By Stuart Crawford
I wrote recently in The Caledonian Mercury on whether the SNP was at a high water mark and faced a decline in support over the coming months and years. Judging from the volume of comments - 148 contributions at last count – there is obviously a debate to be had here. The jury is out, but not for long. 5 May will provide the answer, in the short term at least.
Against this background, it’s an interesting exercise to go on and consider what it might be that the SNP needs to do to win, not just in the context of the looming election but in the broader understanding of delivering its political agenda via the democratic process. In other words, winning independence for Scotland, if that indeed remains the party’s goal.
Why that last caveat?
Well, the question brings me neatly on to my first suggestion as to what the SNP needs to do, and that’s define what it means by “independence” clearly and unambiguously. I’m a party supporter and I don’t know, so goodness knows what the general public and the all important floating voters think it means. I know what I’d like it to mean, and that’s full sovereignty, but maybe that’s an old fashioned concept in the modern world of globalism.
Now, I recognise that defining independence could be a two edged sword; for every genuine enthusiast reassured there may be other switherers put off forever, and as I’ve said previously the word from the doorstep activists is that the “I” word is not a vote winner at the moment.
But people really do need to know what they’re voting for, do they not?
I’m not arrogant enough to think that my scribblings are compulsory reading for staff at SNP HQ, but if one of them happens to chance upon this article whilst looking for something else, maybe he or she can give us the approved definition of the word via the comments section below?
Next there is the question of party leadership. Now, the First Minister, Alex Salmond, looks in rude good health to me, and long may it be so. He is, I believe, by common consent primus inter pares in the Scottish Parliament; some have said he stands head and shoulders above his fellow MSPs of all parties, and he is seldom if ever bested in the cut and thrust of debate. I wouldn’t disagree. However, should the SNP, Heaven forfend, not form the administration post 5 May and should he have to relinquish the post of First Minister, what then? Will he be content to lead the opposition – again – or will it be time to move on to pastures new? If the latter, who takes over?
In other words, folk like me want to know who the leader of the party they will be voting for should Mr Salmond choose to stand down for whatever reason. At the very least we’d be pleased to hear that whatever happens electorally he won’t be standing down. But if that reassurance cannot be given, then we need some idea of who might step into his shoes. I know that it is no longer possible to put, for example, “Stewart Stevenson for First Minister” on the second ballot paper, so before I put my cross on it I want to know what I’m getting and who I’m going to get it from. And just saying the party will decide in due course isn’t good enough. So, some idea of the leadership succession plan, if there is one, would help. And if there isn’t one then there’s some work to be done.
Looking beyond this spring, one thing the SNP might be well advised to consider is its candidate selection procedure, as indeed might all political parties. I think it was Murray Ritchie of the Herald who famously stated that one of the problems with the SNP was that it was “painfully democratic”.
At the time it was seen as a backhanded compliment, and it still has that resonance with me. But we do have to ask the question that, if talented and able potential candidates are to be attracted to stand for election, whether the current practice of devolving their selection to constituency associations is the best way of achieving this.
For example, I occasionally find myself in the company of talented and successful individuals from all walks of life. Inevitably the talk turns to politics at some point, usually in the context of what a shower our elected representatives are and what a mess they’re making of things in general. I always ask them, if they genuinely feel this way, why they don’t get involved and try to get elected and sort it out. And it’s fascinating that none of them, highly successful people in their own fields, be they private, public, or third sector, are remotely interested.
Why? Not because of the pay, which is poor in relative terms, nor of the long hours required or even the loss of privacy which elected office would bring. No, it’s the perception that there’s no way into the system for people like them. Having been through the process myself I have some sympathy with this view. There is an attitude amongst the rank and file of all parties, not just the SNP, that to qualify for consideration for selection there’s no substitute for longevity in putting shoulder to the wheel. In other words, if you haven’t been out leafleting for the past 15 years then, frankly, you haven’t served your apprenticeship to the cause and you’re a parvenu, a carpet-bagger.
I’d bet that if William Wallace himself presented himself to his local SNP constituency association as a potential candidate, the response might well be: “Well, Mr Wallace, it may well be that you did in fact defeat King Edward I of England at Stirling Bridge and send him homeward to think again, but where were you when we were leafleting for the recent council by-election in Inversnecky?”
I exaggerate a little, of course, but not that much. The point is that there needs to be some sort of system whereby highly talented and capable people, who may not have had the luxury of time or circumstance on their side, are able to enter the fray without having to “pay their dues”, as it were. Now, I can already hear the anguished howls of those who see the dangers inherent in having a fast track for selected individuals who have, literally, something extra or special to bring to the party. But surely true believers in the cause will see the benefit of the best candidates being selected, not those with the most campaign medals?
At the same time, the SNP should also take some time to consider whether its interests are best served by having all of its best people in elected office. I have alluded to this before, coyly, and I do not wish to embarrass anyone by mentioning names. There is, however, general agreement amongst the anoraks who talk about such things that one prominent and weel kent minister in the current Government had infinitely more political influence, in the general sense of the word, before he was elected an MSP, let alone joined the Cabinet. People who were previously active, prominent and effective campaigners have now just got jobs.
In the longer term, and in order to reach the tipping point in favour of its raison d’etre, independence, the SNP needs to “infiltrate the Establishment”, as one of my long term party activist friend neatly put it. To a large extent, the argument goes, the people who run Scotland are not our elected representatives in Holyrood but the appointees who fill the boards and trusteeships of public bodies, quangos, and health boards across the country. These are the people who make things happen, through networking, friendships and being ideologically sympatico.
As my chum put it succinctly in a slightly different context; “Mike Russell can say what he likes about education, but it’s the EIS which decides what happens. And the EIS is solid Labour.”
The point is that the Labour party has benefited from over 50 years of being able to appoint and promote is members, sympathisers and acolytes via the structures and fabric that permeate and run Scottish social life. The SNP cannot compete, having had but four years in power nationally plus varying periods in power at local authority level.
Here is the paradox. To ensure its longer term political aspirations the SNP has got to stay in power long enough to spread its tentacles throughout the institutions of the land. And if it loses on 5 May 5th process comes to a halt, albeit possibly only temporarily.
I don’t know what the answer to this conundrum is, but anyone who has experienced the public appointments process quickly realises that it is, notwithstanding all the protestations to the contrary, highly politicised. A favour bestowed here, a nod and a wink here, and hey presto the party stalwarts get their rewards and the party of government is able to exert political influence not only via the elected bodies but also through the appointed ones. It’s almost too good to be true. And currently the SNP has little access to, or influence over, the process.
A final point. The party is in dire need of a genuine, properly resourced think tank to develop policy and new ideas, for two reasons. The first is that, as explained previously, many if not most of those within the party best equipped to do the sorts of blue sky thinking required have been diverted down the cul de sac of elected office.
Second, it would provide an opportunity for the sort of people who should be involved, but aren’t, to contribute without having to thin their shoe leather in wasted years of footsoldiery. It would also provide a useful intellectual and inclusive basis for future policy formulation which many see as being lacking at the moment.
I have still got my fingers crossed for the election but my optimism is tempered by the reality of where we are. I note that the First Minister has declared he would prefer to govern as a minority administration rather than enter into coalition. We can only hope that he finds himself in a position to make that choice in a couple of months’ time.
Related posts: