Salmond’s political radar misfires

In the days after the Scottish Parliament election on 5th May, it seemed like the First Minister could do no wrong; walk on water, heal the sick, headline T in the Park…

Alex Salmond has always been a big beast of Scottish politics, with very few of the other 128 MSPs able to match him for political insight.

But that innate political antenna that has served him so well in the past does not seem to be coping with the switch from analogue to digital, from minority to majority.

Yesterday’s Inverclyde by-election result was the latest example of this. Two days before polling day Mr Salmond said in an interview with the BBC: “I think this is earthquake proportions if we win this seat.”

Only once before has the Leader of the SNP used the “earthquake” phrase to describe his party’s chances, in July 2008 on the campaign trail in Glasgow East.

The similarities between the two campaigns are clear to see. Both came after notable SNP election victories, in both the SNP had to overcome a Labour majority of 13,000+, both seats were traditional Labour heartlands and both took place in the heat of the early summer.

Mr Salmond got his earthquake in 2008, but almost exactly three years later the First Minster will be left scratching his head asking himself how he could have misjudged the mood of the constituency so dramatically.

He used the “earthquake” phrase, he was on the campaign trail seven times, and, perhaps most interestingly, was desperately trying to turn the tide that was flowing against him by visiting polling stations in person as late as 8pm.

By then the game was up, Labour were on their way to a comfortable majority – and an impressive one given that the SNP came within 511 votes of taking the equivalent seat only 7 weeks ago.

While the result of the by-election gives notice that Labour are still a force in Scottish politics, and that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are at the start of a long re-building process, it also serves to remind us that, no matter what the Mr Salmond may believe, the First Minister is fallible.

His political radar is misfiring. An uncomfortable position for him, and an opportunity for others.

Nul points for SNP in political mastermind

You would think that if there was a political version of Mastermind that the SNP’s specialist subject would be independence. After all, it is their raison d’être.

But sitting in that big black chair and under the spotlight how much do the SNP actually know about their core policy?

Acting as John Humphries, Bernard Ponsonby did a pretty good job on Thursday night’s Inverclyde election debate at asking some of the key questions the SNP must answer if independence is going to be taken seriously.

For the believers in separation from the UK, the performance of SNP candidate Anne McLaughlin was not good.

Here is the transcript of the questioning:

Bernard Ponsonby: How many air bases would an independent Scotland have?

Anne McLaughlin: I know youare going to try and draw me on this but, you know, I mean, I can’t say because in an independent Scotland we would have to decide what we needed and it would depend on our needs were at the time.

BP: Well, if you want independence, you must have done some sort of audit about the size of a Scottish defence force, so how many bases would you need?

AMcL: You know I’ve got to tell you, I’ve not had a single person in Inverclyde, Bernard, asking me about air bases…

BP: That’s not why I’m asking, your party’s policy is for independence. How many air bases would you need?

AMcL: We will have as many as we need.

BP: How many is that?

AMcL: Well, we will have to see after independence.

BP: Would you have an aircraft carrier?

AMcL: We will have to see.

BP: Do you know?

AMcL: Well I’m certainly not a defence expert. I’m not an expert in defence.

BP: Your not an expert but you’re going to have to decide on these things. It’s the core policy of your party. You don’t know how many air bases you’re going to have so it’s perfectly possible, because you don’t know, that some might have to close?

AMcL: I think it’s unlikely…

BP: So that means you’ll have, what, at least three?

AMcL: No, er, em, I, I,  I can’t say that. It depends what our country needs after independence.

BP: And you don’t know if you’ll need an aircraft carrier?

AMcL: Well, you know, I can’t claim to be an expert on aircraft carriers, no.

“Well, we will have to see after independence.” This is a phrase that will live long in the memory. Are we really willing to leave something as important as Scotland’s defence to chance? For the SNP not to have thought this through does suggest that arguments for independence may be rather flimsy.

What other issues are we going to leave until after independence? Scotland’s share of national debt? Membership of the EU? Etc etc etc

There will be a referendum. Independence is, maybe for the first time, a real possibility. On this showing the road ahead will be a dangerous one to navigate with Salmond and Co leading the way.

Anne McLaughlin and the SNP: countless passes, nul points

Today’s battle for Scotland just as important as Bannockburn

On this day in 1329, Robert I of Scotland, more commonly known as Robert the Bruce, died. At the time of his death the future of the Scottish Kingdom had been secured with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton which finally recognised Scotland as an independent nation after many long years of armed struggle.

Could it be that 700 years after Robert the Bruce’s most famous battle at Bannockburn in 1314 that Scots will once again have to fight to save Scotland?

If so, we will not be fighting with swords and shields, nor will we be fighting against the English. In a new age when words fly around just as sharp and deadly as arrow heads, we will be protecting Scotland from the creeping barrage of separatism which threatens Scotland just as much as any Plantagenet King may have centuries ago.

Scotland is a stronger nation because of our history, a rich history of which I am proud. The stories of Wallace and Bruce are ingrained in the memories of Scots. We feel their passion when our warriors of today take to the field at Murrayfield, when we see the Saltire flying high, or when we open a can of Irn-Bru.

Triviality aside, we are a proud nation and so we should be. But separatists often forget that our history with our neighbours from the south is just as rich, just as important as events pre-1707. That should be celebrated too, not condemned as 300 years when Scotland was a second-class nation.

The lead up to the Act of Union of 1707 does have a counterpoint today. In the early 18th century, Scotland was trying to recover from the Darian adventure, or misadventure, where Scots attempted to set up a colony in what is now Panama. The failure of the expedition bankrupted the country and, some would argue, was one of the main reasons from accepting the Union with England.

Today, Scotland is trying to recover from the banking crisis that engulfed the world. Scotland’s biggest bank, RBS, was bailed out by the UK Treasury when it pumped in over £30billion of capital, making it 84% controlled by the taxpayer.

Much as Scotland was not able to cope with the fallout from the Darian Scheme, Scotland would not have been able to cope with the fallout from the RBS collapse. Now, despite what separatists might say, this is not doing down Scotland. I am a nationalist, meaning I love the nation in which I was born and I can fly the flag just as high as anyone else. What I am not is someone who wants to rip Scotland out of a Union that has served us well.

The world is very different today than in the days of Bannockburn. Then, our world stopped at the borders of our closest neighbours. Today, we live in a global age when the actions of one nation can impact the fortunes of another on the other side of the world. Strength in numbers is a good thing, hence alliances like the European Union and NAFTA.

To have a real debate on what separation would mean for Scotland then the SNP and others must give more than a smile and platitudes about doing the best for the nation.

They must come forward and answer some of the hard questions on what Scotland would have done during the banking crisis, and what we would do if the same happened in the future. Would Scotland be compelled to join the Euro, how would we defend ourselves, how would will influence global events by losing a seat at the top table at the UN and NATO. The list goes on.

The battle for Scotland’s future in the next few years will be just as important as that undertaken on the fields of Bannockburn. But in this battle, it is those that support the continuation of Scotland as a vibrant member of a successful Union who are on Bruce’s side now.