George Kerevan: SNP counting the cost of delaying financial offensive

OUTSIDE wartime, coalitions under Britain's notoriously adversarial first-past-the-post system tend to be factious and short-lived.

The reason is simple: once events ensure that one partner has something to gain or lose electorally, the marriage breaks up.

True, the prospect of a (semi) PR referendum could keep the Lib-Dems chained to their ministerial limos. And there is more in common between younger, southern Tories and their Lib-Dem counterparts than we realise north of the Border. Tory politicians are more socially liberal while Lib-Dems ones are more free market oriented.

Yet there is still a political gulf between the two traditions: over Europe, over defence, and over the aspirations of their core voters. In the UK, 32 per cent of people define themselves as Conservatives. But only 9 per cent are Liberal Democrats at heart, suggesting a huge proportion of Clegg supporters voted tactically and will bolt the party if it does not deliver. Lib-Dem voters are also younger than Tory ones, meaning they worry about different things: education and jobs versus taxes on savings and property. Ultimately, Cameron's Tories are centre-right and Clegg's Lib-Dems are centre-left. As we know, the centre rarely holds when centrifugal forces start flying.

The elephant (or tiger) in the room is the catastrophic state of British finances. Having talked around the subject in the presidential television debates, Cameron and Clegg now can't avoid taking those famous hard decisions. On day one of the coalition an extra 6 billion was sliced off public spending for this year – meaning a public sector jobs freeze. As a quid pro quo, the Tories have accepted Vince Cable's plan to double Capital Gains Tax, which will hurt savers and drive investment out of the UK.

Labour plans to hike National Insurance will be scrapped so spend now before VAT is increased in next month's emergency budget.

The markets are jittery, inflation is rising, and Britain's debt mountain is headed towards 100,000 per person. Once Greece defaults and the cuts really start biting, Cabinet discussions will not mirror the Cameron-Clegg love-in of the last few days.

This much was predictable. However, I did not expect to be defending democratic rights so early in the proceedings. The small print of the Tory-Lib Pact reveals there will not be another election until May 2015 – unless a vote of no confidence is passed by an "enhanced majority" of MPs. In other words, Messrs Cameron and Clegg plan to rig it so a simple majority (provided by dissident Tory or Lib-Dem MPs) can't get rid of them.

Election events took a different course in Scotland, where the voters turned to Labour to keep out the Tories. It did not work because Labour preferred opposition to an alliance with the Lib-Dems and the SNP.

The SNP itself was left with the same number of seats won at the 2005 general election. As always, the problem for the SNP – for whom I was a candidate – is how to win over marginal voters who do not (yet) share the nationalist agenda. From this dilemma emerged the "local champions" line for the election.

Following the media furore over MPs' expenses last summer, voters seemed truculent and anti-politician. Branding SNP candidates as "local champions" had the merit of meeting this mood head on and providing a unifying narrative for the campaign. At least it did in theory.

On the proverbial doorstep, the "local champions" line did not always resonate as predicted. It struck some voters as bombastic. Unless linked to a strong local issue in a given constituency, it could sound hollow. Above all, once the TV leadership debates grabbed the headlines, the mood of the electorate changed dramatically. Cynicism regarding MPs gave way to a thirst to debate issues, especially the deficit. At this point, voters wanted answers not slogans and the "champions" line began to lose traction.

In the final week of campaigning, the party did attempt a major intervention in the economic debate. Alex Salmond called a press conference to present a detailed analysis of the impending Treasury cuts to the Holyrood budget – 25bn over the coming decade – and how an SNP government with enhanced fiscal powers could fill the gap.

Salmond's plan can be criticised. It relies on finding 40 per cent of the shortfall from "efficiency savings" – difficult without job loses in the public sector. Another 20 per cent comes from scrapping the Trident replacement – hardly on the cards now the Lib-Dems have caved in on this. The final 40 per cent was premised on a fiscally empowered Holyrood stimulating Scottish economic growth and garnering extra tax revenues to itself – possible but subject to the uncertainties of the global economy.

But given that the big three Westminster parties spent the entire election avoiding telling the voters how bad things are, Salmond's initiative could have inserted the SNP into the national debate in a way the "local champions" line ultimately failed to.

Forcing the other parties to explain the size of the impending fiscal crisis, and how they would handle it, might have broken open the election for the nationalists – particularly as it made Holyrood an independent player in economic recovery.

True, the media response to the Salmond initiative was limp. But the party has enough big guns with a serious background in economics to force a media debate if it chooses to deploy them. Scottish electors only decided to vote Labour in the very last 48 hours of the campaign. Unfortunately, the Salmond fiscal plan came too late to make an impact. It should have been the centre of the SNP manifesto.

Meanwhile, Scotland has a Liberal Secretary of State for the first time since the Earl of Rosebery in 1945. He is Danny Alexander (I'd have preferred Ming Campbell myself).

Back in the 1960s, the great Liberal leader Jo Grimond got into trouble with his party for proposing an alliance with the SNP.

In this era of coalitions, which way will Danny lead his party in next year's Holyrood elections? Towards the Tories again?