Winner in 2019 of predecessor seat of Ochil and South Perthshire: John Nicolson (SNP)
FROM the perspective of many independence supporters, and indeed even some activists on the anti-independence left, there is quite simply no more important constituency in this election than the one that contains Grangemouth.
The forthcoming closure of Scotland’s only oil refinery, which is located in the town, will leave this country in the anomalous position of being a substantial oil producer which is entirely reliant on refineries beyond its borders – something which would arguably be unlikely to happen in an independent state.
It’s extremely timely, then, that the Boundary Commission have just created a constituency that actually includes the name Grangemouth for the first time since 1983.
Alloa and Grangemouth is arguably the most genuinely “new” constituency in Scotland, because unlike other constituencies with a new name, it isn’t recognisably just a rebranded version of a previous seat.
The largest portion of its population comes from the outgoing Ochil and South Perthshire constituency which was held by John Nicolson of the SNP, but only a small percentage of the vast geographical expanse of that constituency is being carried across.
Nevertheless Nicolson has identified Alloa and Grangemouth as the closest thing there is to a successor to his seat, and he will be the SNP candidate there.
The challenge before him could scarcely be more different from the one he faced in 2019, when he had to dislodge the sitting Tory MP Luke Graham.
Although the notional results from 2019 suggest the Tories would have been in a clear second place in the new constituency, that can be explained entirely by Labour’s historically poor result.
Alloa and Grangemouth contains relatively little territory that is naturally favourable for the Tories, and the seat would be essentially unwinnable for them even in a good year.
To put it mildly, 2024 is not a good year for the Conservative Party.
READ MORE: Furious Scottish crowd confronts Tory candidate over 'anti-English' comments
So the only plausible threat to the SNP comes from Labour, but they start 36 percentage points behind Nicolson in the notional 2019 results. That means, assuming a uniform swing, that Labour would have to be around 10 points ahead of the SNP nationally if they are to win Alloa and Grangemouth.
That’s not impossible, and there was one YouGov poll that showed exactly that scale of Labour lead, but the majority of polls have shown the SNP faring somewhat better than that.
Nicolson therefore has a golden opportunity to secure the welcome relief for the SNP of a key hold in central Scotland.
Ironically, the main stumbling block could come from the pro-independence side, because the Grangemouth issue has motivated other well-known Yes-supporting candidates to stand against Nicolson.
For the Alba Party, Grangemouth is one of the main campaigning topics, and consequently they have chosen one of their two sitting MPs, the former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, to be their candidate in Alloa and Grangemouth.
That strategy is not without a downside, because it means MacAskill (above) cannot defend his own East Lothian seat and thus Alba may squander a precious incumbency bonus there.
A further complication is that before MacAskill confirmed his candidacy, Alba’s former equalities convener Eva Comrie had already announced that she was standing in Alloa and Grangemouth as an independent.
Comrie was one of Alba’s most popular figures before she left the party earlier this year, meaning that any natural Alba support in the constituency is likely to be split.
Even with MacAskill’s status as a household name, it may be hard for him to build up enough of a head of steam to get into genuine contention, and thus the most telling effect of any pro-independence votes he takes could be to eat into SNP support and somewhat increase the danger of a Labour gain.
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