UK - Election 2015

[ddt]

Won't there be a difference this time, with the Scot Nats being able to veto England-only legislation? If I recall, the nationalist parties last enjoyed influence in the days of the Lib-Lab pact in the 70s but they were very small then and I can't recollect any problems. This will be different because the SNP will be able to claim to 'speak for Scotland' in the UK context, which will be a first.

How could they veto legislation with only 50-odd seats?

I am prompted to look up the result of the October 1974 election. The SNP held the balance of power then, too (Labour 319 + SNP 11 = 330) but, unfortunately, so did several other parties (Lib 13 alone or Plaid Cymru and other assortments acting together).

Look at the small print. There were only 635 seats, so Labour's 319 were in itself a (very small) majority. They had a minority in the earlier February election, with only 301 seats, but there, neither the Liberal's 14 nor the SNP's 7 each alone would help. There was a reason Wilson called for another election.

This time, we could have something like this (say):

Lab 290
SNP 50
Con 250
Lib 40
Others 20

And this would be quite new.

In that scenario Labour would still be the biggest party in rest-UK (= UK minus Scotland), but not have the majority. Thus far, no Labour, nor Tory government ever had a majority in the whole of UK but not outside Scotland. So in that sense, there's nothing new.

 

[MCel58]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I have been incapacitated yet again for the last month or so. I have a fairly fundamental question re the SNP. Who will effectively act as leader of the parliamentary party should they achieve their 50 odd seats. Its all very well using Nicola Sturgeon and her very effective debating skills during the campaign but it has to be said that they have very few people who will be able to negotiate or debate that well (apart from Salmond) once the votes have been cast and we are in the democratic process of parliamentary debate where she will not and should not have a voice. Politics of a minority government is a place of compromise and negotiation which takes place or should take place between those who are democratically elected to represent their constituents. The role of Nicola Sturgeon who has no intention of standing here is I believe actually an undermining of that process. Are the SNP afraid to actually front the team who will be the potential elected representatives?

 

[Rum]

Salmond is standing for Westminster, so I would assume a major role for him. Given his political skill (albeit smarmy and greasy wit it) I fear for the tiddlers in London.

 

[malicus]

Are the SNP afraid to actually front the team who will be the potential elected representatives?

Has Ed Miliband announced his first cabinet as PM?

Presumably it would be wiser to wait until it is seen who is elected. But to answer your question at this moment in time, Angus Robertson (candidate, Moray) is currently the SNP leader at Westminster.

 

[anglolawyer]

How could they veto legislation with only 50-odd seats?


Look at the small print. There were only 635 seats, so Labour's 319 were in itself a (very small) majority. They had a minority in the earlier February election, with only 301 seats, but there, neither the Liberal's 14 nor the SNP's 7 each alone would help. There was a reason Wilson called for another election.


In that scenario Labour would still be the biggest party in rest-UK (= UK minus Scotland), but not have the majority. Thus far, no Labour, nor Tory government ever had a majority in the whole of UK but not outside Scotland. So in that sense, there's nothing new.

Ah, OK, I forgot the 635 - 650 thing. Even so, by 1977 Labour's parliamentary representation had been eroded in by-election reverses sufficiently for them to need to rely on the Libs for support. The difference between then and now, I would suggest, is that Labour remained the major party in Scotland which fact conferred legitimacy on those of their policies which impacted Scotland the most. That looks like not being the case this time around.

 

[MCel58]

Has Ed Miliband announced his first cabinet as PM?

Presumably it would be wiser to wait until it is seen who is elected. But to answer your question at this moment in time, Angus Robertson (candidate, Moray) is currently the SNP leader at Westminster.

Yes but it is normal to front the person who could be the parliamentary leader and not someone who has no intention of standing. I wonder if there is an issue here with Salmond. However, I was not talking about the cabinet but about just having the other candidates visible.

 

[malicus]

*snip* to say...

I take your points, and apologies for any of my answers seeming a bit facetious.

Yes but it is normal to front the person who could be the parliamentary leader

She already is the parliamentary leader (But I do know where you are coming from).

I wonder if there is an issue here with Salmond.

I do think there is an issue on where to place him, assuming he gets elected. I do not think leader at WM is an option, more of a 'without portfolio' behind the scenes 'fixer'.

 

[angrysoba]

Absolutely. If the SNP don't win in Scotland, Labour will. If Scottish Labour MPs vote as part of a Lab minority government on England only issues, where will the institutional crisis come from? There will be none. In the old days Ulster Unionists used to vote on England only issues I'm sure, alongside the Tories. What constitutional crisis did that cause? None.

I invite those who want to stop Scottish MPs of any party voting on England only issues, to demand a parliamentary Bill to that effect. As an anti-Unionist I would welcome that, for reasons which will be obvious to anyone who gives the issue a moment's serious thought.

Indeed, which is why I support Scottish MPs voting on any issue brought before Parliament regardless of the issue. In fact, I feel sorry for them that they cannot vote on many important issues that affect Scotland, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who gives the issue a moment's serious thought.

 

[MCel58]

She already is the parliamentary leader (But I do know where you are coming from).

Not in the UK parliament only in the Scottish Parliament. This is why for me her role is an issue because here we have the leader in one of the devolved parliaments, assemblies etc who has no intention of standing for the House of Commons proposing policies and Manifestos that she herself cannot be held accountable for and giving no visibility to the person who will infact have to defend those policies and manifesto during the parliamentary process. It makes me wonder if she herself doubts the calibre of the people who will be doing that or indeed will it have to be Salmond leading from the sidelines and someone else as the "voice" and they don't want to admit that will be the case.

