It seems that for many it came as something as a surprise.
But the scale and the scope of the Conservatives’ success across the UK as a whole should not have come to a surprise to anyone who was taking due notice of the evidence being provided during the campaign by the polls.
Throughout the campaign the Britain-wide polls were persistently reporting a double-digit lead, including six of 10 polls conducted up to the eve of polling day.
Meanwhile, it was long evident that any double-digit lead should deliver the Conservatives a substantial majority. In the event the Conservative lead proved to be 12 points, and enough for an overall majority of 80.
Moreover, another consistent message of the polls was that Brexit was shaping the way people intended to vote.
They suggested that 75 per cent of those who voted Leave would vote for the Conservatives or the Brexit Party, while nearly 80% of those who backed Remain would vote for one of the parties willing to support a second referendum.
One implication of this was that Labour was struggling to retain the support of those who voted Leave, many of them older, working-class voters in traditional Labour strongholds.
Labour had already found it difficult to retain their support at the last election, with many a pro-Leave Labour seat swinging to the Conservatives and thereby making many a traditional Labour stronghold a marginal for the first time. The warning signs were already there.
To this dangerous mix was added the self-evident doubts in the minds of many Labour voters about the ability of Jeremy Corbyn to provide effective leadership.
Back in 2017 some swallowed their doubts and voted Labour, but the trick was more difficult to repeat a second time. So, it should not have come as any surprise that much of Labour’s so-called “red wall” of seats, places such as Bishop Auckland and Workington that had never elected a Conservative MP in a post-war General Election but which now appeared vulnerable, should have fallen into the Conservatives’ hands.
The prospect was quite clear. However, Scotland did provide something of a polling surprise.
Of course, polls are thin on the ground here and only one poll was conducted during the final hours of the election campaign.
However, none of those that were conducted during the campaign suggested the SNP would win as much as 45% of the vote, while all thought the Conservatives would win rather more than the 25% of the vote they eventually secured.
From the SNP’s perspective, the fact that the party has exceeded expectations has served to increase the impression that the party has gained added momentum, while their Conservative opponents inevitably feel somewhat chastened.
For the time being at least, this will give the SNP a political advantage in the tussle that is now likely to ensue with the UK Government about holding a second independence referendum.
In contrast the slump in Scottish Labour’s fortunes to just 19% of the vote – the party’s worst performance since 1918 – was more or less anticipated in the polls.
But that in no way serves to reduce the seriousness of the situation in which the party now finds itself.
The party could not even manage to save Gordon Brown’s former Kirkcaldy seat, even though the SNP had disassociated themselves from their candidate there.
It might be thought we have had enough of polls now that the election is over.
However, once the holiday season is over all eyes will be on what the polls have to say about what happens to attitudes towards independence as Brexit begins.
Most polls this year have suggested that support for independence is now only just a little less than 50%.
If it were to increase further, the tussle between the Scottish and UK Governments would simply become even more intense.
John Curtice is Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde, and Senior Fellow, ScotCen Social Research and The UK in a Changing Europe.
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 here