Why do so many people vote for the SNP?
They have their reasons and they are not all illogical ones. This and other questions asked and answered...
Last week I asked paid subscribers to “Ask Me Anything”. I’m pleased that plenty of you took the chance to do so and answer some of your questions here. If I haven’t answered your question that is likely because I am saving it for a distinct post or because I will try and answer it at some future point. I hope to make this a semi-regular feature from now on. To join the happy gang, just click here:
Onwards!
In light of the SNP’s awful record in government and failure to advance the cause of so-called ‘independence’, why do so many people still vote for it? Is it just that they are profoundly gullible? [JS]
It is always tempting to suppose that your political opponents are too thick to appreciate their own interests. Tempting but, with respect, a mistake. This is not a phenomenon unique to this country. Wealthy “progressives” in the United States will cheerfully deplore the manner in which poor Americans living in rural states so often vote “against their own economic interests” while ignoring the fact that wealthy Democratic voters might also be voting against their own narrow economic interest. So, money counts but it ain’t everything.
There are many entirely rational reasons for voting SNP. If you support Scottish independence it would be strange to vote for a party that opposes independence. Until the 2014 referendum, however, plenty of people did precisely this. Data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey reminds us that from 1999 to 2011 around 30 percent of voters supported independence when offered the choice between “Independence, Devolution and No Scottish Parliament”. That was true in the 1990s too and there was a famous Scotsman poll 30 years ago that put support for independence at 50 percent. That was an outlier, for sure, but also a reminder that latent support for the idea was for a long period higher than support for the SNP.
Of course independence was not then the fulcrum upon which Scottish politics rested. It was a nice idea, all things being equal, to be achieved in the fullness of time, as circumstances warranted, subject to terms and conditions. The SNP’s mission has been to persuade Scots that all things are now equal. That has required significant cherry-picking and data-manipulation but the nationalists came close to victory in 2014 (there is a fun argument to be had making the case they should have won) and the issue, while presently becalmed, has not disappeared since.
So it is not illogical for voters persuaded that independence is the single-transferable-answer to put today’s disappointments and failures to one side. Sure, the Scottish government may not be doing very well but only the SNP can deliver independence and that prize trumps all others. There are plenty of voters who would deny being single-issue voters who nevertheless are.
And if you believe, further, in the existential case for Scottish independence then, yes, of course you are likely to vote for SNP candidates. That case is simple and, by the standards of these things, honest: Scotland is a country and it should be a state too, just like France or New Zealand or Uruguay or Sri Lanka or Estonia. Simple. That is a wholly respectable view even if you think, as I do, that independence is the gateway to (relative) national impoverishment.
Granted, there are also voters who support the SNP while opposing independence. As much as 10 percent of the SNP vote may sometimes fall into this category. These voters, however, are just as Scottish as anyone else and, like many Scots, they place considerable value on being Scottish. They accept the SNP’s claims that it is the only party that can be trusted to “put Scotland’s interests” first and they like the idea of a party which will “stand up” to Tory and Labour governments in London alike.
Because “being Scottish” is very important to lots of Scottish people. Polling reveals that around a third of Scottish voters consider themselves “Scottish, not British” and around a fifth describe themselves as “more Scottish than British”. A further quarter say they as “equally Scottish and British”. These findings do not overlap 100 percent with party political preferences but they are a pretty useful starting point. You don’t have to be a number-crunching whizz to see how a nationalist party can thrive in such circumstances.
And, whether you like it or not, the SNP also have a story to tell. You need not think it persuasive to appreciate that others might and, in fact, do. Abolishing university tuition fees, scrapping prescription charges and offering subsidised bus travel for juveniles and pensioners may irritate some voters - especially those who can count - but it pleases plenty more. That this is chiefly funded by the Barnett Formula’s (unjustifiable) generosity to Scotland is neither here nor there.
More significantly, the Scottish government shifted to the left under Nicola Sturgeon. The devolution of significant social security powers has allowed the SNP to take a markedly more redistributive approach than that favoured south of the border. That has made a difference, most notably in the form of the £25 a week Scottish Child Payment offered to some of the poorer families in the country. They are better off than they would be if they lived in England.
Granted, it is easier to create a more generous welfare state when someone else is paying for it. Nevertheless, the combination of Barnett and higher income taxes on Scots earning more than £43,000 a year allows the Scottish government to a) do things differently and b) present itself as a more moral, more caring, more grounded and decent enterprise than successive Conservative ministries in London. This flatters Scots’ view of themselves as a folk apart and voters rather enjoy being flattered.
And that is the other thing: the SNP often gets to play on easy mode. The rules for Scottish politics are simple: half a step ahead of England, happiness; half a step behind, misery. Since these have not been wholly happy years for the British state, the SNP can appear to look comparatively more attractive simply by standing still. Mediocrity is not very exciting but it’s still preferable to chaos.
Most voters do not pay very much attention to specific policies. They vote from habit and based on feelings and general, broad, perceptions. The SNP presents itself as a party for (almost) everyone, recognising few limitations of geography, class, or sectional interest. There is something for all and if you dislike these principles, worry not for others will be along shortly. Everything save independence is negotiable, after all.
