IT is more than 40 years since Scottish votes could have feasibly influenced an English election result.
In 1974, Labour won 319 seats out of 635, the others 316. In Scotland Labour won 41 seats, the others 30. Had Scotland voted Tory, Labour would have been denied their majority.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher came to power winning 339 seats out of 635, giving her a majority of 43 seats. Labour secured 44 seats in Scotland, the Tories 22, the Liberals 3 and the SNP 2. Had the Tory, Liberal and SNP seats gone to Labour it would only have reduced the Tory majority to 16.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon accuses UK of shortchanging Scotland by £48m in Covid cash
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 387 seats our of 650, a majority of 144. Labour secured 41 of the 72 seats in Scotland, the Tories 21, the SDP-Liberal Alliance 8 and the SNP 2. Obviously Scotland’s 72 seats would not have influenced the outcome either way.
In 1987, Margaret Thatcher was re-elected with 376 seats out of a total of 650, a clear majority of 51. Labour secured 50 of the 72 seats in Scotland, the Tories 10, the SDP-Liberal Alliance 9 and the SNP 3. Despite securing less than a quarter of the votes in Scotland, the Tories formed the government.
In 1992, the Conservatives won 336 seats, Labour 271, the LibDems 20 and others 24 (including 13 Unionist). In Scotland, Labour won 49 seats, the Conservatives 11, the Lib Dems 9 and the SNP 3. If all 72 seats in Scotland had gone to Labour they would have increased their number of seats by 23 to give them 294 and reduced the Tory seats to 325, meaning that the Tories would have relied on the 13 Unionist votes for a majority.
READ MORE: 'It's no a pantomime!': Tories shout down Ian Blackford before he even speaks at PMQs
In 1997 there was a Labour landslide, with Tony Blair winning 418 seats out of 659. This is the most seats Labour have ever held. The 59 Scottish seats could not have influenced the result whichever way they had gone.
In 2001, Tony Blair won 413 seats to give Labour a majority of 83. The 59 seats in Scotland could not have influenced the outcome either way.
In 2005, Labour under Tony Blair won 355 seats out of 646, a clear majority. In Scotland, Labour won 41 seats, the LibDems 11, the Tories 1 and the SNP 6. Without the Scottish seats, Labour would have won 296 seats out of 587, still a clear majority. If all the Scottish seats had gone to the Conservatives they would have won 257 and Labour would have 314.
In 2010, the Conservatives won 306 seats (20 short of an overall majority), Labour 258 and the LibDems 57. David Cameron formed a coalition government with the LibDems. The SNP won 6 seats. Labour won 41 seats in Scotland, the LibDems 11 and the Conservatives 1. If Labour had won all 59 seats in Scotland, ie an increase of 18, it would have given them 317 seats at Westminster, the Tories 305 and LibDems 46. Labour would still have been nine seats short of an overall majority and the Conservatives plus LibDems would have 351, still enough to form a government. Without the Scottish seats the Tories would have had 305 seats out of 581, a clear majority by themselves.
READ MORE: Westminster chaos warning as Tories clash with EACH OTHER over Brexit
In 2015, the Conservatives won 331 seats, including 1 in Scotland, Labour won 232 including 1 in Scotland. The SNP won 56 seats and the LibDems 8, including 1 in Scotland. The other parties together won 23 seats, giving the Conservatives an overall majority of 12. Even if all the SNP seats had gone to Labour, they would have only 288 seats and the Conservative majority would be unchanged. Without the Scottish seats the Conservatives would have 330 seats out of 581, an even clearer majority.
In 2017, the Conservatives won 318 seats, the DUP 10, The LibDems 12, Labour 262, SNP 35, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Green Party 1. Sinn Fein won 7 seats but never take their seats. The Tories had a clear lead of four seats over all the other parties apart from the DUP where Labour don’t stand.
In 2019 Conservatives took 365 seats, a majority of 84 over all other parties combined.
Ian Richmond
Springfield
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