To the extent that the SNP’s current electoral popularity is due to pro-SNP (rather than anti-Labour) effects, it must be remembered that there is much more than independence at play. Does an SNP success in an election mean that Scotland has suddenly converted to the cause of independence? Of course not.

Firstly, support for independence is pretty low at the moment. According to the 2007 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (which I believe asks a question about independence every year), support for independence (PDF link) was lower than it had been since May 1997. Asked to choose between independence, devolution or getting rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether, just 23% plumped for independence.

The peak of support for independence was actually in September 1997 — ironically, also roughly when Labour were also at the height of their powers. Then, independence was favoured over devolution for, as far as I can tell, the only time in history. Over the preceding decade support for independence has flitted up and down but has been in a pronounced decline since 2005.

Another point to note is that this, the SNP’s most successful period ever, has come at a time when the SNP has played down its support for independence. Take the slogan it has used since last year’s election campaign. Instead of things like “Michty me, we’ll soon be free” and all that sort of thing, their slogan was: “It’s time.” Time for what? Time for bed? The SNP don’t say.

You have to admit, it is a fiendishly clever slogan. Classic dog whistle stuff. So SNP activists and hardened advocates for independence think it’s time for independence. Anti-Labour voters see it and think it’s time for a change, time to kick Labour out. In fact, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Crucially, the independence issue was not rammed down people’s throats by the SNP. Given the closeness of last year’s election, that could well have been what swung it for them.

You should also bear in mind that the SNP are very far away from being a single-issue party. A vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence, and often an SNP activist will be the first person to tell you this. For instance, Richard Leyton got this line from no less a person than Nicola Sturgeon.

Don’t want an independent Scotland? It doesn’t matter. The SNP have made it very clear that independence will only come after a referendum victory. In the meantime, there is a “national conversation” about independence where you can express your views if you so wish. In effect, the SNP have tried as hard as possible to divorce the independence issue from Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections. The debate over independence now runs separately.

So what explains the SNP’s success? It’s the policies stupid. It is conceivable that Fifers who voted for the SNP did so because they were enticed by their promise to abolish the bridge tolls. Students may have been attracted to their promise to “dump student debt”. And of course, the people who felt that there should be a change in government were always likely to vote SNP because they are the second largest party in Scotland, and the only party in a position to stand up to Labour.

It must also be said that Alex Salmond’s leadership has a lot to do with the SNP’s current success. Yes, he splits opinion. But like him or loathe him, you have to admit that he is a great politician. He is good orator and has the charisma and leadership qualities necessary. The only other Scottish leader that can compare to him in my book is Annabel Goldie, and even she is pretty colourless compared to Alex Salmond.

Particularly when you compare him to the likes of Nicol Stephen and Jack McConnell, who both look permanently nervous, Alex Salmond towers above everyone else in the Scottish Parliament. Wendy Alexander was no match for him either, particularly given the state of disarray Labour are in at the moment. With Alex Salmond at the helm, the SNP should expect an upswing in fortunes, especially since their leader at the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary election was the dull and ineffective John Swinney.

Back in Glasgow East, from what I gather, the issue of independence was not completely ignored, but it certainly did not form a major part of the campaign. Instead, it was presented as a contest where the electorate would pass judgement on the records of the Labour Government in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

The SNP were also hugely advantaged by the fact that they were already in 2nd place in the constituency. If my theory about whichever party being in a position to beat Labour will win is correct, then it is no wonder the SNP did well while the Lib Dems tanked.

Most votes are wasted anyway, especially under the FPTP system. But a sure-fire way to waste your vote in Glasgow East was to vote for the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Only hardened Tories and Lib Dems who despise Labour and the SNP equally will have voted for them (or, indeed, any of the other smaller parties).

In summary, I think that the SNP’s victory in Glasgow East means almost nothing for the union.

That is not to say that I think that the status quo will prevail. I think I am right when I say that all of the parties currently represented in the Scottish Parliament, and the largest parties that are not represented in the Scottish Parliament, all support some kind of increased devolution to varying degrees. That includes the Conservatives, who appear pretty open to the idea of the Scottish Parliament having some leverage over fiscal policy.

Even Labour, painted into a unionist corner by their opposition to the SNP, have toyed with the idea of fiscal autonomy. Mind you, that was under the leadership of Wendy Alexander, who seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon when it came to trying to tackle the issue of the constitution. Who knows what direction Labour will take under their new leader, but I suspect that they will find it difficult to maintain support unless the take the majority view that the Scottish Parliament should have a greater degree of fiscal autonomy.

All of this, though, is almost incidental to the success or otherwise of the SNP. Increased powers for the Scottish Parliament will not come about as a result of SNP success. It can come about as a result of the success of any party.

“Home truths about home rule”

Scotland has regressed into an inward-looking, slightly chip-on-shoulder, slightly Anglophobic country with no clear sense of direction.

I think the controversial bit is where they suggest that it wasn’t all of those things before devolution.

If Jack McConnell’s angry, you know it must be right.