Time erodes even dominant parties, however, but I suspect the SNP is now closer to its floor than its ceiling. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which it fails to win around a third of the vote. And, as we have seen, there are plenty of reasons explaining why that is. You might not like this - or them - but it is a mistake to attribute your opponents actions to stupidness or gullibility.
Do you think we (= Scotland; I am doing missionary work down south currently) are ahead of the curve in terms of our democratic breakdown (never mind the policy feel the enemy, wi us or agin us sort of zero sum identity politics ) or are there grounds to be hopeful that the fever could break ? [JN]
Well, pessimism tends to be more amply rewarded than optimism but, tepidly, I think there are some small grounds for optimism here. The United Kingdom is currently looking like an outlier amongst western liberal democracies in as much as it is shifting to the left while most other countries are scampering to the right.
This isn’t just because the UK has had a Conservative government for the past 14 years but because that government has so plainly exhausted itself and, worse than that, failed. A correction looms.
In Scotland, likewise, there is the prospect of at least some relief from “zero sum identity politics”. Notwithstanding everything written about the SNP above, the salience of the national question has plainly reduced in the last 18 months or so. Yes, of course it still matters but it is not as important, right now, as it was. Nobody believes there will be a referendum any time soon. Most voters are quite happy about that. We have had a dozen years of draining constitutional politics; it is time to argue about other things.
It helps that Humza Yousaf, affable cove though he may be, is nobody’s idea of a man leading his party to immortality and his country to national liberation. That in turn reinforces the extent to which the national question has lost the fierce urgency of now and been replaced by a sense of “Maybe, some day”.
Time, not the opposition, has done this. But if one party slips, another must be ready to take advantage. The British political system can survive one party going mad but it cannot cope if both Labour and the Tories lost their minds at the same time. That was what happened when voters were offered the grim choice between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. Here, too, there has been a welcome, overdue, correction. Keir Starmer is many things but he is not exciting. That is a good thing. His suggestion that “politics should tread a little more lightly” on your lives is a reassuring one and a sign that calmer, though not easy, times lie ahead. Cooler temperatures await, I think.
Do you think a Labour U.K. government will be successful/turn the country’s fortunes around? [IR]
If the definition of “success” is “not being this government” then, yes, Sir Keir Starmer has a better than even-money chance. But I rather suspect the questioner hopes Labour can clear a higher bar than that.
The opinion polls continue to suggest Labour are on course to win a 1997-style victory. But this is not 1997. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown inherited a propitious economic outlook. By sticking to Ken Clarke’s spending plans, they actually ran a budget surplus for a couple of years. Starmer and Rachel Reeves can only dream of such happiness.
Change is necessary - and will, for a short period, cheer people up simply on account of change being change - but it cannot disguise the reality we are in a fix. Taxes amount to a higher percentage of GDP than at any point in more than half a century. At the same time, debt has soared to the point where it is nearly equal to 100 percent of GDP. The UK is not borrowing for “long-term investment”, it is still borrowing to cover day-to-day spending. And debt interest payments currently amount to around £100bn a year. That dramatically curtails any chancellor’s room for manoevre.
In these circumstances, abolishing non-dom status (a policy now pinched by Jeremy Hunt) or slapping VAT on private school fees amount to not very much. They are signals, certainly, but they are also small beer.
So small, indeed, that you can understand why some voters wonder if Labour is really promising to change very much at all. The £28bn “green investment” plan that was previously the leading indicator of Labour’s new approach has been thrown overboard on cost and political grounds and it is hardly a surprising that many voters could not tell you what, if anything, Labour actually plans to do.
Starmer’s caution may disappoint but it is also prudent. I suspect that many voters are so hacked-off they are disinclined to believe any promises made by any political party. When these promises involve considerable sums of money, they are doubly-discounted. Where, after all, is the money going to come from?
There is only one answer to that: economic growth. Labour is pinning many - perhaps most - of its hopes on an economic upturn. Recent OBR forecasts are more encouraging than previous ones without being quite encouraging enough. Still, they constitute a start.
That is why Labour is now the party of supply-side reform, whether it wants to be or not. This is most obviously apparent on housing - Labour might actually build stuff! - but it also extends to, say, Wes Streeting’s plans for increasing NHS productivity (essential if the health service is to be maintained in anything like the state voters wish it to be). Planning reform is not sexy but clearing paths for investment is essential. No new reservoir has been built in England since 1991, for instance, even though everyone knows more are needed. That is a small example of what needs to be done, but a telling one.
While accepting this is not 1997, it may be worth recalling the “five pledges” New Labour offered as proof that a) it was now safe to vote Labour and b) the party would actually do something.
These were:
We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme.
We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape.
We will get 250,000 under-25 years-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off.
Note that these tick important boxes - education, crime, health, welfare, Labour credibility - while being both comparatively small bore and funded by relatively niche revenue streams. I think we forget this because we prefer to remember Labour’s “radicalism”. But Blair knew the value of caution too (at least for a while).
I suspect Starmer will have a bigger impact than he is currently advertising but government must be realistic and prime ministers must deal with the legacy they inherit, not the one they would like. That constrains Labour now but, given a fair economic wind, I’d imagine that Labour will have the opportunity to do much more than seems likely just now. Much more, too, than voters can or will currently believe.
More after the break, including: Why has there never been a female President of the United States? Prospects for Trump and Biden this November. Who Unionist voters in Scotland should support and more!