So do the Lib Cons have a mandate in Scotland?

 

Alastair Allan MSP on Newsnicht refused to budge on the assertion that the coalition has no legitimacy here, and the Lib Dems are just propping up a Tory government with one seat, which was opposed by 85% of Scots who voted. But the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives last week scrapped slightly more than the SNPs share of the Scottish vote in the 2007 election. So is AA trying to defend the indefensible?

There is a key difference - and not just the one advanced by Allan, that the SNP actually won, whereas in Scotland this is a government of losers.  The SNP tried and failed to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2007  - the latter now find the Conservatives more acceptable bed fellows. Only after being rebuked by the Lib Dems did Salmond chose to govern as a minority, accepting that he would need to bring others on board policy by policy. The nationalist Holyrood government does not dictate to Scotland - the arithmetic doesn't allow it.

The Con Lib Alliance does. They will decide what's good for us then force it through parliament with English MPs. There was lots of talk tonight that the Lib Dems had a mandate due to their healthy number of Scottish MPs. But perhaps a better way of judging their "right to rule" would be to consider the parts of their manifesto relating to Scotland. How much of these made it into the partnership deal announced today? 

Trident - of particular interest to Scotland since these weapons of mass destruction are currently squatting on the Clyde. Total Lib Dem cave in- they misleadingly gave the impression during the campaign that they were against renewing the missile system.

Accelerated budget cuts: Lib Dems said they were against the Tory plan to start cutting deeply this year. Total cave in again. Unemployment in Scotland is now higher than in England and we are more vulnerable to a double dip recession as a result of this decision.

Abolish the Scotland Office: I'll believe it when I see it. Young Danny looked VERY pleased with his new job.

No tax on incomes below £10k. This is a concession from Cons to Libs which could benefit poor Scots but no timetable when it will happen.

Funding: Libs are making a big deal of how their plans for health and education will have consequences for Scotland. This just means what happens at the moment. Spending decisions are made about English health, education, police  etc based on English needs and priorities. The rise or fall is passed proportionately to Scotland through the Barnett formula. We have to make the best of it, even though our needs were not considered when determining the funding.

So do the Lib Cons have a mandate? I think we all know the answer.

Comments

[Benjamin]

I hate FPTP. It means lack of choice and a sort of 'dragooned' politics. Labour have 'locked in' heartlands of the poor. Labour say to them that "you can't go anywhere else, or you'll get it", so it's just a case of GOTV.

PR would at least breathe a bit of life into electoral politics, with other measures too.

[Benjamin]

In the context of predominantly Tory govt policy, we can only hope that the Lib Dem 10k threshold (implemented at some point in the future) will go some way to offsetting the hits middle and lower income people will take as the cuts, job losses, and tax rises hit. Remember that the Tories favour indirect taxation, which is regressive.

As Plot Tracer above notes the 10k threshold is not very well targeted anyway, but at least in the context of the the other Lib Dem manifesto polices (mansion tax, etc) it was mildly progressive. However, in the present situation, with other Lib Dem policies scrapped, it may not make a lot of positive difference.

[Jo]

No one here has mentioned the fact that Labour could have created a coalition with the Lib-Dems and the others and decided - indeed screamed - that they would not because of the presence of one particular Party. That is what scuppered Scotland, Labour's self interests and their opposition to electoral reform too. Labour are quite happy with FPTP thanks very much. This Labour Party, the same bunch who implored Scotland to go out and vote for them to keep the Tories out were the group who - ultimately - let them in!

I think the Lib-Dems were between a rock and hard place. And let's remember they were talking to Labour about a coalition while Scottish Labour people were out talking the deal down.

People in Scotland can do one of two things: we can snipe from the sidelines or we can do our bit to force all of Scotland to see who caused this and who put the people of Scotland LAST when it came to looking out for this country. It wasn't the SNP.

[DA]

Well Scotland is either part of the union or it is not: if you accept that it is, then the largest party in the union-wide election has the right to try and form a government; minority or coalition.

Joe Middleton:
"Scotland voted mostly for Labour and Labour clearly won in Scotland but unfortunately Labour doesn't want to accept any mandate from our people."
Labour would love a mandate from the Scottish people and I'm sure they'll campaign for one in the next Holyrood election, but this was a UK election to a UK wide Parliament, how any part of the UK - nation, county or city voted on it's own is irrelevant.

While we are part of the union, them's the rules: in a democracy you have to agree to be bound by the overall result obtained when everyone with the right to vote has voted.

I don't like this result, but (getting the Calman Commission powers aside) it's Independence or nothing on this question: we put up or shut up.

[Joe Middleton]

Since when was 12 MP's seen as a healthy amount to attain in Scotland? It's more healthy than one but it is still a small minority of 59. Are the Lib Dems more popular than the Tories in terms of the popular vote? Slightly, but there is not that much in it.

Thatcher had around this number of MP's in Scotland but it was always obvious that she had no interest in Scotland's actual views.

If Cameron had gained 12 seats no doubt the media would have proclaimed it a great victory however the reality is that even that number would have been well behind the victors.

The Liberal Democrats were in third place in this election behind the SNP. They did not do well.

Scotland voted mostly for Labour and Labour clearly won in Scotland but unfortunately Labour doesn't want to accept any mandate from our people.

The one thing Gordon loved was the British flag and our interests are clearly secondary to those of the British state to any party with its HQ based in London.

Labour's liking for the ideas behind the Claim of Right ended when they got into power.

[Mogreb-El-Acksa]

Aye the Lib Dems knew what they were doing when they refused to go into coallition with the SNP ....it was a stitch up which forced the SNP to rely on the hated tories for support in the parliament
It wasn't by chance that of all the unionist parties at Holyrood it was left to the Tories to support the SNP.

Con Lib Alliance I prefer Con Dem Alliance

[John]

"Lipstick on a pig" is an inelegant but perhaps accurate description of the LibDem support for a Tory administration in Scotland.

[Plot Tracer]

Joan... good article... though I would differr on one point. The 10k income tax will not help poor families. Labours tax credits were more targeted at the poor. This income tax allowance will help middle and high earners.

What did happen was that there was a non-compromise. The tories managed to give around £250 a month to the middle class without the original stipulation from the lib dems that raised tax on high earners would pay for it. Cuts will hit the poorest people, the middle class "floating voters" will get a reward and the ultra rich will carry on meteing out austerity measures upon the poor and public service workers and users.

[L.L.]

Yes, if you regard it as, and vote for it to be, a "region".