Think back to the commentary that followed the 2015 election when Labour lost Scotland. They had been taking Scotland for granted for decades, and that complacency had finally caught up with them. They had thought they could work with the Tories in the Better Together campaign with total impunity, and without any negative consequences to themselves, and they had been proved utterly wrong. If they wanted to have any chance of recovering their former position, they would actually have to start listening to their ex-voters, particularly those who supported independence - you know, just as they listened to voters in Middle England in the 1990s and adjusted their policies in line with the aspirations of English voters.
And then think back to Labour's reaction to that commentary. Listening to voters was something Labour does in England, not in Scotland. It's the voters who are wrong in Scotland, not Labour. It's Scottish voters who must recognise they need to change, not Labour. And if the voters don't change, that's regrettable, but Labour losing elections would still be a price worth paying for being right about the Union. (Can you imagine the same people, such as Ian Murray, saying that losing elections in England under Jeremy Corbyn was a pride worth paying for being right about democratic socialism?!)
The irony is that the voters in Scotland haven't actually changed - polls show that independence support is as high as ever. Pro-independence voters are returning to Labour even though Labour are offering them nothing of what they want. How fortunate it must feel to be a Scottish Labour candidate - you don't have to earn votes, you don't have to make painful policy sacrifices to win votes. Unlike in England, no reflection or listening is required - you just do nothing and the votes still fly at you for no particular reason.
I suppose any country gets the politicians and politics it deserves, and if Scotland votes Labour in these circumstances, the lesson Labour will learn is that they can go back to treating Scotland with just as much contempt as they did prior to 2015, and can expect to keep being rewarded as they were in the old days.
However, there's nothing more important in politics than how reality matches up to expectations. Objectively, the 2017 election was a superb result for the SNP, it was a landslide win on a par with Mrs Thatcher's in 1987, and yet it felt like a catastrophe because the SNP and others were expecting so much better. Scottish Labour are now getting into the potentially dangerous position where they and others are starting to expect to win a majority - and if they fall short of that, the psychological impact could be immense. They may have fallen in love with the idea of a Scottish comeback to a sufficient extent that being deprived of that might shock them enough to start thinking the unthinkable, and wondering if listening to Scottish voters might actually be necessary after all.
The problem is, of course, that the expectations of a Labour win are there for a very good reason - Labour already seem to have a slight lead in a contest which will be a 'home fixture' for themselves and an 'away fixture' for the SNP, and thus you'd think any further swing is more likely to be pro-Labour rather than pro-SNP. However, there are a couple of caveats on that. Firstly, pollsters are not unanimous in showing a Labour lead in Scotland - the most recent Ipsos poll showed a decent lead for the SNP, and as the only telephone pollster in Scotland, it's not inconceivable that Ipsos are right and others are wrong. And secondly, even if Labour do have the small lead reported by Norstat, they've achieved it on the coat-tails of absolutely gargantuan leads over the Tories at GB level. It's at least possible that if those GB leads slip, Labour could suffer a corresponding slip in Scotland, sufficient to nudge the SNP back into a small lead. And while it's probably impossible for the Tories to overturn Labour's GB lead, it's certainly within the realms of imagination that the lead could be trimmed from, say, 20-25 points to 10-15. That kind of partial reversal of the tide might yet be enough to make all the difference in Scotland.
However, the SNP would be incredibly foolish to bank on that, and they really need to start considering major strategic changes of their own.
* * *
Before we finish, a reminder that the Scot Goes Pop opinion poll fundraiser urgently needs a boost - let's not leave it in limbo for months. It's important that not all Scottish opinion polling is commissioned by anti-independence clients - we need to make sure that occasionally questions are asked that Yes supporters want asked. Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE.
However if you have a Paypal account the best way to donate is via direct Paypal payment, because that can totally eliminate fees depending on which option you select, and payment usually comes through instantly. My Paypal email address is:
jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
It seems too many politicians in Scotland have accepted political tides in Scotland being exactly like the inevitable tides of the seaside. They wait and watch when they should be taking action. The pro independence public in Scotland needs politicians who have no fear of making waves. I would suggest the pro independence voters would cheer mightily if pro independence MPs permanently walked out Westminster right now instead of waiting impotently for another sea change.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I agree with a lot of the sentiment behind it. The tides are real though in my view, my only concern is the action suggested may cause a ripple rather than a wave at this certain moment. Parties do have a shelf life with the persuadables in a. Electorate for good or bad. Time to do it was in the shadow of the Supreme Court judgement and 15 pro Yes polls in a row. Not the only time to do it but it needs managed properly.
DeleteEngland is 10× bigger than Scotland. Pandering, or even just listening, to English voters makes total sense. Listening to Scotland however could be deadly to Labour. They were scared very rightly by the effectiveness of the “in her pocket” campaign of 2015. If there’s one thing English voters don’t want it’s being “ruled by Scots.”
ReplyDeleteLabour can afford to be mauled in Scotland. England? Not a chance.
What you seem to be suggesting is that Scottish voters don't really matter. Funny, that, because Scottish Labour people spend their days on social media pretending to be outraged by any suggestion that Scottish voters don't matter.
