THE GENERAL ELECTION IN SCOTLAND IS DIFFERENT AND IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF THE INDEPENDENCE QUESTION

As the old Scots saying goes “If you flee wi’ the craws, you get shot wi’ the craws.”

There is a peculiarity about the general election in Scotland few seem to have picked up. South of the border the Tories will be judged on how they have handled issues like income tax, the NHS, education, transport and public expenditure in the Westminster Parliament. Labour and the Libdems will be assessed on how they claim to be able to deal with these matters in that Westminster setting.  That is not how it is for SNP Westminster candidates in Scotland.

They will not be judged on how they performed at Westminster, but on the record of the SNP Government in the Scottish Parliament, over whose policies they have had no say or control.  Take the visits of Sunak and Starmer last week.  It wasn’t the Westminster group who were in their sights. Their political fire was directed at the Scottish Government: Sunak on education and Starmer on the Matheson case. Tory and Labour will continue to fight on condemnation of John Swinney and his administration, with SNP candidates being challenged to justify what Sturgeon, Humza and Swinney Governments have done, not done, or messed up.

In England and Wales Tory, Labour and Libdem leaders will front up their campaigns, and all are candidates seeking election.  Who will front up the SNP campaign? We will see Stephen Flynn now and then, but  the man in the campaign leadership role will be John Swinney, First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, but not himself a candidate for any seat in the general election.  Who will finally sign off on the SNP manifesto? Swinney. Who will get the credit, or blame, for the result?  Not Flynn but Swinney.  This election will be the much promised referendum – but it will be on the SNP Scottish Government.

SNP candidates will be assailed on the ferries, cuts in housing, cuts in education, people not being able to see a GP face-to-face, NHS waiting lists, the Matheson case, the hate crime act, all of these outside of their remit. Even if, and it is a big if, they persuade voters of their non-responsibility, they will be asked if they support or oppose the policies and actions of the Scottish Government, because it is the Scottish Government that is on trial at this election.  Just look at the papers on the first Saturday of the campaign: they are calling this Swinney’s election. 

But the Westminster group have brought it on themselves. Down in London they have been parrots, taking their orders from Sturgeon, Humza and Swinney, with never a word of criticism, not one step in distancing themselves from the shambles those three have created.  As the old Scots saying goes “If you flee wi’ the craws, you get shot wi’ the craws.”

I recall asking an SNP MP what economic assessment the group had made before endorsing a third runway at Heathrow. There was none. They learned that they were in support of it when watching the news tv monitor in an airport lounge as Nicola made the announcement. 

It need not have been like this.  When Ian Blackford became Westminster leader, I told him that he and his group would be judged on the performance at Holyrood; and that being so, he and a couple of others representing his group should meet the Scottish Cabinet every two weeks to discuss and contribute to the policies they were either working on or introducing. That way, the Westminster group would have a say on what would decide their fate at the next general election.  I gave the same advice to Mhairi Black when she became deputy leader in that group, suggesting she pass it on to Flynn.

I also suggested that it would strengthen the group’s position in Scotland if, given their numbers, they had a rolling programme where a good number took turn-about spending full-time up here meeting people, local organisations, and campaigning, while the remainder stayed at Westminster to maintain a strong presence. That way they would pick up on the issues and relay them to the Blackford group who would engage with the Scottish Cabinet.  In short, linkage on policy between Westminster and Holyrood should help make the latter’s actions much more sound, with the former able to fight their general election on policies they had a hand in making. It never happened.

It is not as if the Westminster group are a bunch of numpties, whose views can be dispensed with as of no account.  There is considerable talent in that group.  Take Plhilippa Whitford, a real medical doctor. She made her name in the 2014 referendum with her fierce well researched defence of the NHS. In the House of Commons, she was a distinguished member of the Health and Social Services Committee for England.  Does anyone remember her weighing in on the Scottish Government’s NHS policies? 

Then there is Joanna Cherry, the only KC among our MPs and MSPs. Why has she not been involved in pre-policy discussions on a number of bills in which the legal philosophy underpinning them has been well understood?  There are many others of ability whose talent has not been employed. However, they lack one important talent: understanding how politics works.

As you sow, so shall you reap.  The truth of a maxim SNP Westminster candidates are about to experience.