Professor James Mitchell explains why the SNP’s Westminster contingent will avoid anything that risks undermining the party’s position in Edinburgh.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
Only those with little knowledge of the Scottish National Party (SNP) imagined that a large contingent of SNP MPs would lead to chaos and mayhem in the Palace of Westminster. The SNP’s landslide - winning 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats with 50% of the vote - was built on eight years of SNP Government as well as the 2014 referendum. The SNP advance was not won on the promise of endless confrontation or on a hard left prospectus.
The background to the SNP landslide in May lies in the politics of devolution. Prior to devolution the party was a marginal force in Westminster politics. Devolution with its more proportional electoral system created new opportunities for the SNP. The SNP became the main opposition party in Scotland for the first time.
But without a record of government, the SNP was vulnerable to attacks based on H.P. Lovecraft’s dictum that the oldest and strongest emotion is fear and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown. An SNP Government was the great unknown. However as the main opposition party the SNP benefitted when voters became disenchanted with Labour. It was a combination of a Government losing an election and an Opposition winning.
The SNP leadership believed (or hoped) that this would translate into support for independence but after four years in office support for independence was static with only a quarter of voters choosing independence between the status quo, more powers and independence.
In 2011, the combination of its reputation for competence and the low salience of Scottish independence ensured that the SNP bucked the electoral system and gave it an overall majority. Little attention had been paid to its manifesto commitment to a referendum on independence as few imagined that the SNP would command an overall majority. But the overall majority ensured that a referendum was firmly on the agenda.
Support for independence grew over the forty months after the 2011 elections but not enough to win the referendum. But 30 per cent of those who had voted Labour in 2011 supported independence in the referendum. This loosened attachment to the Labour Party. A key part of this was the anti-Conservative message that dominated the campaign for independence. The referendum was a staging post for Labour voters to move to the SNP. Labour’s association with the Conservatives in the referendum had the same effect on Labour support as joining the coalition with the Conservatives had had on the Liberal Democrats.
The impact of the referendum on the SNP’s prospects at the UK general election only eight months later was considerable but more complex than simply reflecting an increase in support for independence. Support for independence had been mobilized and relatively easily channeled into support for the SNP. A couple of years before, opponent's of the SNP had assumed that a decisive victory for the union would damage the SNP and undermine its support at the UK general election in 2015 and the Scottish elections in 2016. The referendum proved a Pyrrhic victory for Labour and the SNP’s defeat the opposite.
The SNP appeal in 2015 was, as in its previous electoral advances, based on reassuring messages. Labour and SNP had competed to be the anti-Tory party in Scotland and the SNP’s unambiguous anti-austerity message was clear. The SNP insisted that the May 2015 general election was not a re-run of the referendum and that it was not seeking a mandate to hold another referendum. It proposed to share government with Labour reminding Scottish voters of its record of competence in Holyrood and its willingness to work with others to oppose the Conservatives. Labour’s refusal to work with the SNP reminded voters of Labour working with the Conservatives under the banner of Better Together in the referendum. This helped the SNP portray itself as the main opposition to the Conservatives in Scotland.
The SNP’s new MPs will try to avoid anything that might undermine the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Disruptive Parliamentary behaviour would undermine its image as a party of government and aim to be seen as the natural party of Scottish Government. The SNP will strenuously oppose the Government. But the SNP and Scottish public know well that oppositions do not govern and the SNP’s inability to block Conservative Government policy will provide ammunition in making the case for independence.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
