Shake the Tree



Unlike Tommy Sheppard, I'm not a member or even a supporter of the SNP but I heartily agree with Tommy's call for a 'Yes' alliance in the run up to next May's election to the Westminster Parliament.

Because there's no doubt in my mind that the best way to guarantee 'home rule' and more powers for the Scottish Parliament (which the great majority of Scots support) is to cut the Labour Party down to size.

And the best way to achieve that is for those who voted Yes in the referendum to combine with other voters who want real change to unite behind a single, progressive candidate in the May 2015 general election.   

Now in the short term the biggest beneficiary of such a strategy would be the SNP, but I have no problem with that as the most effective way of shaking Westminster out of its political arrogance and complacency.

'Change this rich country full of poor people. Take control. If you can't do it all, do what you can'

Usually in a major political campaign the losers divide and dwindle, turning on each other in an atmosphere of blame and recrimination.

Meanwhile, the victors, strengthened and united, call the shots and write history.
Six weeks after the referendum, it's as if the reverse is happening. The unionist parties may have won the vote but they don't seem to be enjoying their victory. Meanwhile, independence groups have difficulty finding rooms big enough to meet in as their membership surges.
Strange times indeed. Politics in Scotland emerges from the aftermath of the referendum in better shape than ever. A record number of people are demanding both a change in the way we are governed and in social and economic conditions. Crucially, awareness of the link between the two has never been greater. People understand that autonomy and change are two sides of the same agenda.
The challenge for the SNP is to provide political expression of that new awareness, to ride the political momentum that led to almost half the population voting to secede from the fifth most powerful state on earth. It is well placed for the task. 
Sixty thousand people have joined the SNP because they believe independence offers a better world. They believe that progress on these islands can be asymmetric and that for too long we have been held back by those who want to go at the slowest pace. 
So what strategy does the party offer to keep that prospect alive after it has just been turned down in a democratic ballot. Independence was - is - a means to an end. The means is off the table for now. But the end remains the same. Change this rich country full of poor people. Take control. If you can't do it all, do what you can.
Some 1.6 million people voted for absolute change: devo ultimate. Many who voted against - including the Vow believers - demanded change too but believed independence was not the best route to it. Between them they constitute a clear majority for substantial reform in this country; polls show upwards of 70% favouring full fiscal autonomy, with Scotland levying all its own taxes and controlling all domestic spending. 
In the short term this is the new cleavage in Scottish politics - between those who want real change and those content with the status quo.
The Smith Commission is not an exercise in thought-through constitutional reform - it's a quick fix to get unionism off the independence hook. That said, it needs to be engaged with. Independence supporters have rightly argued for all powers to be transferred to Scotland short of defence, monetary and foreign policy. 
Smith's conclusions are unlikely to amount to anything that comes close to the reforms that were promised in the heat of the referendum campaign but they will, hopefully, at least clarify exactly what the unionist parties can agree upon. Those members of the commission arguing for devo max should plan to publish their own minority report when the majority against that proposition gets its way.
With a white paper promised in January, the SNP need to be ready to publish their own proposals covering the parts Smith does not reach. Each must relate a proposed new competence for the Scottish Government with a specific policy to improve people's lives - powers for a purpose indeed. This will be the terrain on which the 2015 General Election will be fought; in effect, the party's response to the white paper will be its draft manifesto.
Post-referendum and with the prospect of a hung parliament at Westminster, Scottish representatives will have real leverage. This is no time for abstentionism - sleeves up, hands dirty. Bizarrely, the SNP need a programme for government in the UK, a state it does not think should exist, and in most of which it does not organise. Welcome to federalism.
Eighty-nine per cent of current Scottish MPs voted No. Just as this created an alternative pole of political authority that undermined the actions of a Scottish government, so a large group of pro-autonomy members will condition the future. This is one major part of the equation that needs to change before we ask the independence question again. 
