‘Is there an election going on?’

Alex Salmond's fuss over the TV debate may have been little more than hubris, but at least it livened up a dull campaign

By David Lee

If there is one thing about Alex Salmond that enrages those outside his loyal Scottish National Party circle, it is his arrogance. Mr Salmond is often derided by opponents for hubris, especially when it is coupled with the politics of grievance.

The two found a perfect marriage when the SNP leader launched a legal challenge against his exclusion from the leaders’ debate. How could the voters of Scotland make a realistic judgment if the voice of nationalism was silenced? he asked.

Opponents accused him of breathtaking arrogance, claiming he had played that politics of grievance card once too often. Yet some were able, privately, perhaps to take a step back and admit that at least Mr Salmond had done something to energise a lacklustre campaign north of the border. One of his familiar dramatic gestures might not have filled the political and policy vacuum in this extremely strange election for Scotland, but it gave everyone something to talk about.

Beforehand, virtually all the main players appeared to have been following a similar strategy; hunker down and hope for the best. If each is honest, no party has anything other than modest ambitions. And while the media set-pieces give the impression of activity, some constituencies might be forgiven for not knowing there was an election on.

Some SNP candidates have claimed they have been pretty much left to get one with it as the party is fighting the election on the most frayed of shoestrings. This is because the party’s banker, Stagecoach tycoon Brian Souter, has kept his wallet shut. He clearly feels that his money is better-spent fighting the Holyrood election next year – and he might well be right.

Even Labour has shied away from chucking cash at its Scottish fiefdom. With Chancellor Alistair Darling and Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy vulnerable in Edinburgh South West and Eastwood, this is where the money is going. The combative Murphy has been the most effective Westminster Labour politician in Scotland for many years, yet at times even he has looked as if he doing little more than going through the motions.

The televised Scottish political debate on Sky where Alex Salmond was made welcome – alongside Mr Murphy – was reduced to a pretty sterile knockabout on the economy and whether Scotland would cope better or worse if it were independent. Mr Murphy wanted to create 20,000 jobs; Mr Salmond boasted about his success in raising the number of modern apprentices and college and university places – then had a moan about how it would have all been much better with the oil money.

Accused by the Tories of failing to accept the need for public sector cuts, Mr Salmond laid into his favourite targets and promised to save a fortune by scrapping Trident and ID cards, both well beyond his remit. It was hardly earth-shattering stuff.

Yet none of the main parties can really make many promises. If the Tories win at Westminster, it is not in their power to deliver greater educational freedom or reform the health service in Scotland. It is likely that their one Scottish MP, David Mundell, might at last have a pal or two for long train journeys south, but a table for four might well be plenty.

The LibDems, on the back of the Clegg bounce, are perhaps alone in seeing big potential gains, though they are already relatively well-placed with 12 MPs in Scotland. Labour is almost certain to lose a handful of its 39 seats, but the changes to all parties are unlikely to be seismic.

The SNP is certainly not going to get anywhere near the 20 seats it rashly predicted it could win. Holding on to its current seven wouldn’t be too much of a surprise; a pick-up in Ochil or Dundee would likely be offset by the loss of by-election scalp Glasgow East.

Where the SNP comes well out of this election is in context of the Holyrood poll next year. The Conservative pledge to protect the Scottish budget round which ends in 2011 is a big deal for the SNP, allowing them to go into a devolved election without having to make short-term cuts on the same devastating scale as whoever has the keys to Westminster.

The pledge also confirms Alex Salmond’s status as a politician favoured by events. He was also helped by Labour de-selection battles, as well as the unravelling of Glasgow Council after leader Steven Purcell’s high-profile resignation, allegedly related to drug use.

Yet should Mr Salmond have been aiming higher? His persistent fundamentalist critics, including former SNP leader Jim Sillars, think he should have been shouting from the rooftops about independence and making a powerful case for going it alone; instead, the “i” word has been heard little beyond the familiar refrains.

In the event of a Cameron victory at Westminster, the “i” word might come into play a little more. A recent poll said that the 31 per cent who would vote yes in an independence referendum tomorrow would rise to 40 per cent if a Conservative government were in power in London. Figures like that start to make the prospect of an independent Scotland a little more hopeful for Mr Salmond and his party – though there are many fiery hoops still to jump through.

In the meantime, this election in Scotland is not – and cannot be – about building a new Forth Bridge, beginning a process of change in how schools are managed or judging whether the Scottish Futures Trust is the right vehicle to kick-start a major new programme of public works. It is, for all the main parties, about battening down the hatches and hoping for the best. Or at least hoping to avoid the worst.

26 April 2010

David Lee. Former Senior Assistant Editor of The Scotsman,