Read more: The SNP has failed Scotland
The SNP's economic case is draining away
Politics often seems about positioning and presentation. This is understandable—it is a contest for power, and persuasion is central to gaining power. But in the end that power is about purpose—political purpose—or it is worth nothing. We see this principle boiled down to its basics in Scotland today. The Scottish National Party has now been in power for nearly nine years. The first seven of these were about a referendum on independence, which they held and lost decisively.
The question is what will the next decade—which the SNP looks set to dominate electorally in the Scottish Parliament—be about? Almost certainly it will be about trying and failing to hold a second referendum. This, paradoxically, will be a success for the SNP. Any second referendum is a high-risk option for them as there will be no third one, but the hope of the SNP leadership is that the prospect of a potential referendum (that never quite materializes) will hold their coalition of support together. It is power through procrastination.
That may be a more than adequate formula for continued electoral dominance but it fails to answer the Peggy Lee question: “Is that all there is?” Ten years of Margaret Thatcher delivered council house sales, trade union reform, privatisation, the Falklands War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ten years of Blair brought NHS spending to the European average, peace in Ireland after 600 years of conflict, an end to pensioner poverty, a National Minimum Wage and 0.7% of GDP spent on foreign aid. In 2017, ten years of SNP rule will have delivered free medical prescriptions and a lost referendum. “It doesn't matter”, say the commentators. “Whatever the SNP do or don't do it does not affect their support. There is a frozen electoral landscape whose contours were formed in the referendum.”
Perhaps so, but as was said in The Sopranos, “everything comes to an end.” In other words, the laws of political gravity will assert themselves. That will happen eventually regardless of what any other political party does. The art of political leadership in opposition is to speed up the inevitable. When you are on the up you do that by accentuating your positives. When you are on the ropes you try to maximise the negatives of your opponents. That is precisely what Kezia Dugdale has just tried in Scotland. The Leader of Scottish Labour has pledged that if she is elected and able to form a government after this May's Scottish Parliament elections then she will use the tax raising powers of the country’s Parliament and put an additional penny on every rate. Rates of income tax in Scotland would be 21p, 41p and 46p. Though small, this chance would raise significant revenue. But the real impact is political and emblematic—the extra money raised will be spent on schools. With one move Scottish Labour can unite councils, local government workers, teachers, unions and parents.
Two immediate observations which are obvious and wrong have been made about Dugdale's policy. The first is that no-one gets elected promising to raise taxes. New Labour disproved that when they raised taxes to increase NHS funding. The second is that it was designed to attack the SNP from the left and that this would not work because the nationalists win by being centrist not leftist. This is to misunderstand the boldness of Scottish Labour's move and the actual nature of the attack—it is an assault on the SNP's claim to the title of “progressive”, rather than on the party’s left-wing credentials.
There are already signs that this attack is working. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had her most difficult session of First Minister's Questions since Dugdale became Scottish Labour Leader in August. During the run-up to last year's General Election Sturgeon declared that the SNP would “demand an alternative to slash-and-burn austerity.” Why then, Dugdale enquired, wouldn't the SNP (in government in Scotland) use tax raising powers to protect public services from cuts. Sturgeon was on the defensive immediately. At first she resorted to the same arguments that David Cameron had used against Jeremy Corbyn on the same issue the day before in Prime Minister's Questions. Then, reminded that she was not only echoing Tory words but that she had Scottish Conservative backing in the vote against Labour's tax increase, the First Minister was forced onto ground she did not want to go near.
Sturgeon blames Labour for the cuts—she says that they were only necessary because Scotland had voted against independence just as Scottish Labour had wanted. This argument—that Scotland would have been better off if independent—does not pass muster with the voters. They know that oil prices have collapsed, and that revenue from the North Sea oil to which Scotland has access would now not be nearly sufficient to make up for the Westminster funding Scotland would lose if it went independent. Sturgeon knows this too. That's why she avoids talking about independence at all costs. But this time she had to, because there is no reason at all for a purportedly “progressive” party to simply passport Tory cuts straight down to ordinary Scots when it has the power to prevent them. No reason at all, until you remember the place and the power of grievance in nationalist politics. Better to blame an external enemy—Westminster—than to take such a big hit, Sturgeon will have reasoned.
This is not a turning point for Scottish Labour, let alone Scottish politics—but it is a pivot point. Inaction, like action, reveals. Alex Bell, a former senior adviser to the SNP government, puts it like this: “If you spend your life shouting ‘fire, fire,’ at some point you have to use the extinguisher. If not, then you just look like an arsonist."
For a nationalist, all can be sacrificed to the ultimate cause: independence. But not all Scottish voters—SNP supporters or not—are nationalists. They might just feel a little queasy at he thought that children are being punished by education cuts just to make a political point. And even more unsettled at the idea of this being in any way “progressive.” Values, motives, actions, consequences—these, like priorities, are the language of politics and purpose. To govern is to choose. To oppose is to choose too. It will be interesting to watch the SNP defending cuts and proclaiming a vote for them as a vote against more money for schools. Not the beginning of the end, nor the end of the beginning but maybe a thaw has started in Scottish politics.