 

[ddt]

Ah, OK, I forgot the 635 - 650 thing. Even so, by 1977 Labour's parliamentary representation had been eroded in by-election reverses sufficiently for them to need to rely on the Libs for support.

Fair enough.

The difference between then and now, I would suggest, is that Labour remained the major party in Scotland which fact conferred legitimacy on those of their policies which impacted Scotland the most. That looks like not being the case this time around.

I thought you were concerned with England-only legislation in your previous post?

When it comes to Scotland-only legislation, the most likely route for Labour into nr. 10 is some pact with the SNP, so they'd be wise to get their support for proposed Scottish legislation, especially when the West-Lothian question is also interpreted in reverse and English, Welsh and NI MPs abstain from voting on those issues.

But did mrs. T. care about legitimacy for legislation that affected Scotland the most? Like the poll tax?

 

[anglolawyer]

Fair enough.


I thought you were concerned with England-only legislation in your previous post?

When it comes to Scotland-only legislation, the most likely route for Labour into nr. 10 is some pact with the SNP, so they'd be wise to get their support for proposed Scottish legislation, especially when the West-Lothian question is also interpreted in reverse and English, Welsh and NI MPs abstain from voting on those issues.

But did mrs. T. care about legitimacy for legislation that affected Scotland the most? Like the poll tax?

TBH I don't really have any concerns at all. I view the whole thing mainly as a form of entertainment, at least until the politicos get to work on some of my hobby horses.

What I was discussing was legitimacy. The conservatives have a big problem with it in Scotland, just as you observe, but time has marched on since Maggie's time. In 1979 she won 22 seats in Scotland, out of 71. Even in 2001 the Tories managed 10. It was not until 2005 they achieved almost total wipe-out winning just one seat. I am reading this here if anyone's interested.

 

[Craig B]

Indeed, which is why I support Scottish MPs voting on any issue brought before Parliament regardless of the issue. In fact, I feel sorry for them that they cannot vote on many important issues that affect Scotland, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who gives the issue a moment's serious thought.

The answer to that is absolutely clear. There should be an English Parliament. But there is not. Why not? Is the reason obvious after a moment's thought? I think it is. Federalism is incompatible with the Union, or has been considered to be so in the past.

 

[Craig B]

Not in the UK parliament only in the Scottish Parliament. This is why for me her role is an issue because here we have the leader in one of the devolved parliaments, assemblies etc who has no intention of standing for the House of Commons proposing policies and Manifestos that she herself cannot be held accountable for and giving no visibility to the person who will infact have to defend those policies and manifesto during the parliamentary process. It makes me wonder if she herself doubts the calibre of the people who will be doing that or indeed will it have to be Salmond leading from the sidelines and someone else as the "voice" and they don't want to admit that will be the case.

The issue here is one I've mentioned already: the SNP does not aspire to form, or participate in, a government of the UK. That makes it and her different from the other parties. The highest calibre of SNP politicos do not gravitate towards the UK Parliament, but to Holyrood, from which they wish to govern Scotland.

 

[Information Analyst]

The issue here is one I've mentioned already: the SNP does not aspire to form, or participate in, a government of the UK.

Manifested by the SNP.... fielding candidates in the elections to said Parliament.

 

[jimbob]

Well.....roll over and play dead. To be fair, they did have to grab their position in power while on offer, but the only reason the coalition has worked is they were invited to the party but kept in the kitchen. I remember being surprised that Clegg was made deputy PM, that being an important position and all that. Then I remembered Prescott and the penny dropped.

You could have mentioned Hesletine, it was invented by Major to corral a potential troublemaker and give them a sop to make them feel important, then Prescott (ditto) then Clegg (ditto, without the troublemaker bit).

We were talking about this yesterday and my daughter she thought of it as like a teacher giving a potentially disruptive kid the role of whiteboard monitor.

 

[malicus]

Manifested by the SNP.... fielding candidates in the elections to said Parliament.

My cognitive dissonance > your logic.

 

[Craig B]

Manifested by the SNP.... fielding candidates in the elections to said Parliament.

What on earth can you mean by that observation? If Scotland is ever to get independence, at least within constitutional procedures, nationalists require to exert their influence at Westminster. But their motive is to detach their country from WM's grasp, not to rule the UK.

How can that puzzle you? The Irish nationalists did that. They even had an MP representing an English constituency, which the SNP has not attempted.

 

[Giz]

What on earth can you mean by that observation? If Scotland is ever to get independence, at least within constitutional procedures, nationalists require to exert their influence at Westminster. But their motive is to detach their country from WM's grasp, not to rule the UK.

How can that puzzle you? The Irish nationalists did that. They even had an MP representing an English constituency, which the SNP has not attempted.

Yeah, much as I'd like to say there was something fishy about Salmond and Sturgeon, if the SNP desire to peacefully separate from the rest of the UK then seeking election to Westminster on that platform seems entirely legitimate.

 

[Craig B]

The conservatives have a big problem with it in Scotland, just as you observe, but time has marched on since Maggie's time. In 1979 she won 22 seats in Scotland, out of 71. Even in 2001 the Tories managed 10. It was not until 2005 they achieved almost total wipe-out winning just one seat. I am reading this here if anyone's interested.

Surely they achieved total wipeout in 1997.

Labour 56 Increase 7
Liberal Democrat 10 Increase 1
SNP 6 Increase 3
Conservative 0 Decrease 11

 

[anglolawyer]

Surely they achieved total wipeout in 1997.

Labour 56 Increase 7
Liberal Democrat 10 Increase 1
SNP 6 Increase 3
Conservative 0 Decrease 11

Yes, I missed that. Since then they have risen from the dead and need another stake through the heart.