Talk of electoral pacts is back in vogue. Again.
At Westminster, opposition parties dream of an electoral alliance capable of defeating the Conservative government. Likewise in Scotland, Unionists continue to propose pacts to defeat the SNP and the independence movement.
Professor Adam Tomkins, formerly a Conservative MSP, is the latest Unionist to suggest such an arrangement. Speaking to the Daily Record, he argued for standing unified Unionist candidates drawn from the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats to defeat the SNP.
READ MORE: Cabinet Office heading to court in battle over Tories' secret Union polling
Although a similar arrangement was rejected by Labour ahead of May’s election, let’s assume such a pact came together. And let’s assume – for the time-being – that those who voted Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat in May would have voted for the unified Unionist candidate.
Modelling this, the Unionist parties would have won 64 seats, and the SNP 57 seats. The Greens would have won a crucial eight seats. As a result, even if the Unionist parties were able to also come together over matters of health, education, the economy, and other policies, they would still be in opposition.
But this best-case scenario for a unified Unionist front is incredibly unrealistic.
'One Unionist party’s candidates are not interchangeable for another’s'
Tomkins is right that the Yes/No divide is a crucial driver of voting behaviour in Scottish elections. Ahead of May’s election, polling by Ipsos MORI found that 49% of Scots said independence was very important in helping them decide how to vote.
READ MORE: FMQs: Nicola Sturgeon scolds 'shameless' Douglas Ross over Covid politicking
But it is not the only driver of voting behaviour. Some 28% mentioned education, 27% mentioned healthcare, and 16% mentioned the economy. These figures were higher for Labour voters – 33% of whom mentioned education, 34% healthcare, and 23% the economy.
The same poll found that 53% of those intending to vote Labour do not trust the Conservatives to manage Scotland’s education system. Then, 63% do not trust them with the NHS, and 52% don’t trust them to manage the economy.
Moreover, the Scottish Election Study found that Conservative list voters were roughly three times more likely to vote Labour in their local constituency than Labour list voters were to vote Conservative, despite the Conservatives defending twice as many constituencies.
Tomkins seems to be forgetting that one Unionist party’s candidates are not interchangeable for another’s, and that anti-Conservative sentiment among Labour voters means that many would rather vote SNP, Green, or simply stay at home than cast a vote for his party.
All of which is without mentioning the substantial cohort of Conservative voters who do not trust Labour either, and would likewise be likely to stay home on election day.
'Divisions run deep'
Unionists who call for an electoral alliance to defeat the SNP correctly diagnose the challenge they face. They are divided, and this division is locking them out of power to the benefit of the SNP. But their divisions are far deeper rooted than many of them seem willing to acknowledge.
A Unionist electoral alliance would not lead to a Unionist election victory. It would lead to depressed turnout, defeat, and quite probably a backlash from voters angry at being taken for granted and deprived of choice.
And how could the Unionist parties, under such a pact, answer the question of what they are for if they are willing to set aside their entire political programs in the name of opposing a single policy?
Rather than scheming to manipulate the voters, Unionist politicians would be advised to put their efforts into winning elections the old-fashioned way: by persuading them.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel