Winner in 2016: Bill Kidd (SNP)
THE history of Glasgow Anniesland is a reminder that “dual mandates” weren’t always greeted with such horror as they are now. During his tenure as the original first minister, Donald Dewar held both the Holyrood constituency and its Westminster equivalent, with his premature death triggering dual by-elections.
Not that there was ever the slightest doubt about the outcome of those votes. Dewar had taken Labour to commanding victories in Anniesland, and in the predecessor seat of Glasgow Garscadden, in every UK General Election since 1979, with his majority peaking at almost 19,000 votes in 1987.
The last time there had been anything resembling a competitive contest was in the 1978 by-election caused by the death of Dewar’s predecessor William Small.
The SNP had been expected to build on their momentum from the 1974 General Elections by gaining the seat, but Dewar won by the relatively comfortable margin of 12.5%. That marked the end of the 1970s SNP surge and heralded the return to Labour dominance as usual.
The familiar pattern continued for several years after Dewar’s death, with his replacement as MSP, Bill Butler, beating the SNP candidate Bill Kidd in Anniesland by as much as 28 percentage points in the 2003 Holyrood election.
And yet, a little more than a decade later, Kidd had completely turned the tables and defeated Butler by 21 points in 2016.
So how has a Labour heartland seat been transformed into a rock-solid SNP stronghold in such a short space of time? The simplest answer is the legacy of the independence referendum.
Glasgow voted Yes, and many traditional Labour voters in the city were confronted for the first time with the reality that they had been giving their loyalty to a party that was completely out of tune with their aspirations for their country.
Almost overnight, committed Labour voters became committed SNP voters, and they haven’t looked back since.
However, that can’t be the whole explanation, because the SNP first gained Anniesland, along with several other Glasgow seats, three years before the referendum.
The victories were narrow, but they suggested that something had fundamentally changed in Glasgow politics even without the Yes factor.
Leadership undoubtedly played a part in the 2011 election, with Iain Gray commanding much less confidence as a potential first minister than Alex Salmond, but there was once a time when Labour could have been led by the proverbial donkey in a red rosette and still swept the board in Glasgow.
Perhaps the years of Blairism and the invasion of Iraq had gradually eroded trust in Labour and earned the SNP a hearing.
A hearing is all it was, though. In 2012, the SNP’s high hopes of capturing Glasgow City Council were dashed, with Labour holding onto power by a surprisingly comfortable margin.
If it hadn’t been for the intervention of the indyref, Labour may well have remained the default choice for Glasgow voters, with the SNP just getting an occasional look-in when they ran a particularly good campaign, or when the Labour offering looked particularly unappetising.
As it is, Anniesland has become just as natural an SNP seat as it was once a Labour seat.
A very large 11% swing would be required for the SNP to lose in May, and there’s no reason to expect anything even vaguely close to that.
In fact, current polling evidence implies that the SNP majority may increase further.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here