Buchanan Street, 13 September 2014 - the so called "ground war" |
Outside of the
referendum, the biggest story was the continued and inexplicable rise of
UKIP. In May they topped the poll in the
UK part of the European Elections, forming part of a wider anti European Union
narrative across the EU. Yet UKIP’s
campaign this time wasn’t targeted against the European Commission or other EU
policies. Like the French National
Front, UKIP targeted freedom of movement – deliberately linking this with
immigration.
By tapping into
the supposed dissatisfaction with “unlimited
immigration” (whilst not mentioning the amount of UK citizens who have
themselves taken advantage of freedom of movement) UKIP topped the poll on
27.49% of the vote, taking 24 of the UK’s allocation of seats.
The most controversial
of those seats was the election of London resident David Coburn as one of
Scotland’s 6 MEP’s. The Westminster
parties kinda took this in their stride while the SNP went into full toys out
of the pram mode. The SNP had, in the
weeks leading up to the vote, been running a campaign to vote SNP to keep out
UKIP without really explaining why. As a
result many Scots blew a raspberry at Salmond and co by voting UKIP. Maybe it was the insipid campaign, or maybe
it was the perceived careerism displayed by the SNP’s third candidate (and
former Tory candidate in 1999), Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh. Whatever was the case, the SNP rather than
look like winners (which they were, they topped the share of vote) looked more
like sore losers. This was a role reversal that provided to be a harbinger of
things to come.
Coburn (3rd left) and Ahmed-Sheikh (left of Sturgeon) at the Euro declaration |
Another facet of
this rise that would play out during the referendum campaign would be
accusations of bias towards UKIP. During
his parties toys out of the pram moment, Salmond said that Scot’s voted UKIP
because English TV was being beamed into their homes. What Scottish Labour representatives failed
to realise was Salmond’s admonishment of David Dimbleby and the BBC’s coverage
of the European elections actually played well with the Greens… and Labour supporters in England.
Both the Greens
and Labour had cause for complaint about the BBC’s coverage. As a left of centre party that leaned towards
euroscepticism, the Greens were annoyed at UKIP’s billing as the only
eurosceptics in the village. Labour were
annoyed at the BBC’s reporting of better than expected council results. All parties have voiced concerns at UKIP’s
seeming residency on Question Time.
Indeed it did seem at times that the Anglocentric media were running a
story that wasn’t there – the success of UKIP in by-elections. That changed on 9 October when the Conservative
defector Douglas Carswell “won” back the seat of Clacton for his new party
UKIP, thus becoming UKIP’s first Westminster MP. He was followed in November by another Tory
defectee, Mark Reckless.
I can understand
why people might get excited about UKIP.
However, lets not forget that they are no SDP. Carswell might turn out to be a coup for
UKIP, but neither he or Reckless are of the stature of Jenkins, Williams or
Owen when they defected from Labour and set up the SDP in 1981, while it has
taken a long time for UKIP to make their breakthrough. In any case, I rather suspect that UKIP’s
showing at next years General Election will be restricted to just siphoning
votes from the Tories. I suspect they’ll
fall back to about 10% of the share of vote and maybe pick up at most 4 seats
(Carswell will keep his seat, I think Farage will win a seat for sure).
Nah, for me the
story of the year is the story that refuses to bugger off. That referendum.
So, what is left
that hasn’t been said about the Independence Referendum. Well, for starters that despite the rantings
of other members of the Macblogosphere (Hello, Bella, Wings and Newsnat
Scotland), you need look no further than Swinney Sturgeon and Salmond for
reasons why Scots voted No. Yes, the
pro-Indy Yessers won on social issues, but as I’ve said previously the big
elections battlegrounds are the economy, the economy and the economy. Salmond, Swinney and Sturgeon did not win
these battles, and in the case of currency badly lost that argument. To the surprise of… well hardcore Yessers… Scotland’s commuter
belts voted No in their droves.
A cursory glance
at the Michael Ashcroft poll released in the aftermath of the referendum bears
this out. When asked what the two or
three deciding issues were, 57% of no voters replied the pound, 37% pensions
and 32% tax and public spending. In
contrast, the driving force for pro-Independence supporters was dissatisfaction
with Westminster politics (74%) and the NHS (54%). No mention of “the Vow” or
Brown’s set of speeches in the week before the referendum. Though to be honest the impact of “The Vow”
was more in keeping wavering “No’s” as no voters and in stopping the steady
stream of voters moving from No to Yes.
