What’s in it for them?
May 11th 2007 15:44. Updated: May 11th 2007 16:19
So it looks as though the SNP and the Greens have come to some sort of deal, something just short of a proper coalition. But I’m with Shuggy — I don’t really understand what’s in it for them.
Obviously it can give the SNP two extra votes in the Scottish Parliament. But it is only two votes, and still far short of a majority. An SNP–Green coalition is not a good deal stronger than an SNP minority administration.
Meanwhile, I am really scratching my head as to why the Greens want to get involved. When coalition talks started, there was a joke (or was it a joke? Was it real?) that the Greens had two conditions. Those conditions were no more nuclear and fewer carbon emissions — which are both already SNP policies anyway.
If the Greens wanted to maximise their influence (as you would assume they would), you would expect them to at least ask for something a bit more radical, like no second Forth Road Bridge. Obviously no deal would be made in those circumstances because it would make both the SNP about as electorally popular as Hitler, particularly in Fife. But it would be a good starting point for the Greens.
But I’ve not heard anything about demands made by the Greens, besides a few “disagreements about transport policies”, which is a bit vague. It sounds like the Greens are giving up a lot for the sake of not a lot of power (because it would still be a minority administration).
I guess both the Greens and the SNP are hoping that the Lib Dems will come to the table. Their original stance was principled, but the fact that they are refusing to even talk about it is beginning to make them look petulant.
After all, as has been pointed out by many people, any referendum on independence would probably be lost. And a multi-question referendum would give the Lib Dems the perfect opportunity to campaign for more fiscal federalism in Scotland. Even though these issues are technically reserved matters, the debate that would be initiated could also open to door to a campaign to resolve the West Lothian Question via a federal solution in Westminster.
Moreover, there is the fact that the SNP and the Lib Dems are so damn similar, apart from the issue of independence. Would it not, for instance, be a good opportunity to implement a form of Local Income Tax, which both parties favour over the current system?
Meanwhile, those rumours that the Lib Dems’ refusal to talk is really being dictated by Gordon Brown don’t go away. I don’t know how true it is. But the very idea makes me quite uncomfortable, and for as long as the Lib Dems refuse even to talk about it, it begins to look true.
Back to the SNP, and Holyrood Watcher has noted how the SNP now face the harsh realities that come with actually being in power. Compromises to be made, and the fact that there are scarce resources (I sense this is a particular weak point for the SNP!).
The one solid Green demand — to go ahead with Edinburgh’s tram scheme — is uncomfortable for the SNP to take on board. And the SNP appear to be learning that increasing spending in one area involves opportunity costs, ie. decreasing spending in another area. Doh! Why didn’t they think of that before?
Update: Just as I finished writing this post, I saw this from Brian Taylor:
So what is this deal? The SNP and the Greens agree that - they won’t build any new nuclear power stations; they’ll introduce a law to cut climate-change pollution year on year (instead of vague longer-term targets); and they’ll “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.”
Ha! In other words, no nuclear and fewer carbon emissions. ie. the Greens have extracted bugger all from the SNP. Oh well. And that wording, “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament” — very weak, don’t you think? The Lib Dems would like to do that as well. It looks to me like this the plan — to bring the Lib Dems on board.
Update: Having read the actual agreement (PDF), it is actually a bit stronger than that. It mentions ‘independence’ and contains a strong hint that a referendum is still on the cards.
No votes yet
Loading ...
#1 Richard Havers
May 12th 2007 11:08
The Greens just want to dine at the top table. Never forget that power is a drug. However, their agreement is daft. No Nuclear and climate change reduction was always a part of the SNP manifesto. The Greens strategy is probably to keep them more visible, particularly in the short term, and hopefully rise again next time. This is especially apposite given the fact that with a minority govt. the chances of an early election are increased.
As far as the Lib Dems entering a coalition is concerned I think they need to watch themselves on this. If a vote for the Lib Dems is always a vote for someone else then they are not going to be a viable party for much longer. LibDem Scotland is clearly under the control of LibDem London and Ming is very definitely pro Union, for many of the same reasons as GB and Co.
I get the what does it matter argument because independence through a referendum is not going to happen, but it rather drives a coach and horses through the whole idea of having any principles.
#2 Angry Steve
May 13th 2007 23:38
What a bunch of Luddites. But then, we’ve known that nobody votes Green for a long time. I have also blogged about this match made in hell. The party list system is shown at its worst here, where parties that nobody actually voted for has gained sympathy seats, and can sap tax payers money in the parliament, when no constituency has clearly voted to say these people are worth the time of day.
#3 Jeff
May 14th 2007 11:23
My take on it has been the following:
SNP may have been a bit nervous that the Green’s 2 votes could potentially have got Labour back into power. Granted this wasn’t highly likely given how close the Green manifesto is to the SNP’s.
But further to this, I think the SNP-Green agreement has been a masterstroke for one reason. Irrespective of what they actually agree on it helps to show up the Lib Dems in the eyes of the electorate. Why are Greens able to maturely sit at the top table and come to an arrangement in the best interests of Scotland but Nicol Stephen can’t?
The SNP are showing their commitment to consensus politics and are now bringing the Tories on board. Get involved with it and you look good, sit at the side and you are holding Scotland back. I think Alex is playing a blinder so far, even if nothing too concrete has actually happened yet!
#4 Richard Havers
May 14th 2007 12:59
Jeff asks, “Why are Greens able to maturely sit at the top table and come to an arrangement in the best interests of Scotland but Nicol Stephen can’t?”
Simple, the Greens agree on independence. They don’t have MPs at Westminster from Scottish seats and they are so tiny in terms of votes that this is the only way they can get noticed.
#5 Jeff
May 14th 2007 22:56
My point wasn’t as simple as you made it out to be, I blame the way I wrote my first post rather than a deliberate misquoting by the way.
Of course we bloggers can see where the Lib Dems are coming from. But to people on the street who only really see the headlines and don’t get into the nitty-gritty of the story, they may well be thinking, as I wrote:
“Why are Greens able to maturely sit at the top table and come to an arrangement in the best interests of Scotland but Nicol Stephen can’t?”
I understand why the Lib Dems can’t, you understand why the Loib Dems can’t but Alex Salmond is still managing to make them look childish in the eyes of the not-so-politically-educated.
#6 Richard Havers
May 15th 2007 09:10
Jeff, take your point exactly. That to some extent has always been the LibDem’s problem.
Having said that how much does any of this chatter in the blogosphere matter or for that matter in the thinking press either. I found out yesterday that the Scotsman has a circulation of a little over 50,000 and the Herald not much more. The thought that goes into politics from many is just none too much.
For me the line that the LibDems are taking makes sense. They’ve kind of lost their way as a separate party and if they are not careful could end up being squeezed out as the UK heads towards a US style two party system, obviously in Scotland alone this is a bit skewed!