Since the astonishing election of 56 SNP MPs to the UK Parliament last May, the Unionist media – suddenly deprived of a whole contacts book full of friendly Scottish Labour bench-warmers ready to feed it cosy stories over a boozy expenses lunch in Whitehall – has raked through every bin and gutter in the land looking for anything (however pathetic) that it can try to puff up, distort, and rope into service as “dirt” on each of the Nat members, in an attempt to discredit them and the party.
So let’s just have a little look in here and – YIKES!
We’ve written in the past about how rarely the vote in Scotland has any meaningful impact on the formation of the UK government, but the (first?) election of 2017 was one of those few occasions. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that Scotland is mainly responsible for the complete mess that UK politics now finds itself in.
Had the seven seats won by Labour in Scotland gone to the Tories, Theresa May would have a working majority today (324 seats – taking out the Speaker and Sinn Fein MPs who don’t participate, the true threshold of majority is 322).
Conversely, had the 13 seats won by the Tories in Scotland gone to Labour OR (more plausibly) stayed with the SNP, Jeremy Corbyn would have been able to assemble a progressive alliance and form a government.
(Labour+SNP+Lib Dem would have added up to the required 322, with a cushion of five extra seats available from Plaid Cymru and the Greens. Readers who are – quite rightly – wary of considering the Lib Dems part of a progressive alliance should note that they wouldn’t be required to back Corbyn in this scenario, just not oppose him.)
It seems at the first glance, then, that a successful “stop the SNP” tactical voting campaign in Scotland bizarrely ensured that NEITHER the Tories nor Labour could form a stable UK government. (The Tories’ slapstick courting of the DUP looks set to produce the weakest administration since 1974. We see no way that another election this year can be avoided.)
But it didn’t happen quite as straightforwardly as that.
Nobody could ever accuse the Scottish press of underpromoting its grievances – alert readers will still recall, for example, the long procession of articles with near-identical content in the Daily Mail last year about SNP MPs and their “second jobs”. For 2016, though, the media’s obsessive repeating of the exact same story every few weeks has manifested itself over Nat members’ expenses.
In so far as this Holyrood election has been a battle at all, the battleground for it has been tax. Not only the Unionist opposition but the pro-indy left have attacked the SNP for timidity over its plans to keep income tax rates the same as the rest of the UK, with only a tweak on the threshold for the top rate.
In their defence the Nats have deployed a line that’s been widely derided as an old Tory argument derived from the so-called “Laffer curve”, but in fact is nothing of the sort. It centres around the ways wealthy people legally shield their income from tax, but there’s a very specific and very important wrinkle that applies only in the particular case of a devolved, not independent, Scotland.
It’s not at all complicated but it’s absolutely crucial, and it’s barely been discussed on even the most superficial level in any supposed analyses of the situation undertaken in the media, so as usual we suppose it’s going to be down to us to do the job.
If there’s one thing the Scottish Conservatives love to do, it’s lecture the SNP about vetting its candidates. Here’s Ruth Davidson on Michelle Thomson, for example:
Alert readers will have noticed that the Conservatives and most of the right-wing press have recently embarked on a hyperbolic campaign against the Scottish Government’s “named person” child-protection legislation. The latest assault is in today’s Daily Mail:
The shriekingly furious lead article thunders in outrage that “nearly two thirds of Scots have condemned the SNP’s state guardian scheme as an ‘unacceptable intrusion’ into family life”, which sounds like a pretty damning verdict.
It’s not until you look a little deeper that it all falls to pieces.
As it happens, one of the things that we’ve been occupying ourselves with during the current news drought is pulling together a post called “The SNPBAD Files”, collecting all the desperate smear and innuendo of the Unionist press as it systematically tries to discredit every one of the 56 SNP MPs elected last May.
Until last night we hadn’t been sure which had been the most pathetically dismal. Was it the MP who still did a few haircuts in his barber shop on Saturday afternoons? The one who bought a derelict London house many years before he was an MP, renovated it with his own hands and now sometimes stays there when working at Westminster, rather than charging expenses to the public for accommodation? Or perhaps the one who tweeted that he was opposed to the concept of monarchy, the foul monster?