Posted                       

1. I don't expect 2016 will be the massive SNP landslide that would be expected from a repeat of last weeks vote. I think a lot of the desertion of Labour was a reaction against Westminster and the UK Labour Party, and I expect a return to Labour of quite a few of those who voted SNP on Thursday. I also expect the LibDems to do better than they did on Thursday - they've blown their reputation as a Westminster party, but they have a good track record in Holyrood.
   
   I don't think the people of Scotland actually want a massive majority for any party in Holyrood. But, if Nicola isn't FM with a very comfortable majority after the 2016 election I'll be very surprised.
   
   
    
2. What can the SNP do in Westminster to moderate the effects of Tory austerity, dismantlement of health and welfare services etc? It's going to be a tight rope walk. Any changes in national services is going to affect Scottish constituencies (that would be true even if we had independence, it would just be that we'd have no option but to live with it). Therefore, the SNP MPs (and the three other Scottish MPs) will be well within their role representing their constituents to engage in the debates and discussions, and votes, of the House. But, everytime they do what they've been elected to do, represent their constituents, there will be shouts of "English votes for English matters" with the right-wing rags baying for blood. Inevitably our MPs will come off balance (they're only human after all), sometimes being too involved in matters that only indirectly affect their constituents and being blasted by the right-wing rags, other times not taking a strong enough stand and being criticised by the Scottish people.
   
   What they can do is constantly point out what is happening in Scotland. Which, with increased fiscal powers will hopefully demonstrate how to run a health and welfare service, schools, and other governmental services with financial and environmental responsibility, fostering economic growth and general well-being, and without the full force of austerity. The problem being that we've not had the chance to do that very well with the spending restrictions imposed by Westminster, and it will take time for the impact of enacting Scottish policy to become apparent. Which will be further delayed without introducing further devolved powers promptly. That may be too late to prevent the Tories from putting their axe to the base of the tree.
   
   If, along with members of other parties in Westminster, they can make a good case against government policies there are still a large number of perfectly decent Tory MPs. If enough of them can be convinced that the Act under discussion is not good for their constituents, and the country as a whole, it won't take a massive rebellion for the government to struggle to get some legislation through.
   
   
    
3. Trident will be interesting. I suspect that Holyrood, and local authorities around the Faslane base, could make it difficult to obtain planning permission for base upgrades to accommodate new subs. But, I think you're right that there will be little direct say in defence from Holyrood. It will be very unpopular in Scotland, and doesn't seem to have much in the way of popular support in the rest of the UK, but I suspect sometime in the next three years Cameron will start sinking great wads of cash (which he claims he doesn't have to fund the health service, welfare etc) on four new boats. The one anti-austerity policy no one really wants.
   
   
    
4. A further referendum. I don't see any appetite in Scotland, beyond the die-hard Independence campaigners, for another referendum at the moment. The majority attitude is to a) find out what further developed powers Westminster will give Holyrood and b) then see how they work out before making any hasty decision on going further. Thursday's result may have shifted the balance a little bit towards another referendum but not that far.
   
   I strongly suspect the SNP are as aware of that as everyone else. They'll put aspirational comments in their 2016 manifesto about building the groundwork for a further referendum, about independence as a long term aim. But, at the moment, a commitment to seek a referendum in the next 5 years will not be a vote winner for them. An in/out referendum on the EU may be the tipping point though - holding such a referendum turns the No Campaign promise that Scotland can only be assured a place in the EU within the union into a stinking great lie. If there's a moment of collective insanity and the result of a referendum is "out" with Scotland strongly in favour of remaining in then all bets about independence are off.
   
    
5. FFA. I don't think anyone thinks that can be implemented overnight. In some ways it's more complicated that managing the finances of an independent nation, so if it was estimated to take 18 months to sort out independent financial structures, a similar timescale for FFA is not unreasonable. At the moment FFA doesn't appear to be on the table, Cameron has promised further devolved powers, it's not entirely clear exactly what they will be. But, it makes sense to work on getting the best deal from what's on the table, and then getting those powers bedded down and producing good results for the people of Scotland. Then going for something more - either FFA or independence depending on how the country is swinging at the time.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the subject of the Barnett formula, the problem is only in part the formula as it exists but what should replace it. It was devised by Joel Barnett (then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to cater for devolution in 1979, taking into account the services to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. It never took account of varying needs as separate studies by the Treasury investigated.

Barnett said in 2004 that "it was never intended to last this long", but despite (or because of) widespread shortcomings and criticisms in Westminster and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a revision let alone a permanent statutory arrangement is someway off.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the subject of the Barnett formula, the problem is only in part the formula as it exists but what should replace it. It was devised by Joel Barnett (then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to cater for devolution in 1979, taking into account the services to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. It never took account of varying needs as separate studies by the Treasury investigated.

