The last Liberal-Conservative coalition was the National Government of the 1930s. Remember the Hunger Marches anyone?

The grins on the faces of  many Scottish Labour MPs last night might suggest a great victory. In fact the General Election of 2010 saw Labour win the lowest share of the vote across Britain since the defeat of Michael Foot in 1983.  It's also lower that the share taken in 1931, when Arthur Henderson lead a shell shocked party to defeat (on 30.8%) against a National Government of Conservatives, Liberals and Labour "traitors", notably the former leader Ramsay MacDonald and his chancellor Philip Snowden. That also came in response to a financial crisis, and you cannot help but compare Nick Clegg, in a very olique way, to MacDonald. He went to the electorate as a radical but ended up stabbing them in the back.  Back in 1930, the Labour government under MacDonald was being pressed by bankers (yup, them again), to cut the deficit by reducing unemployment benefit by a fifth. The aim was to keep the pound strong and tied to The Gold Standard, a primitive measure that suggested a pound sterling had to be worth a certain weight in gold.   The Labour cabinet couldn't agree to that so PM MacDonald went off to join the Tories and Liberals, in a government, who were happy to oblige.   Unemployment benefit was slashed, a hated means test split families and tariffs were introduced which extended and intensified the global recession.  Henderson was left with something of a rump (James Maxwell took the thinking left out in another breakaway). The electorate bought the line that only a tough talking government in the national interest (sound familiar) could get Britain out of its mess and voted for it through the 1930s.   The National Government was eventually forced to abandon the Gold Standard. But not before the economy had been demolished and millions of people were thrown into penury. No doubt Brown will be thinking about the 1930s in his own attempts to build a "progressive coalition" with the Lib Dems.  England will not let that happen and a Clegg Cameron alliance could see a new National Government emerge. Scotland suffered disproportionate harm during the last one.   We remain a wealthy, resource rich country with a progressive politics. Our best option is to go it alone.

Election	Number of votes for Labour	Share of votes	Seats	Outcome of election
1900	62,698	1.8%	2	Conservative Victory
1906	321,663	5.7%	29	Liberal Victory
1910 (January)	505,657	7.6%	40	Hung parliament (Liberal minority government)
1910 (December)	371,802	7.1%	42	Hung parliament (Liberal minority government)
1918†	2,245,777	21.5%	57	Coalition Victory
1922	4,076,665	29.7%	142	Conservative Victory
1923	4,267,831	30.7%	191	Hung parliament (Labour minority government)
1924	5,281,626	33.3%	151	Conservative Victory
1929‡	8,048,968	37.1%	287	Hung parliament (Labour minority government)
1931	6,339,306	30.8%	52	National Government Victory
1935	7,984,988	38.0%	154	National Government Victory
1945	11,967,746	49.7%	393	Labour Victory
1950	13,266,176	46.1%	315	Labour Victory
1951	13,948,883	48.8%	295	Conservative Victory
1955	12,405,254	46.4%	277	Conservative Victory
1959	12,216,172	43.8%	258	Conservative Victory
1964	12,205,808	44.1%	317	Labour Victory
1966	13,096,629	48.0%	364	Labour Victory
1970	12,208,758	43.1%	288	Conservative Victory
1974 (February)	11,645,616	37.2%	301	Hung parliament (Labour minority government)
1974 (October)	11,457,079	39.2%	319	Labour Victory
1979	11,532,218	36.9%	269	Conservative Victory
1983	8,456,934	27.6%	209	Conservative Victory
1987	10,029,807	30.8%	229	Conservative Victory
1992	11,560,484	34.4%	271	Conservative Victory
1997	13,518,167	43.2%	419	Labour Victory
2001	10,724,953	40.7%	413	Labour Victory
2005	9,562,122	35.3%	356	Labour Victory
2010	8,601,441	29.1%	258	Hung parliament

Comments

[Oskar Matzerath]

The solution to all of this:

Firstly, the Tories need to form a coalition with the Lib Dems. They then force through a constitutional reform bill, whereby Scotland’s parliament is enshrined with sovereign Home Rule – ie, full control over everything, its own treasury, its own mineral rights etc, with Westminster retaining control of only defence and foreign affairs, for which Scotland would send an annual stipend. The Scottish Parliament would no longer be devolved from Westminster, but be an equal partner in the United Kingdom. In return for this, all Scots MPs would be elected by PR, though their numbers cut from 59 to 12. Scots MPs would be banned from voting on matters which do not pertain to Scotland – ie, only on matters relating to defence or foreign affairs.

In Wales, the assembly would be upgraded to a devolved parliament, similar to Holyrood now. In return, Welsh MPs would be cut from 40 to 25.

Once this was achieved, Scotland would have its own quasi-independent parliament, run along progressive left lines. England would have Westminster, presumably run along right-of-centre lines. The Welsh would no doubt vote for a similar make-up to the Scottish model.

