Scotland steers its own course in British election
By HARRY McGRATH
EDINBURGH – Scotland’s contribution to the recent British election will further encourage the belief that Scots are contradictory by nature.
As the majority of the rest of Britain voted to embrace the Conservatives and their slogan “vote for change,” Scotland went instead for Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr’s notion that “plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.”
In fact, by the time the votes were counted and the returns made, Scotland had provided an object lesson on how to oppose Conservatism by voting conservatively.
Every single one of the country’s 59 seats went to the same party that won it in the 2005 election. It was déjà vu all over again as Labour took 41 Scottish seats, the Liberal Democrats 11, the Scottish National Party 6 and the Conservatives 1.
Few anticipated the Scottish result. The Liberal Democrats were expecting a surge on the back of an impressive performance in the national debate by their leader Nick Clegg, the Scottish National Party had predicted 20 seats for itself and even the Conservatives were hoping to gain a few more seats in Scotland.
Several leading Labour politicians in Scotland were supposed to be under threat and yet Labour’s share of the popular vote north of the border actually rose by 2.5 percent.
Why Scotland retreated into what is now commonly referred to as its “labour roots” is the subject of much conjecture.
Favoured theories include the memory of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government of the 1980s and the havoc that many believe it wreaked on Scotland; personal sympathy for Gordon Brown who some Scots believe was bear-baited by the national press; and a Scottish antipathy to class and privilege which are believed to dominate Conservative ranks even in its new and “cuddly” incarnation.
Having set out their stall for the status quo on May 6, Scotland has now had three weeks or so to realize that (in a milder form of what Yeats said of Ireland) all changed, changed anyway.
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that rose out of the election gave Scotland the Conservatives that it was so desperate to avoid and not one but two public (i.e. private) school boys: David Cameron of Eton and Nick Clegg of Westminster School.
Predictably Scotland was less than enthusiastic about the new coalition. First Minister Alex Salmond was quick to point out that Scotland would now be ruled from London by two parties that came third and fourth in the popular vote north of the border.
When cabinet posts were assigned, Scottish interests at Westminster were entrusted to a young and inexperienced Secretary of State for Scotland called Danny Alexander who is the freshest of the many fresh faces suddenly fronting British politics.
It seemed as if Scotland was destined to disappear off the British electoral map rather as it did in meteorological terms a few years ago when the BBC introduced a 3D weather map which diminished the size of Scotland while inflating the south of England.
The north-south divide that characterised British politics during the Thatcher era was back and the north would again feel disenfranchised and ignored, even abused. In the weeks following this election, however, three things happened that suggested it ain’t necessarily so.
First of all, the new Prime Minister David Cameron travelled to Scotland as part of what he calls a “respect” agenda and met with Alex Salmond. Some contrasted this event with Gordon Brown’s reluctance to phone Salmond after he became First Minister of Scotland in 2007 (“He never phones, he never writes” Salmond joked at the time).
Secondly, the Scottish Government was offered the option of deferring its share of national budget cuts for a year, an offer that it duly accepted.
Thirdly, the Queen’s Speech outlining the new government’s legislative agenda for the coming year included a commitment to implement the recommendation of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution.
These recommendations include proposals to increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament.
It would be over-egging it to suggest that these developments have allayed Scottish suspicions of governments that have Conservatives in them, but they have at least got people talking again.
The Calman Commission is a particular point of discussion with some believing that its tax “tinkering” (i.e. giving the Scottish Government the power to raise or lower Scots income tax by 10p depending on the tax band and adjusting the money it receives from Westminster accordingly) might actually make Scotland’s financial situation worse.
Meanwhile, the most significant development as far as Scotland’s future is concerned may not come from inside the political system at all.
This week will see the beginning of a campaign supported by leading Scottish businessmen, academics and cultural figures (of all political persuasions and none) to promote much greater fiscal accountability for Scotland than the Calman recommendations will allow. Ultimately, the idea goes, Scotland will raise its own taxes and spend the money it collects, perhaps under the direction of a Scottish Exchequer.
And so while Scottish voters didn’t change a single Scottish seat on May 6, the pace of change in devolved Scotland has actually quickened since then.
The only thing that is moving faster is the career of the aforementioned Danny Alexander who was Scottish Secretary for only three weeks and today became Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
He replaced fellow Liberal Democrat David Laws who resigned after yet another expenses scandal. Alexander’s rise through the ranks can only be described as meteoric and if it is in any way symbolic of what’s in store for the rest of us in Scotland, then there are exciting, if somewhat scary, times ahead.
| 