Update: Having read it all now, I think it’s not a bad article. Interesting that it should come up at the same time as there has been a little bit of chatter about next year’s election prospects. Incidentally, MatGB added his views on it yesterday. The Economist article, though, is looking at it from a slightly more long-term perspective. Given that everybody’s been saying that things are looking bad for Labour, hence good for the SNP, it’s interesting to see The Economist describe the SNP as still the big loser from devolution.

I liked this bit of the article:

The strongest factor that prevents politicians’ minds from turning to the size of the state, however, is the fact that they do not have to raise the money to pay for it, or even the 60% of government spending they are responsible for. Over £20 billion simply drops into their hands every year from Whitehall, providing total public spending per Scot of £7,597 (in 2004-05)…

Holyrood’s politicians can hardly be blamed for this. The block grant gives them the money, and they spend it. They do not overspend; and if they are too lavish on one item they must be stricter on another. They do not, however, suffer the discipline of having to raise their revenue themselves: they are like teenagers on an allowance. And they have no incentive to promote economic growth through taxation.

The case for abolishing the block grant and giving Holyrood tax-raising powers is increasingly being made, most recently by a Liberal Democrat commission under the parliament first’s presiding officer, David Steel. Its report, drawing on the experience of other countries, is a happy exception to the parties’ generally dull introspection and poverty of thought. But most Scots, if the opinion polls are right, would be pleased to see tax-raising (and some other powers) brought home.

Beforehand I wasn’t sure about the need for more fiscal autonomy. But that is quite a convincing argument.

Lib Dems open door to coalition with SNP. No big surprise there; it’s surely been on the cards since Jim Wallace resigned. And why not? A Labour–Lib Dem coalition seemed like the most sensible option at the time, but as a Lib Dem supporter (and I doubt I’m going to float my vote anywhere else for a while) I find it becoming less easy to stomach all the time. And while I’m not the greatest fan of the SNP as a party, it has to be said that policy-wise there is much more that unites than separates the SNP and the Lib Dems.

The headline in The Scotsman seems tame enough, but the article itself paints a picture of a quite different future for Scotland’s governance. I was not aware that David Steel was preparing this report, but he’s clearly been busy with it because there seems to be an awful lot to digest.

The Scottish Parliament is, rightly, here to stay. Here is one of the most astonishing snippets from the article:

The conversion of the Lib Dems to such sweeping new powers for the parliament is likely to leave Labour as the only party opposed to any change to the current set-up.

The SNP wants Holyrood to be given complete control over everything in Scotland, as do the Greens and the SSP, while the Conservatives are likely to go into next year’s election calling for the parliament to be given control over some taxes.

The Conservaties are such big fans of the UK that they have the word ‘Unionist’ in their name, yet even they want Holyrood to have more wriggle-room than Labour apparently does. It’s starting to look like a bit of a consensus.

Yet, although it is still young and must be given time before we can judge, I am far from convinced that the Scottish Parliament as an institution is a healthy one. As such, voters and politicians should think hard before handing many more powers to Holyrood.

Reading through the article and coming up with an on-the-spot opinion on each of the bullet points, there are some things that I strong agree with, and others that I am much less sure about. Some of the policy areas seem to be more obviously Scottish issues than others, but it isn’t always easy to explain why. For instance, I think firearms legislation is more of a ‘Scottish’ issue simply because the issue is more sailent here after the Dunblane massacre. Asylum and immigration too, because opinion in Scotland seems to be quite different to that south of the border. But I am not so sure why, for instance, betting and gaming should necessarily be a devolved matter.

As for having a written constitution for the whole of the UK, it’s one of those things that I could take or leave. A written constitution is a little bit like a decorative sticker. I mean, it’s a nice thing to have, but what’s really to stop any despot just ripping up a constitution, or even simply ignore it? Nevertheless, if you’re going to go down a more federalist route it would be useful for everybody concerned to be sure of whose duties are whose and to have them enshrined.

SNP member Simon Holledge appears to be back blogging and sees more than a few similarities in Steel’s and the SNP’s ideas:

The Lib Dems may talk about federalism, while the SNP use the word independence, but if the details are 95 percent the same - David Steel and company want Holyrood to have full control over taxes, with the key areas of immigration, national security, and energy to come under a Scottish Government (not Executive) - there is an excellent basis for common action.

Whatever, it looks like it’s going to be an interesting time in Scottish politics over the coming years. It will mean having to try to increase my Scottish news intake again. I never feel like I’m quite in the loop. I’ve taken to listening to Radio Scotland in the mornings now. Some days I really enjoy it, but other times it lives up to its Glasgow-centric image. This morning they spent ages going on about some service station outside Glasgow. YAWN. It’s a wonder I woke up this morning at all…

Smoking out the big (West Lothian) question. Apparently, “The only way to solve it once and for all would be to have no more Scottish MPs at Westminster and a fully independent Scottish state.” Er, no it’s not. How about devolved assemblies for England? (Via.)

Identity, and a good idea. The Yorkshire Ranter adds his voice to the England discussion.