ARE we heading for an early Holyrood election?
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will present her long-deferred Budget statement to the House of Commons. This is a significant moment for the UK Labour Government.
If a new government should dazzle, Sir Keir Starmer’s has been on a low light so far. Scuttlebutt this weekend suggests she may increase the national insurance contributions of employers by a couple of percentage points.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: PM's silence over slavery reparations the latest example of lost Labour
Briefings have gone out that after a fractious process, UK Government departments have finally agreed on the cuts the Treasury are requiring of them. There are also suggestions some spending rules will be revisited to give the Government more flexibility to invest in capital spending, but the details remain to be disclosed.
Come what may, for Scotland, the implications are likely to be stark, and nowhere starker than in the debate about the Scottish Budget Reeves’ decisions will precipitate.
While Holyrood can tinker with income tax bands and a selection of other devolved taxes, a significant proportion of the Scottish Budget is underpinned by the block grant back from Whitehall, reflecting so-called Barnett consequentials and money taken in from reserved levies including national insurance and corporation tax.
The SNP currently have 62 MSPs in Holyrood – three short of the magic number giving the party an overall majority in Holyrood. Horse-trading and a degree of pantomime are to be expected on occasions like this, as the opposition tests its strength against the Government, extracting as much support for their policy agenda as they can, while wargaming the risks and consequences of overplaying their hands.
This weekend, the Greens have been ramping up the stakes, saying they’re prepared to “bring down” the Government if the budget proposals aren’t sufficiently to their liking. Purely as political gamesmanship, the threats need to seem real.
If the Greens opened their Budget negotiations with the SNP suggesting that there are no circumstances in which they’d vote against the Government, they’d get nothing for their pains.
This weekend, Patrick Harvie said: “As Scottish Green MSPs, we have a responsibility to engage with the process in good faith, and with honesty.
“But as the only party that ever brought down an SNP budget, as John Swinney knows to his cost, we need to be clear that they cannot take our votes for granted.”
If you regard the Greens as the gardening wing of the SNP, I imagine your eyes are already rolling in their sockets at this, and you’re predicting their inevitable and complete capitulation to the budget whims of their erstwhile coalition partners.
READ MORE: Graham Campbell: Keir Starmer yet again turns the other cheek to racism
It’s true – the Greens have backed Scottish budgets since 2016. But this time, things might just change. Smarting and mistrust continues in the wake of the graceless way Humza Yousaf ended the Bute House Agreement. That attitude seems guaranteed to intensify if proposed government spending junks Green plans or just ignores Green priorities.
As LBJ said: “The first rule of politics is being able to count”. And in Holyrood, that means reaching the magic number of 65. Thus far, the other opposition parties appear wholly unprepared to help the SNP get their business through Holyrood, content to leave the long-term incumbents twisting in the wind.
This has led to increased speculation in recent weeks that we may be well on our way to a new Holyrood election. It is commonplace in British politics that a government that can’t get its budget through parliament can’t remain in post.
But the history of this in terms of devolution is a bit more nuanced than that.
Remember 2009?
Having secured the backing of the Scottish Tories, Alex Salmond’s minority government took the gamble that there was no way the Greens would vote against its budget. They gambled wrong.
When the votes were counted, the final tally was exactly 64 votes for and 64 against the Scottish Government’s spending plans. Presiding officer Alex Fergusson broke the tie by backing the status quo – voting down the proposals.
The prospect of government collapse loomed again, the SNP were put “on an election footing” – a nifty phrase which doesn’t actually mean very much – and within a week, a revised version passed 123 to two, leaving the Greens isolated in the chamber that year.
But is history likely to repeat itself in this way? In all the circumstances, it seems improbable.
Given all these factors, you can understand why folk are talking up the possibility of no accord being struck, no alternative allies being found, leaving the SNP with a budget no other party is prepared to back, and no option but to resign and force an early Holyrood election.
But what’s often missing from this analysis is a recognition of the challenges – for the SNP or anyone else – to unilaterally bring this session of the Scottish Parliament to a premature end.
As we learned in that memorable May downpour earlier this year, if the Prime Minister wants to call an early General Election and take their case to the country, Britain’s uncodified constitution makes the process comparatively easy.
READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: With fascism on the rise again, how can we defeat it?
Now that the Fixed Term Parliament Act has been repealed, if a PM wants to renew their mandate, blow their majority, or just escape from high office – all they need to do is toddle up to Buckingham Palace and ask the King to dissolve parliament.
This hands incumbent governments the advantage of keeping their opponents guessing when a poll might be called, with scope to select the moment of maximum difficulty for the opposition in calling a poll.
Throughout all this, the PM remains in place until the votes are counted, the dust has settled, and the monarch sends for their successor to come and kiss hands, to use the faintly gruesome terminology used for this first constitutional encounter between His Majesty and the head of His Majesty’s new government. No actual smooching seems to be involved, you’ll be relieved to hear.
For good or ill, first ministers are spared these difficult political decisions. The Scotland Act doesn’t give the First Minister anything like the same scope to seize the political initiative. Instead, Holyrood elections are fixed by law to fall on the first Thursday in May.
During the early years of devolution, this worked on a steady four-year rotation. MSPs are now elected for five-year terms. Everything being equal, the next Holyrood poll should fall on Thursday May 7, 2026.
But the Scotland Act also includes some practical workarounds, recognising that politics change, governments fall, first ministers resign, fall ill, and sometimes die – and a more proportional electoral system may result in a wholly dysfunctional parliament being returned, unable to agree upon who should be first minister, unable to pass legislation or a budget.
If anyone wants to force an Extraordinary General Election in Edinburgh, there are only two ways of going about it. The first is for the FM to resign. When this happens, MSPs then have 28 days to nominate and confirm the next First Minister. John Swinney’s quick succession after Humza Yousaf’s resignation is one recent example of this process operating as intended in the wild.
But what happens if there is deadlock or nobody is nominated for the FM’s vacant chair? If MSPs can’t agree on a successor after the month has passed, the King has authority under the Scottish Seal to dissolve Holyrood and order fresh elections.
This isn’t exactly a speedy process either – and is a potentially uncertain one. In theory, at least, the opposition might try to cobble together an alternative governing coalition.
The only alternative route under the Scotland Act is to convince two-thirds of MSPs to vote in favour of going to the people early. That’s 86 votes out of 129 for dissolution, meaning MSPs from at least three different parties would need to sign on for the motion to stand any chance of passing. With 66 votes, even a wholly united opposition in Holyrood currently falls well short of the votes they’d need.
Realistically, this means the SNP are the only political party capable of putting a vote like this seriously on the agenda. If his Budget ends up stymied, if there is no viable political route forward, is Swinney the kind of leader to throw down this gauntlet to the opposition, chancy as it is, gambit that it’d be? And if he did, would they take it up?
Russell Findlay is new in his role as Scottish Tory leader, but given his confrontational brand of politics, there’s no reason for him to prioritise conciliation. Labour were busily demanding fresh elections after Humza Yousaf destroyed his premiership earlier this year.
Even given the UK Labour Government’s ropey start, if anyone proposed an early election, Anas Sarwar’s only credible response must be “bring it on”.
An Extraordinary General Election might not be as far off as it seems.
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