DeleteI am suggesting exactly that. This overwhelming inequality in the Union is exactly why I see independence as our only way out. England *is* the UK. There’s just no scope for Scotland inside “Britain.” In fact, there never was.
DeleteAbsolute nonsense, Scotland is a very important country within the UK, always has been, always will be.
DeleteName the times we were ever listened to, over England. I’m waiting!
DeleteAnonymous at 5.10pm is right. Scotland - it's resources, it's land mass, its seas, its geographical position all very important to Westminster. It's people are nowt but a bloody nuisance to England and need to be controlled and kept in a colonial status.
DeleteAnon at 5.06 - " overwhelming inequality" means it ain't a union - the idea of it being a union was just a front from day one. Scotland is a colony - always has been. Initially maintained by force and in modern times by propaganda.
IFS, Scotland is a colony!!!! LOL
DeleteAnon at 5.50pm - only a Britnat would think that Scotland being a colony is funny. Massive numbers of early deaths every year due to economic exploitation - you think that's funny do you.
DeleteIFS, embarrassing nonsense.
DeleteYour powers of argument are just as shite as ever, KC.
DeleteAnon at 6.08pm - I smell Britnat shit and you are honking of it.
DeleteIFS, 🎶🎶🎶🎶 ( shake, shake, shake) Shake your booty 🎶🎶🎶🎶 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
DeleteHis Britnat mansion is hoaching.
DeleteAnd while it's probably impossible for the Tories to overturn Labour's GB lead, it's certainly within the realms of imagination that the lead could be trimmed from, say, 20-25 points to 10-15. That kind of partial reversal of the tide might yet be enough to make all the difference in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteI still find it incomprehensible that anti-Tory voters in Scotland would become *less* likely to vote Labour as their UK lead becomes *more* precarious. Maybe voters would indeed behave so irrationally, but I thought there was evidence, at least at constituency level, that third parties tend to be squeezed by a perceived close contest for first place
That theory certainly didn't work in 2015, which was a "perceived close contest for first place". Maybe treating the SNP as a "third party" in Scotland doesn't really work, even at Westminster level.
DeleteHope Alba will win seats at the upcoming election. I have not unfortunately had any literature from them whatsoever in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock.
ReplyDeleteAs a lifelong unionist, my biggest fear is anti-Tory tactical voting, which is bound to help the SNP massively. It's a dreadful concern not only for me, but I know also for other lifelong unionists.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite a lifelong unionist, but I was won over by tales of Blighty when I was eight - does that count? I must admit I share your fear. Tactical voting against the Conservatives could get the SNP off the hook in this election.
DeleteTories will vote Labour just to keep their hold in Scotland for the so called union
DeleteAlba will vote for anybody not the SNP to help Labour then complain it was all the SNP fault if Labour win in Scotland
When you are a non entity party and unpopular with voters as Alex Salmond is, the strategy is to destroy the trust in those you mean to replace, so in that respect Alba are every bit as bad for Scotland as all three of the English parties
Yes, tactical voting will be a one way street in the SNP's favour. Labour won't get any tactical votes because there are no Tory seats they can win.
DeleteAnon at 10:00pm: What a shrewd observation. There's so much anger towards the Tory government that voters will be queuing up to vote tactically for the party best placed to kick the Tories out. In Scotland, that's the SNP.
DeleteI smell Britnat shit.
DeleteIFS, I agree.
DeleteYou’d think people would have better things to do wouldn’t you?
In Rutherglen the labour "lead" was in fact just low turnout. Labour had less votes than in 2019. The SNP vote stayed at home. How do the polls account for the difference in likelihood of voting?
ReplyDeleteThat's correct, Rutherglen voting was completely skewed because SNP voters just didn't take part in that election
DeleteIn truth Labour's vote was actually down on previous elections, and that's with Tory supporters voting for Labour
If SNP voters decide the coming general election is important enough for them to engage in Labour won't stand a chance, because their numbers are actually going nowhere, and there's months to go yet
If you don't vote, you don't count in a vote.
DeleteAnd you can't asign votes to people who don't vote. That idea is just wierd.
DeleteBy election turnout vs. general election turnout. Apples and oranges.
DeleteIf SNP voters stayed at home in greater proportions than Labour voters in the by-election, wouldn't that same pattern likely apply at the GE?
DeleteExcellent points which I fully agree with. Also to note that Kate Forbes, assuming she becomes leader, is likely to improve the SNPs vote share and hence result in a restoration of the SNP's fortunes, which I am sure we all agree would be desirable.
ReplyDeleteA question for Yoons.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is more likely,
The Union still existing by the end of 2026 or the actual bodily resurrection of Blighty's finest, Winnie Churchill?
Serious question.
Definitely the Churchill resurrection. As your question implies, independence within the next three years is nigh-on inevitable.
DeleteSo it was KC posting these wide eyed credulous "inevitable" comments all along as well? Aren't there enough zoomers to go round?