And the biggest change of all must be in the central belt of Scotland. The SNP are by any measure the largest political party in the country. And they ahve succeeded in becoming a broad-based organisation capable of speaking for all parts of Scotland. But to this they must now add another, specific, mandate. In the next 18 months they need to emerge as the undisputed champion of working-class communities in post-industrial Scotland. This means that they need a policy platform fine-tuned to appeal to that former Labour-supporting electorate. They need to explain how powers will be executed to create jobs, tackle inequality, promote fairness.
The narrative is vital. Yes, only a vote for the SNP will hold unionism to account - holding their feet to the fire, in Alex Salmond's medieval allusion. But we need to be more than feet-burners. 
Front and centre must be a focus on getting rid of the Tories - not just in Scotland, but in Britain. The SNP need to be seen to be more enthusiastic about this than anyone else. Labour's recent alliance with the Tories in Better Together and the haunting images of red rosettes celebrating at counts with their Conservative counterparts has not done that party any favours. Tempting though a hung parliament might be, the SNP need to rule out any accommodation with the Tories. 
The SNP should seek a mandate that goes beyond the prospectus offered by Smith - even assuming that is supported by Westminster parties post-May 2015. This is not the same question as whether Scotland should be an independent country, but it is one that needs to be answered before that question can be asked again.
One of two things will happen. Either real and substantial powers will be given to the Scottish Parliament, allowing it to chart a different set of social and economic policies in Scotland. Or they won't.
If they arrive, then these powers can be used to take control of the Scottish economy. Show the difference that can make and several barriers to independence are removed. Many of the economic scare stories used this time will be moot as time passes - it's hard to get people to believe their pension is in danger if it is already being paid by the Scottish Government. 
Independence then becomes a debate about moving to the final phase of self-government; more than ever it will be an expression of collective self-respect. 
Alternatively, additional powers are scuppered - status quo ante. If so, the cycle begins again. Double or quits. And in the words of Pete Townshend: "We won't get fooled again."
So can a revolution in Scotland's representation at Westminster be achieved? That depends on whether the broad alliance that voted Yes can be translated into an electoral force able to negotiate the archaic Westminster electoral system.
Forty-five per cent wins first-past-the-post elections - most of the time. That does depend, though, on most of them voting for one candidate. There needs to be some smart thinking about how to win.
The 59 Westminster seats should be ranked according to how easy or hard they are to win. It's not a difficult task. A simple calculation should take into account current majorities in unionist-held seats, the level of the Yes vote in September, the strength of a second-place challenger, and the number of LibDem votes that will be available to switch elsewhere. 
In the top 30 seats the pro-change parties should decide which of them would be able to present the most effective challenge to the incumbent. It will never be the SSP - they should simply agree not to contest these seats, a gesture of political decency that others will remember a year hence.
In a few cases there may be an argument that a Green candidate stands the best chance of winning. Typically, these will be seats where there is a slim Labour majority over LibDem and the latter's vote is more likely to transfer in far greater numbers to a Green than to an SNP candidate. If this is combined with some historical presence of the Green party and a poorly placed SNP, then the argument is convincing.
There will be other places where a high-profile independent may have a better chance of victory than an official candidate. In most of these target seats, though, the SNP will be the most effective challenger and success will be enhanced with a clear run at the parties of the status quo.
In many ways, the Green Party will find this hardest - remember there was a Green No and a Green Yes campaign. It would, though, be an act of sectarian folly not to consider the prospects of such a tactical arrangement.
This is not a Yes alliance as some have argued. Yes is not an answer to any question being asked in May 2015. It's a short-term electoral arrangement designed not only to maximise the representation of those who voted for change in September but to mobilise additional layers of people. It's about providing a focus for those scunnered by the Westminster elite and yearning for better. It's about continuing the change unleashed six weeks ago.

Popular posts from this blog

SNP - Conspiracy of Silence

LGB Rights - Hijacked By Intolerant Zealots!