SNP divisions go well beyond healthy debate. This is not normal for a party likely to improve on its historic best electoral performance. There is a danger that it will undermine its performance in May but more likely damage its chances of winning an independence referendum that might follow.
There are many causes. One dimensional interpretations of the party’s troubles should be treated with care. Neat mono-causal explanations, especially focused on personalities, tell us more about the explainer than the explained but it suits the SNP leadership to portray the divisions as a coordinated effort to undermine Nicola Sturgeon.
Social media has been blamed but media, in any form, only provides a platform. It has not created the anger and bitterness. Social media may amplify messages and provide a platform for those who would otherwise struggle to get noticed but it does not explain the deep divisions. It contributes to polarisation and does not reflect complexity or diversity.
The notion that there is a clash between members who joined before and after the post-referendum surge or that there is a generational division can be easily dismissed. Survey evidence shows remarkably little difference between those who joined the SNP at different stages and the generational myth lies only in the eye of the beholder. Explanations need to enter the more challenging areas of strategy and ideology.
Independence strategies
There has also been no credible strategy to deliver a referendum.
One factor is frustration at the perceived lack of progress in achieving independence. Perceptions and expectations are key and the SNP leadership has contributed to this problem. Sturgeon misread public opinion in the immediate after of the Brexit referendum. She assumed that there would be a decisive shift in favour of independence and has repeatedly marched her troops to the top of the hill only to have to march them down again. Research suggesting that a UK vote for Brexit while Scotland voted Remain would not have an immediate decisive impact on support for independence proved accurate. There was the prospect that voters might gradually move in that direction but that could not be taken for granted.
SNP members appeared to understand this better than the leadership. Survey evidence after the independence referendum suggested that members wanted a referendum as soon as possible but only when there was a high chance of winning. Intoxicated spin of evidence from opinion polls has not helped. Support has grown but far from the consistent and convincing lead that would be necessary to risk another referendum. We hear less these days about the 60% that many members predicted lay just over the horizon. Members want to believe the leadership’s claim that independence is ‘completely inevitable’ but on this they have literally been misled.
There has also been no credible strategy to deliver a referendum. The SNP ‘feeble fifty’ jibe when Labour’s 50 Scottish MPs (69%) failed to deliver devolution after the 1987 general election has come home to roost. With 48 (81%) of Scotland’s 59 MPs, the SNP is unable to deliver a referendum. The SNP Constitutional Affairs Minister has quoted Kenyon Wright of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, ‘‘What if that other single voice we know so well responds by saying, “We say No and we are the State”. Well, we say Yes and we are the People.’ The SNP dismissed Wright’s empty rhetoric back in the days of the Constitutional Convention but the SNP’s ‘Plan B’ is no different. Great rhetoric but without substance.
While emphasising the case for a referendum due to a ‘material change in circumstances’, the SNP has failed to address how this affects the case for independence. There is a sense amongst many SNP activists that there has been little preparation or that the preparation has been poor. Independence in Europe does not solve Scotland’s problems regarding free movement but only moves the problem. Scotland faces a choice of losing free movement with European Union states or with the rest of the UK.
Economic policy divisions – and others
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the SNP leadership could have handled the transgender debate with greater sensitivity.
The party and wider movement is split on currency as well as the economic and social prospectus of an independent Scotland. The SNP’s 2019 conference rejected the leadership’s proposal by 781 votes to 729 that an independent Scotland’s currency would be the pound sterling until a separate currency ‘can be safely and securely established’ in favour of moving to a separate currency ‘as soon as practicable’. But this resolved nothing and has only led to fierce arguments on how soon is soon. The Growth Commission established by Nicola Sturgeon, designed to appease business interests and project an image of fiscal responsibility, provoked strong opposition while failing to attract support from business. The SNP has moved to the right on the economy while simultaneously losing previous support in the business community.
Other issues have split the party and movement. Party loyalists have contrived to portray opposition to the leadership’s transgender policy as caused by a disaffected element out to undermine the leader. There is ample evidence that many Sturgeon supporters disagree with her on this issue. Irreconcilable ethical principles arise in some areas of public policy and cannot be ‘solved’ but need to be negotiated. Leaders need to take a stance but also need to emphasise where common ground exists and make an effort to reach out respectfully to those with whom they disagree. Regardless of views on the issue, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the SNP leadership could have handled the transgender debate with greater sensitivity. Portraying those who disagree with a policy as disloyal to the leader is a sign of weakness. Spin from the SNP’s headquarters suggest that perceived electoral considerations have been paramount in the development of the policy, encouraging robust partisanship at the expense of responsible leadership.
The Salmond v Sturgeon saw
What we are witnessing is the kind of internal bloodletting normally associated with the aftermath of a major defeat.
Much has been made of the breakdown in relations between Alex Salmond and Sturgeon and superficial commentary has sought to place this at the centre of the SNP’s troubles. The criminal charges against Salmond may have been dismissed but the damage done to his reputation is irreparable. His political career is over. But Salmond has been Sturgeon’s useful bogeyman in internal SNP politics just as Boris Johnston is her bogeyman in electoral politics. Critics of the SNP leader and journalists offering more nuanced and informed commentary on the party’s trials and tribulations are crudely dismissed as ‘close to Salmond’. Salmond has nothing to lose and the bogeyman has now become a real threat to Sturgeon.
There has been speculation that a new pro-independence party may contest Holyrood’s elections, even that this might mark the former leader’s return to electoral politics. It is more likely that the emergence of new organisations, notably Now Scotland, reflect concerns about the SNP’s direction under Nicola Sturgeon and a desire for more pluralism within the wider independence movement. We are looking at a situation similar to the Brexit referendum when Leave EU and Vote Leave fought to become lead campaign organisation. The SNP will remain firmly under Nicola Sturgeon’s control at least until May’s Holyrood elections but she will struggle to control the campaign for independence in any future referendum.
What we are witnessing is the kind of internal bloodletting normally associated with the aftermath of a major defeat. Much is a function of frustration and an inability to manage internal debate. The SNP needs a period in opposition to sort itself out. It has no credible roadmap to anywhere other than victory at the next Holyrood elections. It hopes that a big win will restore Nicola Sturgeon’s authority. If that happens, it is likely to be short lived.
Further reading: #Indyref2: the economic issues are different this time, Graeme Roy, The Conversation; The poison feud, Stephen Castle, New York Times; Only the Scottish people are sovereign, George Kerevan, The Scotsman; Reasons to be cheerful, James Foley, Source Direct; The final showdown, Iain Macwhirter, Herald;
Image of Scottish Cabinet May 2011 via Scottish Government flickr CC BY 2.0I
Keith Macdonald says
Of course, a lot of this is true but I think Professor Mitchell may not have put enough stress on the ideological differences in the SNP. On economics these range from very right-wing tax-cutting and austerity to hard-left monetary expansion and unlimited public spending. These dwarf the well-known differences in Labour between centrists and “the left”.
The only thing that holds these people together is the prospect of breaking up the UK. After a referendum victory there would be civil war about the meaning of “independence” in relation to currency, EU membership and many other issues.
Professor Mitchell also implies that Nicola Sturgeon may be unaware of the volcano she is sitting on top of. I think she probably is aware and this may explain her desire to not even consider the effects of the pandemic on our ability to conduct a proper campaign and vote in the Parliamentary elections. She must want to get us committed before the eruption.
Graeme Purves says
It is entirely normal for a wide range of political opinion to be represented in a movement for national independence. That does not presage ‘civil war’. There is a wide range of political opinion in Denmark, for example.
Jackie Kemp says
Do you think the SNP is becoming an uneasy coalition between natural conservatives and progressives? It probably always was – Buchan farmers and Glasgow radicals – but this is increasingly the case as people drift away from the Unionist parties and from no-party. It will be harder to hold it together as that drift continues.
Keith Macdonald says
There is a complete range of views but the right-wing tax competition agenda is not on at the minute. The split is between social democrats like Nicola and people much further to the left. They hope that Nicola can sell “independence” as a soft and easy process but they know that it will be immensely disruptive and at that point they can step in. The key issue is currency and the far left are now committed to ditching sterling and creating money like no one’s business to finance their dreams. Brexit was hijacked by the right after the referendum and the left in Scotland hope to do the same thing.
Burge Loch says
Not to mention the growing interest in the end of the Neverendum and the likes of All for Unity
@Alliance4Unity
An Alliance of all who wish to see the defeat of the SNP and an end to the Neverendum on Scotland’s future. and others sick of it
Dr Peter R Ashby says
Thanks from the ISP for you splitting the unionist vote on the List. Go for it.
Peter Arnott says
Very useful blog, thank you. I wonder whether the deep-seated historical change underneath the surface of personality stooshie might be that the SNP’s existence and political practice up till now has been predicated on the model of using the THREAT of independence in order to extract concessions to self-government and favourable treatment economically WITHIN the Union. That is, the SNP have practised their own version of what Scottish Labour (and Scottish Tory) politicians have been doing since 1968. They proved to be better at this game than Labour, and so have been in power in Holyrood since as the right people to a) run a devolved government and b) extract concessions. The 2014 referendum, which they NEVER had a serious chance of winning, was assimilated into this strategy, as was the 2015 landslide. But they, like everyone else in politics, have been profoundly challenged by the change in circumstances of Brexit rewriting the Brituish?English political rulebook and by their own success in getting the polling for Independence above 50%…but not 60%. The SNP’s entire organisational basis as a pressure group WITHIN the Union is profoundly challenged by the real prospect, suddenly, of not being in the Union any more.
James Hewlett says
My comment is simply that I am voting SNP with the single objective of independence. I’ll avoid any vote splitting until then. There does seem to be an all too human tendency to power grabbing when the leader seems under attack, with the result that the weakened leader and the inexperienced challenger waste their energy fighting and both get swept away by their common enemy. I sincerely distrust any who promote in-fighting before the battle, even if the battle is one of a long series.
Elaine Fraser says
Did I miss the word ‘women’ here either in article or comments ? Remember them y’ know 51% of population ?
Ken Fraser says
“those who disagree with a policy” are in the main women ie. adult human females.
Why are you deliberately avoiding the word ‘women’?
Jack Hood says
I’m sure Prof Mitchell is right in what he says here. However, my concern is that unionism seems to be equally divided and chaotic, between hardline and moderate unionism. My fear is that hardline unionism sees this SNP division, along with Brexit and Covid, as an opportunity to undermine and eventually destroy devolution, and take us back 20 years to the old centralised, unitary state. At the moment hardliners seem to be the loudest unionist voice and moderate unionism needs to be careful here. It needs to get its act together and decide what exactly it’s offering Scotland as an alternative, be that federalism, confederalism, home rule, FFA, devo-max, or whatever other label they can come up with. If they can do that they can sideline the hardliners and Scotland can have a positive debate about progressive choices. However, if moderates get distracted by gloating over SNP troubles then moderate unionism itself could also end up losing everything it’s achieved over the past 20 years or so.
Alan Keegan says
When the true blood and soil nature of the SNP was window dressed by Salmond’s bluster and 70’s socialism (albeit with a beggar my neighbour corporation tax policy) and followers lapped up the discipline, it could appear cohesive.
The subsequent Sturgeon era of jumping on every “progressive” band wagon, hysterical and needy remoaning and the obvious dearth of talent in the party, now make the SNP a clear threat to the country’s credibility.
We should be closer to a removal of devolved responsibilities than a referendum.
Ian Davidson says
If the SNP is unable to deliver indy, then it may be better for devolution to be run by one of more of the parties which actually “believe” in it? There is a fundamental tension in being a party of government whilst also advocating that the same system of government should be split asunder? Time for a rethink?
Alan Keegan says
Ian, not only advocating its destruction but systematically exceeding the devolved brief and fraudulent use of tax funds.
John Main says
Many years ago, I wondered if the decision to call Scotland’s new parliament Hollyrood whilst retaining the original spelling of Holyrood, indicated a predisposition to lie. After all, they could have changed the name to Hollyrood. I assume they were scared of the stooshie that would arise. A small point I concede, but indicative of their mindset.
Fast forward to now, and the SNP talk endlessly of “independence”, when they are determined to see Scotland run from Brussels. There are no independent countries in the EU, excepting perhaps Germany and France.
A political movement that cannot be trusted with language does not fill me with confidence. The shenanigans over gender are just another example of an inability to engage with reality.
Tim Bell says
This SNP implosion seems to be the natural consequence of a single-issue party realising that its issue doesn’t match its sloganeering. “Stronger for Scotland” is best achieved by a good devolution settlement within the UK, Brexit notwithstanding and recognising that England needs much better devolution to counter-balance the over-centrality of Westminster.
Further, the SNP has no principled purpose in local government, where the party’s single issue is not in play. SNP councillors are there to sign off on SNP Holyrood legislation and provide a voter basis. The SNP has no interest in making devolution work well either at Holyrood or in the town hall.
These internal fault lines, a real crisis of identity and purpose, are being played out in the rammy between Sturgeon and Salmond. It hardly matters who “wins” in this particular case.
John Main says
In the rammy between Salmond and Sturgeon, there is plausible evidence that one side has used corruption, lies and conspiracy against the other, with the intention being that an innocent man would go to prison for a long time. The resultant cover up has cost Scottish tax payers millions and traduced the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.
None of us little people can sleep sounder in our beds when we can see how the resources of the Scottish state can be mobilised to pursue a vendetta against even those with an international reputation. If you believe that it hardly matters who wins, then I suggest you take some time to comprehend what is happening and its relevance to us all.
Tim Bell says
John, you’re obviously quite right there, real damage has been done to the body politic and it does matter that boundaries between party, government and state are repaired and respected.
I was really only referring to the general perception of political damage – this episode demonstrates that the SNP has been too long in office and has got too cosy, AND that it is a single-issue party that has nothing to offer when it isn’t making progress in its single issue.
I’m concerned about the SNP maintaining a strong presence in local government, where it has a deadening effect on local issues.
John Main says
Tim
Thank you for your reply. I am in broad agreement with what you write. I would describe myself as an agnostic when it comes to Scottish independence, largely because to the best of my knowledge, nobody who I trust has come up with an independent, facts-based summary of what it would mean for ordinary citizens like me. Even if they had done, that summary would now be due for radical re-evaluation because of 1) Brexit, and 2) Covid.
Meantime, as you suggest, my confidence in the SNP’s ability to achieve anything is dented by the manifest declines in services and infrastructure I observe each time I go out and about. Stage-managed press conferences and continually re-tweeted propaganda jars with the directly observed realities of pot-holed roads, boarded-up town centres and declining health outcomes. If the small-scale and local is beyond them, what chance would they have when dealing with the international world?