DeleteAnon at 10:11am: You mean three MONTHS, surely? But yes, anyone who think there's the remotest chance of Scotland still being part of the UK by January 2027 is a sandwich short of a picnic.
DeleteOr a KC short of a Sunshine Band.
DeleteNah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah
DeleteBaby give it up give it up baby give it up
Kate Forbes will not become SNP leader and Humza Yousaf is interim leader only
ReplyDeleteShug Shug Shug, Shug your bootie, Shug your bootie!
DeleteThought Alister Jack spoke well this morning.
ReplyDeleteHow to tell us you're the swivel-eyed Yoon without telling us you're the swivel-eyed Yoon.
DeleteJack was a disgrace.
Sturgeon was a bigger disgrace.
DeleteI smell Britnat shit.
DeleteIt’s, thought you weren’t a fan of Nicola.
DeleteEncouraging to read this analysis. If the tide does go out for Labour then that is very good news for the SNP who would be the principal beneficiaries of the tide going out for Labour.
ReplyDeleteThe tories may well close the gap on labour before the GE in England, but I don’t see much change to what the polls are showing for Scotland. The only way it’s going to improve is if the SNP gets its act together quickly, but that’s hard to see before the GE.
ReplyDeleteRealistically I think the GE is going to be bad, and we need to hope there’s dramatic change before the 2026 Holyrood election, which of course will be massive.
The SNP may well appoint Kate Forbes as leader before the 2026 election, which should pave the way for better electoral results, given her popularity with the wider electorate.
DeleteIf the GE goes as bad as polls are predicting, we need a change of leader straight after and start rebuilding for the Holyrood election.
DeleteI agree Kate Forbes seems the obvious to replace Yousaf.
Definitely. Hope Humza knows it’s time to go when the result comes. And I hope the party doesn’t make the same mistake again in picking another continuity candidate.
DeleteForbes held her own on BBCQT today. If she takes over as leader when Humza hands over the SNP will increase vote share.
ReplyDeleteWhen Humza decides to call it a day, SNP members would be well advised to vote for Kate Forbes for the reaso you have given.
DeleteI agree fully with those persons arguing above that Kate Forbes would be a good choice for SNP leader.
ReplyDeleteI felt very sorry for Kate Forbes when I saw who else was on the QT panel from Glasgow.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with me that she held her own?
DeleteFirst time ever I can remember thinking that every answer by a specific panel member was utter crap. I give you Lord Offal - and that's not a typo. The Britnat shit was pouring out of the unelected Tory who has a position in the alternative Tory government of Scotland. So we have an unelected Lord having power over Scotland domestically and another unelected Lord Cameron having power over the foreign policy in Scotland the Colony.
DeleteAnon at 12.03 am - she more than held her own considering the rest were male Britnats and a bampot. The spot the plant competition would be won by anyone who clocked the long long long rant by the lady in bright pink ( easy for Bruce to see her sitting in prime postion in the middle of the audience) who told you everything in Scotland is rubbish - that is standard practice in colonies - tell the natives they are rubbish - sub standard - inferior to the colonials.
DeleteUnionists don't seem to realise that people like Malcolm Offord are as much of an insult to them as everybody else
DeleteThis man couldn't get elected in Scotland, nobody wanted him so the government in England imposed him on Scotland because he gave them money as a donation
So every person who cast their vote was told by England, we don't care what you do or don't vote for, you get what we decide
So if you're a unionist that thinks this man is on your side, you're just an absolute mile wrong, he's laughing at the stupidity of people that'll put up with being dictated to, and just because you might support England's fake union and it suits you at this moment, Malcolm Offord is only doing one job making sure England owns every blade of grass stick and stone and idiot in Scotland that thinks him and all his English cronies think about Scottish unionists as anything more than property
I was reading Albert Memmi's book The Colonizer and the Colonized recently, and this Lord Colonizer chappy sounds exactly like Memmi's detailed description of the third-rate failed French settlers who came to his native Tunisia because they couldn't hack it back in the motherland.
DeleteThe pied noirs didn't do irony. But they did clear off, en-masse, upon independence.
Why is it that people think Labour are doing well? pretty simple really they are in the enviable position of having no responsibility for anything for years
ReplyDeleteThey can't be blamed for Covid because they did nothing, they can't be blamed for the economy because they did nothing, they can't be blamed for anything, yet they did do something, they did nothing
except blame everybody else that had the responsibility of doing something and now they've transferred that populist blame culture onto the public by convincing them that doing nothing was really good
It wisnae me ma, it wiz thame ma, now altogether join in
Why? Because England is a 2-party democracy and when the one in government goes down, the other one must go up.
DeleteThis wouldn’t be such a bad thing if:
1. There were any difference between the two parties
2. There was anything the voters could do to break away from them without the fear of “wasting” their votes
3. It wasn’t our problem
Encouraging reading for SNP. Hopefully all this is correct and Kate Forbes will take over and SNP voter share will increase.
DeleteLabour are offering Indy Scots nothing and expect to receive their votes. The SNP are offering Indy Scots nothing either, Why would expect to receive any vote? Two devolutionist parties offering nothing to Indy voters
ReplyDelete