Barnett said in 2004 that "it was never intended to last this long", but despite (or because of) widespread shortcomings and criticisms in Westminster and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a revision let alone a permanent statutory arrangement is someway off.

---

The formula will be history for Scotland if FFA comes along.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An in/out referendum on the EU may be the tipping point though - holding such a referendum turns the No Campaign promise that Scotland can only be assured a place in the EU within the union into a stinking great lie. If there's a moment of collective insanity and the result of a referendum is "out" with Scotland strongly in favour of remaining in then all bets about independence are off.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I certainly think one very strong line of attack for the SNP will be simply: "You have no mandate to do that north of the border."

They'll be right - a sort of reverse West Lothian question. It'll make things very awkward for the Tories.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

1. I don't expect 2016 will be the massive SNP landslide that would be expected from a repeat of last weeks vote. I think a lot of the desertion of Labour was a reaction against Westminster and the UK Labour Party, and I expect a return to Labour of quite a few of those who voted SNP on Thursday. I also expect the LibDems to do better than they did on Thursday - they've blown their reputation as a Westminster party, but they have a good track record in Holyrood.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
Just to clarify: "Get lost, man" refers to Jim Murphy, and not anyone on this thread. (missed edit)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.

---

Of course they can. And they will.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.

---

Of course they can. And they will.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Here's a little article about the three remaining non-SNP MPs in Scotland, who they are, and why they were able to retain their seats amidst the sea of yellow. It doesn't add much to the "Whither Scotland" question, admittedly, but it's good to know who the other ones are, and why it wasn't entirely a yellow-wash.

Comonspace - "How Scotland's Three Unionist Amigos Survived the SNP Tsunami".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.

---

Of course they can. And they will.

---

No, because FPTP means you get to make laws for the whole country even though you only got elected in part of it. That's one of the rules of FPTP. The SNP can claim that FPTP is illegitimate, of course, but there isn't any other system that would get them 56 seats.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But she very nearly held on. Relatively few of her votes went to the SNP - she polled about 19,000. It was the Labour vote that collapsed and handed the seat to the SNP with a majority of only a few thousand.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

the SNP will not care about constitutional niceties about FPTP and a whole-UK government when they can say to the Tories, "You have one MP in our country".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to be confusing what is factually correct and the narrative that the SNP are going to use.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
With regard to the Scottish Parliament election next year, am I not right in thinking that Scotland uses PR? If so, the SNP will not get the same overwhelming advantage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to be confusing what is factually correct and the narrative that the SNP are going to use.

---

Ah, fair enough. I thought you meant 'can' in the sense of 'can legitimately'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But they don't need teeth. They just need to make a nuisance of themselves and portray themselves as being brutally crushed under the heartless Tory boot.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But they don't need teeth. They just need to make a nuisance of themselves and portray themselves as being brutally crushed under the heartless Tory boot.

---

Which might play well north of the border, but will hardly have any impact in the House, or endear them to English voters - not that the latter will probably worry them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk. The SNP wants independence. The Conservatives want to stay in power for decades. Labour will have a hard time winning enough seats to govern without Scotland being in play.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
But it will be an easy cry for the SNP, will get newspaper headlines, and may ultimately get them a few more votes. Besides, it saves the SNP spokespeople the trouble of thinking.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk. The SNP wants independence. The Conservatives want to stay in power for decades. Labour will have a hard time winning enough seats to govern without Scotland being in play.

---

It's a problem if you genuinely want to preserve the Union. And in fact most Conservatives actually do want to preserve the Union.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But what I meant is that Conservatives like David Cameron want to preserve the Union. So it's a problem for him if the price of political dominance is the destruction of the UK. He would see it as far too high a price to pay.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
But it will be an easy cry for the SNP, will get newspaper headlines, and may ultimately get them a few more votes. Besides, it saves the SNP spokespeople the trouble of thinking.

---

In fact, the SNP will have a good deal of thinking to do. The hung parliament scenario was the one in which they could actually demonstrate relevance. If Cameron locks them out of influence, they will have to think carefully how they can achieve tangible results with which to go back to their constituents in five years time - or even in time for the Holyrood elections next year. As for the press - the SNP and particularly Sturgeon ("Most Dangerous Woman in Britain" yaddy yadda) have not been given an easy ride in British nationwide broadsheets, whose coverage of events in Scotland has actually been quite shocking. So they will have to operate beyond simple headline-grabbing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Unless you mean that the SNP will make such a nuisance of themselves that Conservative voters will eventually be glad to see them go. But what I meant is that Conservatives like David Cameron want to preserve the Union. So it's a problem for him if the price of political dominance is the destruction of the UK. He would see it as far too high a price to pay.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I certainly think his "shock, horror" approach to the SNP has not helped the Unionist cause. But I think this is just because he is really shocked and horrified by the prospect of a Scottish breakaway. He just can't see what to do about it.

---