You win a historic third election with a second massive landslide, getting more than twice as many seats as your nearest challenger – the first time such a thing has ever happened in a Holyrood election – on the back of what’s (self-evidently) by and large a very popular policy programme and record, and before you’ve even taken your seats in the chamber all the parties you just thrashed out of sight line up to explain how you’ve been doing everything wrong.
And as alliances go, they don’t get much less holy.
We’re supposed to be taking a few days off, but it’s been tipping it down outside for 36 solid hours, so when an alert reader emailed us a question relating to this article from Monday, we couldn’t help but go and research it just to pass some time.
They’d asked how many of the Tory MSPs elected last Thursday had been rejected by the voters of a constituency seat on the same day, and we were startled by the answer – of the 24 Conservative members of the Scottish Parliament elected on the list last week, every single one was also a failed constituency candidate.
In amongst a torrent of pretty mad analysis of the election result at the weekend, we noticed the most insane reason yet suggested for the loss of the SNP’s majority:
The co-founder of a much-lauded but little-read pro-independence website asserted that the SNP were cruising to victory until the Nats got the backing of the Scottish Sun and Nicola Sturgeon was pictured posing with the front cover endorsing her party.
The whole litany of gaping flaws in that argument is something the Yes movement has needed to talk about for some considerable time now. So let’s bite the bullet and do it.
A few weeks ago we rather cruelly highlighted an old post from Kezia Dugdale’s blog in which she bitterly bemoaned the practice of candidates who’d been rejected by voters in constituency seats still being able to get into Parliament via the “back door” of the regional lists.
The social-media reaction to this post yesterday was astonishing. Merely pointing out calmly and quietly that our warnings before the election had been entirely vindicated, and that everyone else’s unequivocal assertions of a guaranteed SNP majority had been the rubbish we always said they were, unleashed a torrent of abuse equal to any we’ve ever endured in the last four and a half years – distinguished only by the fact that so much of this one came from supposed Yes supporters.
But no amount of screaming and shouting will change the facts. Let’s look at them.
The first (and from our perspective, most important) thing to note is that independence is now categorically and unequivocally off the table for at least half a decade.
The failure of the SNP to secure another Holyrood majority last night (for the want of just 360 votes) combined with the Greens’ weasel-worded opposition to a second referendum – and make no mistake, opposition is what it is – will ensure that even if the rUK votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes overwhelmingly to stay in, there will be no indyref before the next Holyrood election in 2021.
Whatever else happens, you can take that to the bank.
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.
Connor on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why no paypal option ? Sorry I do not feel safe having to give my card details to all, paypal…” Oct 2, 11:39
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I respect anyone who gets up for work every morning, goes to work, pays their own way, pays their taxes…” Oct 2, 11:28
crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Middle class, working class, etc have become a bit meaningless in how they are used today, the terms often being…” Oct 2, 11:09
Southernbystander on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Once you become a professor in this country you become middle class whether you were before or not. Alf suggests…” Oct 2, 10:30
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yep, I reckon Messrs. Fanon and Césaire were early pioneers of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.” Oct 2, 10:18
Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Alf doesn’t have any of his own opinions, he just uses the quotes of others. That Masters or PhD must’ve…” Oct 2, 09:45
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The police would have to pay attention to the findings of the court in considering what fresh evidence there might…” Oct 2, 09:42
Cynicus on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I doubt if Mr Murrell is a trustee of the fund.” Oct 2, 09:32
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “So have you donated or not, Alf? Or are you rudely derailing ANOTHER thread with your garbage?” Oct 2, 09:18
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““Not every day I get to pish 600 thousand up the wall”” Oct 2, 08:59
100%Yes on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The fighting pot mounting up quite nicely. The SNP needs stopping and removing how anyone can talk about working for…” Oct 2, 08:44
Vestas on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Done. Put a few quid extra in as I have a horrible feeling I still owe you from the Kezia…” Oct 2, 08:19
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Just to add one point of clarification: when a decision is sent back for lawful reconsideration, the court doesn’t direct…” Oct 2, 08:09
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yes, the court can say the original process was unlawful and require it to be done again properly — which…” Oct 2, 07:56
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Which group, oppressor or oppressed, does Fanon put Professors into?” Oct 2, 07:55
Minceheid on In The Eyes Of The Law: “That reminds me – who was that SNP guy that got busted for hiding a camera in the bogs or…” Oct 2, 07:18
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “You are wrong on this as well. The Court can find the decision unlawful and order a reconsideration. It can…” Oct 2, 07:11
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““check procedure and not much else.” A judicial review of Police Scotland’s decisions might be brought on grounds that the…” Oct 2, 07:06
John McNab on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““This changing room’s lying empty.”” Oct 2, 06:38
Elmac on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Contribution made and more if required. We need justice to hold these lying corrupt sleazebags to account. If the prosecution…” Oct 1, 23:31
MarkerPost on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated. Hope the fund is ring-fenced…” Oct 1, 23:17
James on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““….they smelt of pubs…. and Wormwood scrubs…. …and too many right wing meetings….” What a shower of unionist twats….” Oct 1, 22:24
Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: “As Fanon wrote, in a colonial society “The national middle class discovers its historic mission: that of intermediary”, between who…” Oct 1, 20:48
crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Don’t post much, not on Twitter/X anymore (nothing to do with Musk, just find it unusable these days), but always…” Oct 1, 20:44
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “My understanding is that Justice Reviews are really narrow — they don’t look at the underlying merits or reopen investigations,…” Oct 1, 19:36
Heaver on In The Eyes Of The Law: “£100 donated. Just ask if you need more. You might not get, because I may not have, but no harm…” Oct 1, 18:31