The SNP's economic case is draining away
Politics often seems about positioning and presentation. This is understandable—it is a contest for power, and persuasion is central to gaining power. But in the end that power is about purpose—political purpose—or it is worth nothing. We see this principle boiled down to its basics in Scotland today. The Scottish National Party has now been in power for nearly nine years. The first seven of these were about a referendum on independence, which they held and lost decisively.
The question is what will the next decade—which the SNP looks set to dominate electorally in the Scottish Parliament—be about? Almost certainly it will be about trying and failing to hold a second referendum. This, paradoxically, will be a success for the SNP. Any second referendum is a high-risk option for them as there will be no third one, but the hope of the SNP leadership is that the prospect of a potential referendum (that never quite materializes) will hold their coalition of support together. It is power through procrastination.
That may be a more than adequate formula for continued electoral dominance but it fails to answer the Peggy Lee question: “Is that all there is?” Ten years of Margaret Thatcher delivered council house sales, trade union reform, privatisation, the Falklands War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ten years of Blair brought NHS spending to the European average, peace in Ireland after 600 years of conflict, an end to pensioner poverty, a National Minimum Wage and 0.7% of GDP spent on foreign aid. In 2017, ten years of SNP rule will have delivered free medical prescriptions and a lost referendum. “It doesn't matter”, say the commentators. “Whatever the SNP do or don't do it does not affect their support. There is a frozen electoral landscape whose contours were formed in the referendum.”
Perhaps so, but as was said in The Sopranos, “everything comes to an end.” In other words, the laws of political gravity will assert themselves. That will happen eventually regardless of what any other political party does. The art of political leadership in opposition is to speed up the inevitable. When you are on the up you do that by accentuating your positives. When you are on the ropes you try to maximise the negatives of your opponents. That is precisely what Kezia Dugdale has just tried in Scotland. The Leader of Scottish Labour has pledged that if she is elected and able to form a government after this May's Scottish Parliament elections then she will use the tax raising powers of the country’s Parliament and put an additional penny on every rate. Rates of income tax in Scotland would be 21p, 41p and 46p. Though small, this chance would raise significant revenue. But the real impact is political and emblematic—the extra money raised will be spent on schools. With one move Scottish Labour can unite councils, local government workers, teachers, unions and parents.
Two immediate observations which are obvious and wrong have been made about Dugdale's policy. The first is that no-one gets elected promising to raise taxes. New Labour disproved that when they raised taxes to increase NHS funding. The second is that it was designed to attack the SNP from the left and that this would not work because the nationalists win by being centrist not leftist. This is to misunderstand the boldness of Scottish Labour's move and the actual nature of the attack—it is an assault on the SNP's claim to the title of “progressive”, rather than on the party’s left-wing credentials.
There are already signs that this attack is working. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had her most difficult session of First Minister's Questions since Dugdale became Scottish Labour Leader in August. During the run-up to last year's General Election Sturgeon declared that the SNP would “demand an alternative to slash-and-burn austerity.” Why then, Dugdale enquired, wouldn't the SNP (in government in Scotland) use tax raising powers to protect public services from cuts. Sturgeon was on the defensive immediately. At first she resorted to the same arguments that David Cameron had used against Jeremy Corbyn on the same issue the day before in Prime Minister's Questions. Then, reminded that she was not only echoing Tory words but that she had Scottish Conservative backing in the vote against Labour's tax increase, the First Minister was forced onto ground she did not want to go near.
Sturgeon blames Labour for the cuts—she says that they were only necessary because Scotland had voted against independence just as Scottish Labour had wanted. This argument—that Scotland would have been better off if independent—does not pass muster with the voters. They know that oil prices have collapsed, and that revenue from the North Sea oil to which Scotland has access would now not be nearly sufficient to make up for the Westminster funding Scotland would lose if it went independent. Sturgeon knows this too. That's why she avoids talking about independence at all costs. But this time she had to, because there is no reason at all for a purportedly “progressive” party to simply passport Tory cuts straight down to ordinary Scots when it has the power to prevent them. No reason at all, until you remember the place and the power of grievance in nationalist politics. Better to blame an external enemy—Westminster—than to take such a big hit, Sturgeon will have reasoned.
This is not a turning point for Scottish Labour, let alone Scottish politics—but it is a pivot point. Inaction, like action, reveals. Alex Bell, a former senior adviser to the SNP government, puts it like this: “If you spend your life shouting ‘fire, fire,’ at some point you have to use the extinguisher. If not, then you just look like an arsonist."
For a nationalist, all can be sacrificed to the ultimate cause: independence. But not all Scottish voters—SNP supporters or not—are nationalists. They might just feel a little queasy at he thought that children are being punished by education cuts just to make a political point. And even more unsettled at the idea of this being in any way “progressive.” Values, motives, actions, consequences—these, like priorities, are the language of politics and purpose. To govern is to choose. To oppose is to choose too. It will be interesting to watch the SNP defending cuts and proclaiming a vote for them as a vote against more money for schools. Not the beginning of the end, nor the end of the beginning but maybe a thaw has started in Scottish politics.
