Margo MacDonald: SNP must hang fire on policies

Published on Wednesday 14 October 2009 10:15

WHEN I wrote in the Evening News that "there's a fair chance of a hung parliament, with the prize being in the gift of the leaders of the devolved administrations", I didn't think the SNP leadership would take to the possibility with such enthusiasm and so little preparation. Speculating about hung parliaments may be food and drink to political anoraks, but to most voters such things are unappetising, neither fish nor fowl and not nearly as satisfying as a clear-cut majority for

But polls are beginning to suggest a tight finish next year, and I'm still in favour of voters knowing what the smaller parties might be offered, in return for their support, by Labour and Conservatives, the parties that will lead the next Westminster Government. And its entirely reasonable for electors to know the sticking points, and the negotiable parts of the smaller parties' manifestos.

Alex Salmond's price might be cancellation of Trident, or withdrawal from Afghanistan, or both. But both Westminster big beasts disagree with Alex Salmond. Could this propel the two parties that share power in Northern Ireland into a newly important role in UK politics? The Stormont First Minister and his Deputy may know about negotiating, but might not agree on nukes, etc. However, one of them might be able to do a deal with Alex Salmond over SNP support for their priority policies.

And let's not forget Plaid Cymru and the other parties and individuals who might well be elected.

They'll see what's on offer to the minnows from all the parties. And I haven't even mentioned Cleggie's crusade to re-instate the Lib Dems as a force to be reckoned with.

The situation at the moment is a swirl of currents of different strengths and directions, so why has the SNP jumped in without a life belt?

Instead of stating its objectives, and explaining why, the SNP parades its power to direct the affairs of other parties. This has had the same effect as the capes of studiously arrogant matadors on wounded bulls. In politics, as in bullfighting, timing is all. The deliberate preparation, demonstrated to watchers, leading up to the final, killer blow holds as true in the political arena as in the bull ring.

It's careless for the SNP to chatter about its behaviour in the event of a hung parliament: Alex Salmond's brutal slip of the tongue when he described a tied House of Commons being hung by a Scottish rope didn't chime with the public mood, and indicated a lack of planning and shallow thinking.

As a politician of the old school with instinctive communication skills, his insensitive response suggested a soundbite without a foundation of solid debate and decision. His words suggested discomfort at best, pain at worst, but at whom were his words directed, his fellow old lags on the green benches, or the people who voted for them?

How much more statesmanlike would it have been for Scotland's First Minister to concede that a hung parliament might be the outcome of the election but that he'd judge which party to support, or not oppose, after he'd considered what English voters had shown to be their preferences, and what he would judge to be the outcome favoured by Scots.

Nicola Sturgeon's off-the-wall remark that a hung parliament was the best outcome from the SNP's point of view came without any prior publicity on the party's priorities, and apparently, with no thought as to the English electors who're showing a desire to be rid of Labour in government. But her careless talk was dangerous for the SNP, because Labour are now able to portray her party as being Tartan Tories.

At this stage in the political calendar, parties should be stating their objectives, ideas and ideals. As is presently painfully obvious to the SNP, more detailed and inescapable commitments, for example, class sizes of 18 pupils, often can't stand up to everyday realities.

But that failure of judgement is dwarfed by the SNP's Westminster leader's excitable promise of the retention of English military bases in Scotland after independence.

Instead of first identifying the objective of the SNP defence strategy, and explaining its integral part in the sovereignty required by Scotland if we're to play a full part in the new world order, Mr Robertson tries to kid us that English bases in Scotland is no big deal.

A period of silent contemplation on the contingencies that might follow an indecisive election outcome is called for, as is a big effort to publicise the SNP's priorities under devolution and independence. Speculation on anything more is self-indulgent, at this stage.