Now it seems to me this is something they might have anticipated. After all Anas had made it clear we would be forming no coalitions with anybody. If you thought that through for a minute that was obviously going to leave the Tories as kingmakers in a large number of councils and, logically, they would be likely to support Labour administrations if forced to choose from the lesser of two evils. That has indeed transpired.

None of this explains however quite why the SNP have gone just so tonto over this. 

I think there are four explanations.

Firstly, events have made them look stupid, and nobody likes to look stupid. They simply did not see this coming, although five minutes thinking through Anas's pledge of no coalitions should have alerted them to its possibility.

Secondly, in local government in particular, power is money. Committee Conveners, chosen by the administration in power, earn twice as much as ordinary councillors, while Council leaders can earn up to three times as much. So a lot of Nats have lost a lot of money personally as a result of what has happened. That's enough to annoy anybody.

Thirdly, there is the lingering mirage of a second independence  referendum. Referendum's are legislated for by Governments but carried out by councils. I have written elsewhere about the legal controversy that might follow Holyrood legislating for an ultra vires independence referendum. Suffice to say, failing to control a number of our major Councils does not assist the SNP in that context.

But these are not the main reasons the Nats are going ballistic. That is because they have suddenly realised what this might mean for their continued control of Holyrood after the 2026 Election.

In 2007, the SNP had, by one seat, the largest number of MSPs but they had nowhere near an overall majority. Against that background, on any view, Alex Salmond played a political blinder. From his opening salvo "It may not yet be clear who has won this election but it is clear who has lost" to the point of his election as First Minister he proceeded on the basis that this one seat margin entitled the SNP to form a Government. He was, it has to be said, assisted in this by the other major Parties. The Lib Dems decided they wanted to go in to opposition. Labour just kind of gave up after that while the Tories were never more than interested bystanders since nobody would form an administration of which they were part. So, although all four major Parties nominated for the position of First Minister, as their candidates were knocked out, they thereafter abstained and ultimately Salmond then became FM with only 49 of the 129 votes available.

Now, I'm not sure how wise these tactics by the opposition were given subsequent developments but what's done is done. And in the process the SNP believed themselves to have set a precedent that the largest Party was entitled to the position of First Minister. None of this has really mattered since because the Nats did get an absolute majority in 2011 and, counting in their wholly owned subsidiary that is the Scottish Green Party, effectively did the same in 2016 and 2021.

But they have suddenly woken up to the precedent they themselves thought they had set in 2007 is not accepted by the other Parties. So if the SNP and Greens are still the dominant force at Holyrood in 2026, but fail to gain a combined total of 65 MPs, then anything could happen. If the Tories and Libs decide, unlike 2007, that a minority Labour Administration is, as I say earlier,  the better of two evils and vote for a Labour FM then that is what we will have, It is precisely that which has happened in Councils across Scotland since May 5th.

And that is the main reason the Nats are so outraged. Because they are worried.