As the campaigns
came to a close, the referendum felt not unlike the 1992 Westminster
Election. There was our own “Double
Whammy” with the unilateral scuppering of Sterlingzone. There was our equivalent to April Fools day
(when three polls gave Labour leads of 7%, 6% and 5% - the Indyref equivalent being
the poll 10 days before polling putting Yes ahead). Referendum day itself felt, certainly in weather
terms, like 9 April 1992. Warm but
overcast.
Where the Yes
side were successful was in tapping into lapsed voters and engaging in that old
fashioned campaigning tool of the old style public meeting. I went to two, one was a “Yes Scotland” run
event which was interesting if one sided (though to be fair there were
complaints that Better Together refused to engage with the voters at hustings
level). There were no complaints with
the first hustings event I attended, which was on the same night as the second
of the Salmond/Darling television debates.
The Paisley referendum hustings also highlighted a facet of the campaign that hasn’t really
been picked up – the number of females who made small cameo’s that made a
lasting impression. PCS Union’s Fiona
McDonald was the most impressive person at the Paisley hustings, I was also
struck by how open and warm Christine McKelvie at the Yes meeting I went
to. Unfortunately, I don’t know the name
of the Green activist I spoke to on Buchannan Street that put the debate in
more acceptable terms. Looking at the
Scottish Green prospectus for Independence, this was a much more realistic and attractive
set of arguments and policies than the prospectus being prosecuted by the SNP.
Salmond announces his resignation on 19 September |
A couple of years
ago, I wrote that after the referendum, things would not be the same again
whatever happened. Yet, only the
Anglocentric media seems to have thought that after the referendum things would
revert to the way things were. If
anything, the referendum seems to have triggered a dramatic moving of the
political tectonic plates. That the
prospectus for Independence managed to garner just shy of 45% of the electorate
seems to have galvanised the Independence movement. Now all the affiliated fringe organizations
to Yes Scotland – Women for Independence and Radical Independence – are creeping
further and further away from the fringes and towards the mainstream of Scottish
politics.
If the old Scottish
staple of glorious defeat has galvanised the pro-Independence side, the victory
from the jaws of victory for the pro-Union side has weighed down the pro-Union
parties. Labour’s poll rating began to
fall in the weeks after the referendum, possibly as a result of Labour’s continued
acceptance of Osborne-nomics or even dissatisfaction with Milliband. The resignation of Johann Lamont as “Scottish”
Labour leader made matters worse for Labour – especially as Lamont confirmed
that Milliband blocked “Scottish” Labour’s opposition to the Bedroom Tax and
that she felt that her party was essentially a “branch office” of London
Labour. Thus confirming every single criticism
of “Scottish” Labour made by the SNP as true.
When I wrote
about where now for the so called “45”, I highlighted the difficulty of the SNP’s
task in taking Labour held seats. The
first of those polls highlighting the shift in opinion against Labour had just
been published and looked like it might have been an outlier. Since then a number of polls have been
published confirming this trend. Most
polls show that the SNP (were the election held now) would achieve a swing
upwards of 19% - enough to capture the cluster of 20 odd Labour seats around
the 12-18% swing mark. Crucially this
has not changed since the election of the Blairite Jim Murphy. The most forgotten aspect of Blair was that
when he became Labour leader, and then Prime Minister, he was the most astutely
pragmatic politician in the country. For
Labour to step back from the abyss that they are maybe standing on, Murphy will
have to be tactically pragmatic and not automatically fall into Blairite
tropes.
2014 was the year
of our Referendum and it looks like 2015 will be the year of the fallout from
our Referendum. There is the small
matter of a Westminster Election as well.
All the indications there is that it will be the Tories that will be
utilising the lessons from “Project Fear”, that the relationship between UKIP
and the Tories is developing into the most fractious relationship in British
politics outside of that between “Scottish” Labour and the SNP and that it will
be the rejuvenated SNP that will be going into that Westminster Election in
better health than Labour. Other than
that, the election picture will not become clear until the campaign proper
begins in April. Even then, the spectre
of the referendum will loom large.
In the mean time,
may I wish you a happy new year to you all and see you in 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment