THIS is a curious election. Talking to candidates about what the contest holds, it’s striking how seldom they raise who will win the UK vote. The result never seems in doubt. This has helped the contest in Scotland plot its own course, with independence still dominant.
The SNP’s start has, to put it kindly, been somewhat muddled, with the leadership saying independence and a second referendum are both central and peripheral to the election. Meanwhile Unionists want to convert the ballot into an anti-SNP protest, something made easier by the lack of drama over who becomes Prime Minister. Going by last week’s local elections, the Tories have had most success in this, emerging as the go-to party for hacked-off No voters.
The SNP advises caution on the local results. Besides the SNP vote being remarkably stable, the party suggests the Tories enjoyed a “differential turnout”, as their psyched-up supporters all rushed to “send a message to Nicola Sturgeon”. That could mean the Tories have maxed out their vote already, and their momentum will stall next month.
The Tories know the “posh bits” did them a favour, and the General Election will be a broader canvas. Yet they persist in talking up their chances. The party last week issued a breakdown of council votes in most of Scotland’s 59 seats, suggesting the party was leading in 15 of them. Ruth Davidson coyly refused to set a target for gains, but the nods and winks were obvious.
It seems to go against the basic rule of expectation management in politics – downplay your prospects in order to magnify a victory if you win and avoid looking stupid if you lose. But the Tories have talked themselves up so much that five or six gains – a result which would have been surreal two years ago – could now look like a damp squib. Why do it?
There’s some voter psychology at play here. The Tories know what a big deal is it for a lot of people to even contemplate voting for them. They’ve been lepers for the best part of 20 years in Scotland. But if the party can persuade people that lots of others are voting Tory too, they reckon it will give reluctant voters “permission” to join in. It’s a tactic the SNP used to great effect in the independence referendum, helping people back change by feeling part of a larger group in society. It’s still a risk, but the Tories think the long-term prize is worth it.
South of the Border, Ukip is often described as the “gateway drug” for the Tories. Thousands of Labour voters who inhaled Ukip as a protest are now hooked on the blue pills. The Scottish Tories are hoping for something similar – Labour voters backing them in a protest against the SNP, then staying with them long-term. The key is to get people to break their voting habit in the first place, and the issue of another referendum is seen as sufficiently potent to do it.
So don’t expect Ms Davidson to get distracted by fiddly details like policy. It’s going to be kicking the Nats all the way. Her cause has been helped by Ms Sturgeon calling a referendum. “Look, we told you she’d do it,” the Tories can say. Wins at Holyrood and local level also show Tory votes can count. But will it “protect the Union”? That’s less clear.
A Tory surge would doubtless cause Ms Sturgeon to recalibrate her referendum plan, but not abandon it. And just as the Tories got a boost from Ms Sturgeon’s referendum timetable, perhaps Ms Sturgeon could use a Tory advance to boost a Yes campaign. “Look, we told you they were coming and Labour couldn’t stop them,” she might say. Instead of a referendum pitched as Independence v the Union, the next might be Independence v Tories. Ms Davidson’s side’s short-term gains could yet be to the SNP’s long-term advantage.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel