Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamc | Hacker News Reader

As an American, I wonder what the dominance of SNP in Scotland will mean.

It seems they went all in on becoming king-maker to a Labour minority government. That didn't work out.

I see two possibilities:

1: They try to keep up the energy kick and scream bloody murder at every turn, but never achieve anything, as they have exactly zero leverage to affect anything in Westminster. They fizzle out, and nothing much happens and things return to normal. Their big shot, independence referendum, has been fired and can't credibly be reloaded and re-fired anytime soon. Even Nicola Sturgeon admits this.

2: They get down to business and negotiates as a serious counterpart for actual regional political influence. This means getting their hands dirty on actual politics and compromise and at least toning down the Tory-hate-rhetorics, which could prove a very bitter pill to swallow for their base. See: Liberal Democrats, 2010-2015.

They got "their hands dirty on actual politics and compromise" as (intially a minority) government in Scotland, and have continued to gain support ever since. I believe Alex Salmond was one of few political leaders ever to leave with a higher approval rating than when he started.

Apologies if you already knew that, but there's a lot of commentary about recently that seems utterly ignorant of those facts.

It's probably worth reflecting on your words here too: "never achieve anything, as they have exactly zero leverage to affect anything in Westminster". That's a double edged sword for people who want to keep the union together for the benefit of all.

Getting their hands dirty in Westminster after the heavily anti-Tory (and anti-Labour, too) campaign is quite different from doing the same in Holyrood. I lack the required insight, but was local Scottish campaigns ever that aggressive?

Unionists leaders would certainly do well to make sure the Scots feel part of the union - but with a SNP in scenario one, Westminster is unlikely to be the venue for that.

They could work directly with Holyrood on efforts, or work directly through non-devolved powers.

The Labour party has adopted something referred to as "The Bain Principle" which means they voted against anything that the SNP voted for, even ideas that they initially supported or suggested themselves.

That's fairly aggressive.

Meanwhile the SNP where working together with the Tories in the devolved parliment to get things done (despite popular lore, there are actually Conservatives in Scotland and with PR they get a proportionate number of votes in the running of the parliament).

> one of few political leaders ever to leave with a higher approval rating than when he started

Clinton, who else?

Optimistically it will mean a prompt for the UK as a whole to have a constitutional shake-up, with the House of Lords abolished and replaced with some kind of regional assembly, more devolution within England, federalism, and some kind of PR system introduced mostly to undermine the SNP but accidentally making the voting system better. It may make leaving the EU less likely, as the knock-on effect may be the break up of the UK so that Scotland can remain in the EU.

Pessimistically, it means an acrimonious break-up of the UK to the detriment of both sides, though that depends as much on what the Conservatives have planned as what the SNP wants and is able to do.

Devolution within England will be disasterous for the NHS, thus likely to happen.

What's the significance of being an American in your wondering?

"As an American" has apparently become a euphemism for "I know nothing about the subject, so explain this to me like you would to a small child".

It means I read the papers but make no special claims to regional understanding. Sheesh.

Just a joke, lighten up.

I think he's indicating that he might have as nuanced an understanding of what that may mean as someone from say, the UK or Scotland.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com