The smell of blood is in the air – and votes.
Opposition parties at Westminster and Holyrood are relishing the pain of the governing side and wondering how to make the most of it at the general election.
In London, the feuding between an increasingly flaky Boris Johnson and an ever more exasperated Rishi Sunak has Labour demanding an early poll to spike the civil war.
North of the border, Nicola Sturgeon’s arrest and release without charge has Unionists demanding her suspension, while accusing Humza Yousaf of being too weak to do it.
Even before Sunday’s police developments, Alex Salmond’s Alba Party was seeking to exploit the SNP’s travails with a butter-wouldn’t-melt offer of an electoral pact.
📝 Sign up for Unspun – Scotland's top politics newsletter. Enjoy exclusive opinion and analysis from some of Scotland's best political writers and commentators sent directly to your inbox every weekday evening. Click here to sign up 👈
If the pro-independence parties agreed to field a single “Scotland United” candidate in each seat it would maximise the number of Yes MPs, Mr Salmond argued.
“At a stroke, the entire dynamic of the election will change,” he said in a letter to Mr Yousaf.
“Election debate will be centred on independence and how to get it, and not on the record or current internal difficulties of Scotland’s major party,” he added cattily.
Some SNP politicians, oddly those closest to Mr Salmond in the first place, said the proposal ought to get a hearing. What’s to lose, they said.
Others, such as the veteran MP Pete Wishart, were withering.
“We'd be severely punished by the Scottish electorate if we partnered with a toxic party on two per cent of the vote that has never won an elected representative in any election,” he said.
So where does the truth lie? Not in the middle.
Mr Salmond says his plan would deliver a “very substantial advantage” to independence parties in general, but it is clear the biggest advantage would be to his own.
Alba is facing a crisis at the general election.
The party is set to lose both its MPs, Neale Hanvey in Kirkcaldy and Kenny MacAskill in East Lothian, who were elected under an SNP banner in 2019 then defected.
Without them, Alba loses a lot of public money. Like other parties with two or more MPs, it gets an annual policy development grant from the Electoral Commission.
In 2022/23 this was worth £145,281, making the Commission its biggest donor by far.
Losing its MPs would also leave Alba in the embarrassing position of not having a single elected representative. Not a convincing look for a would-be earth shaker.
Through defections, the party did have a handful of councillors before last year’s local elections, but they all retired or lost their seats. Indeed, all 111 Alba candidates lost.
So the election promises to drain Alba of cash, kudos and credibility. (Pity SNP MSP Ash Regan, who will come under huge pressure from Mr Salmond to defect next).
Hence the obsession with a pact that would oblige the SNP to step aside in Kirkcaldy, East Lothian and elsewhere to give Alba’s candidates a clear run. Possibly one A. Salmond.
Besides the naked self-interest, the plan is suspect numerically.
It is hard to be precise about numbers as the Westminster boundaries are being redrawn, with Scotland dropping from 59 seats to 57.
But based on the 2019 results, a Scotland United pact looks pointless.
As Alba didn’t exist then, the Greens were the only notable Yes party standing against the SNP, and they were largely irrelevant, losing their deposits in all 22 seats they contested.
In 19, the SNP won comfortably despite them. While in the two of the 22 won by Unionists – Edinburgh South (Labour) and Edinburgh West (Liberal Democrat) – the Unionist lead eclipsed the Green vote, and so even if it had gone to the SNP, the SNP would still have lost.
Only in East Dunbartonshire was the Green vote more than the winning majority, but as it was an SNP gain, adding in the Green vote would only have made a Yes win bigger.
In no seat did splitting the vote between Yes parties...
...want to read the full article? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈
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