Therefore, everyone gets what they want. Except the British Labour party, which would see their numbers at Westminster drop from 258 to about 205. A small price to pay though surely, to keep the UK from splitting apart acrimoniously and which would ensure we all got the governments we voted for.

[joe kane]

"I, I suspect like many Scots, am simply ever so uncomfortable with Nationalism and it's unsavoury under(/over)tones"
- Such as committing the same crime as Hitler, twice, against defenceless innocent countries such as Afghnaistan and Iraq perhaps?

Perhaps these unsavoury over/undertones include renewal of Trident and support for sickening fundamentalist regimes abroad, such as zionist-Israel and the House of Fraudia Arabia?

Anyone remember Abu Ghraib - or care about the vast ongoing Iraqi atrocities the British government's illegal invasion has created so fertile an environment for, and whose responsibility it is to do something about?

[Davie Park]

"I, I suspect like many Scots, am simply ever so uncomfortable with Nationalism and it's unsavoury under(/over)tones"

For that line of debate to bear any fruit Ally, you'd have to define what you mean by nationalism and whether the unsavoury 'tones' (of either height) that you refer to are intrinsic to it.

[Billy Carlin]

Dear Dear Ally! Nationalism isn't a problem - every country is nationalist so why should it be a problem for Scotland?

The fair weather situation you talk about is a unionist problem - if they do not want a Tory government then why do they want to be joined with a majority Tory country?

Scotland does not need three governments to run it! So why do we need to have MP's at Westminster doing nothing but interfere in English matters? England does not need another tier of government just to add to these unemployed Scottish MP's.

There are already too many politicians and parliaments running Scotland we need to get rid of the useless Scottish MP's at Westminster.

[L.L.]

"Nationalism"? Ally, do you regard yourself as having any national identity then ?

[Ally]

I, I suspect like many Scots, am simply ever so uncomfortable with Nationalism and it's unsavoury under(/over)tones - perhaps wrongly.

There is a dichotomy in Scotland's willing partnership in the union when it benefited us and our wish for autonomy when it suits us - fair weather like. Couldn't he people of Yorkshire and 'up North' could easily cite exploitation of resources, without feeling the need to break away - I just wonder why we can't? Surely devolved government at regional and local level within a stronger union is an equally attractive goal?

Thanks for the tip - I'll search out Tom Nairn

[joan mcalpine]

Hi Ally, there is a significant minority in Scotland who favour independence and in the last 20 years it has reached 50% in some polls, depending onn how the question is phrased and the political/economic conditions at the time. There are considerably more people who say they would like independence "in their hearts" but their heads tell them no. It's perfectly legitimate for the SNP to seek to influnece these Scots, who have been convinced by arguments that we are too poor/stupid/divided to make decision for ourselves like any normal country. Spending 50k to examine the country's future doesn't seem unreasonable to me, particularly since every point of view was considered and the SNP had it in their manifesto.

The points you make about Scots benefitting from the British Empire are quite correct. Yet at the same time the Empire benefitted from Scotland's natural resources and cheap labour. We were at once colonised and colonisers...read Tom Nairn if you are interested in this strange aspect of Scotland's past.

[Ally]

Thanks for replying Joan, I understand your response and it has some merit, although how much stomach there is for independance amongst the Scottish electorate is untested - and the voting last night demonstrates no real increase, despite the SNP squandering £50,000 in a pointless gesture.

Isn't it true that the countries you cite as examples were possessions of an invasive and acquisitive empire - the imperial power Great Britain. Which included Scotland as an integral and willing part of it, and created through the act of union?

[joanmcalpine]

Scotland is a nation in the same way as England is a nation ie not a region like the highlands. Your logic suggests that Ireland, India, Canada etc were somehow narrow minded nationalists in their desire to break with the British Empire (I have no doubt that some argued this at the time). Scottish sovereignty is recognised in the existence of the reconvened Scottish parliament. It did not appear out of thin air. It is the result of a long campaign in the Tory years involving the Labour Party, the Liberals, the Nationalists and civic institutions such as churches and trades unions. They all claimed the Tories had no mandate and signed up to a document called "A Claim of Right for Scotland" that asserted the principle that sovereignty lay with the Scottish people. Belatedly, the Tories recognised Scotland's democratic right to take decisions through its own parliament...which Cameron says he respects and the existence of which is not seriously challenged. I am simply extending this logic to argue for more powers for that parliament. My preference is independence, but full fiscal power would be acceptable. The suggestion that Scotland returned a "unionist vote", the alarming new Tory line, lacks any credibility, sense of history, and is a disappointing step backwards.

[Ally]

Surely "not getting the government YOU voted for" as a justification for a unilateral declaration of independence is to miss the point of a democracy? How far do you take this entropy? Until we are ensconced in little independent utopias of partisan voting - separate Glasgow, Highlands, Borders and Lothians?

The party with the largest (and increased) share of the vote in Scotland is a Unionist party, by your logic surely their philosophy should prevail - or am I missing something?