British politics for the next year should be conducted not from Westminster but from Scotland. Since the Scottish National party leadership imploded this month, its once rock-solid support has collapsed. A recent poll suggests that the SNP’s cohort of MPs will plummet at a 2024 election from 45 to 21. The beneficiary could well be Labour, surging from one MP to 26.
Sceptics have begun casting doubt on Keir Starmer’s ostensibly safe 17-point poll lead for Labour. They recall a similar “unbeatable” Labour lead in 1992, when the Tories went on to win. Starmer currently needs 124 new MPs for an overall majority. Forecasts offer him 117 switching from the Tories in England and Wales, while a similar swing in Scotland would offer perhaps six to eight seats to Labour. This is barely enough, and the odds are on a hung parliament. Labour needs those 26 seats in Scotland, and desperately so.
The question is how to appeal to these presumably floating SNP voters. That party currently has the support of 34% of electors, but it is significant that backing for its chief project, Scottish independence, runs much higher, at 47%. While these percentages will probably shuffle over the coming months, it does suggest that independence still has stronger backing than does the SNP. Labour and Conservative tacticians need to concentrate on what might induce more SNP supporters – presumed backers of independence – to desert their apparently sinking ship.
Sturgeon’s central promise at the last election was to fight for a new referendum “pencilled in” for October this year. She won an overwhelming mandate for this as first minister in 2021, but has failed to deliver on her pledge. Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak both refused to contemplate a new referendum in the foreseeable future, Johnson adding that he thought even devolution was a “disaster” and “Tony Blair’s biggest mistake”. No wonder there is no populist “Boris uplift” north of the border.
Starmer has likewise been adamant that he is against Indy2, another referendum, adding that there would be no deal with the SNP on this, even in the event of a hung parliament. But he has meanwhile implied that he wants to give Scotland’s parliament various independence-like reforms. He wants it to have “extra powers”, economic clusters, “consultation” on borrowing and “a presence” at international conferences. The former prime minister Gordon Brown came up with a grand plan last December for a new “double devolution”, welcomed by Starmer. The trouble is that in none of these platitudes was there an ounce of specificity.
Since Scotland already has a wide spread of domestic autonomy, it is hard to see what greater devolution a British government could offer. In the spring, Starmer lurched into a plan to ban Scotland from exploiting its most lucrative industry, North Sea gas and oil exploration. He then swiftly backed down. Like English politicians down the ages, he is all for devolution in general – but not in particular.
The key issue in any further steps towards Scottish autonomy lies in economic policy, and in particular, taxation. Here Scotland already has limited powers. But the issue is whether Scotland is ready – as some in the SNP hesitantly maintain – to move down the road towards greater independence from UK Treasury subsidy, currently running at almost 25% above the regional average. This is the one issue on which the independence debate stays silent. If Starmer is serious about “doubling” devolution, he will have to confront the fiscal issue – discretion over taxes – as holding the long-term key to Scottish self-rule. It is the only further devolution that makes sense. An honest nationalist should welcome such a commitment from Labour.
For Sunak, the Tory plight north of the border seems dire. But he could also challenge the nationalists on fiscal autonomy. Would they barter it for a second referendum? Would offering a second referendum – which unionists at present would certainly win – really be too high a price to pay for garnering some of those SNP votes? And why not discuss offering Scotland what Northern Ireland has won, a special relationship with the EU in honour of its strong opposition to Brexit? All options carry a price, but so does independence.
Scotland is a poor country, one of the poorest regions of Europe. Yet with its similar population and resources, it should be as rich as Ireland or Denmark. It leaks talent to England. Its business formation is at barely half England’s rate. Its population is ageing, with nearly a third over 65 by 2045. The reason is simple: that for the past century the Scottish economy has been allowed to lapse by being run from England in England’s interest. This has resulted in almost half its citizens being hostile to a union even of which they are beneficiaries.
This is why the issue of Scotland’s constitution is always on the table. But that issue should be “more” independence, not total independence. The case is for radical federalism with fiscal autonomy at its core. Pursuing this appeal to disillusioned SNP voters should be in both the Labour and the Tory interest just now. It is ironic that the collapse of Scotland’s national party should suddenly be the best chance Scotland has of greater nationalism. But with 26 seats at issue, it is worth a gamble.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
