The aftermath

Why are we so afraid to change?

Walter Humes

The election results indicate a clear desire for change in England but no comparable desire in Scotland. How is this to be interpreted? The most obvious answer is hostility to what the Conservatives represent, a continuing perception of them as the 'nasty' party, likely to threaten the maintenance of public services with savage cuts. But is there perhaps another dimension to the static picture that has emerged in Scotland, one that requires internal reflection rather than the projection of responsibility onto others?
      An alternative reading of the situation might be that it demonstrates a lack of political imagination on the part of Scots, a clinging to the familiar, not because of genuine respect for what the Labour Party represents but simply out of fear of anything different. The continuing allegiance to Labour cannot be explained in purely rational terms.
     Most Scots were as angry about the expenses scandal as voters elsewhere in the UK. They were not sorry to see the back of Michael Martin as speaker, as he was shunted ignominiously to the House of Lords. They were disgusted, but not surprised, at the allegations of cronyism in Glasgow City Council in the wake of the Stephen Purcell affair. Decades of Labour control have not significantly ameliorated the lives of many of the most disadvantaged in Scottish society: indeed the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. And yet traditional voting patterns have remained much as before. There has to be a deeper explanation.

Both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have proved unattractive as alternative parties to support. The Nick Clegg effect has emerged as largely a media creation: in any case, Scots were unlikely to be impressed by someone whose background is not dissimilar to David Cameron's. Alex Salmond's popularity has suffered from a series of misjudgements, including the 'Lunchgate' affair and his role in the Trump development in Aberdeenshire. In the absence of persuasive counter attractions, voters have stuck with what they know, despite Labour's recent record, and despite the lack of many Scottish Labour politicians of real stature (with the notable exception of Gordon Brown himself).
     So are Scots destined to be stuck in a political cul de sac, cut off from political movements elsewhere in the UK for the foreseeable future? If, as seems likely, the Conservatives form the next government, they will not be concerned to keep Scotland sweet since it only returned one Tory MP. This may open the way for the SNP to advance the independence agenda, though the timidity of Scottish voters, evident in what has just happened, would make that a difficult journey to negotiate.
     There would seem to be two main requirements for a significant shift in the political landscape of Scotland. The first is greater courage on the part of the electorate, in the form of willingness to question their traditional tribal commitment to a party that has, time and again, exploited their goodwill and failed to bring about the desperately-needed social change that has been promised. The second is an inspirational leader who can articulate their hopes and ambitions, who can command respect and trust, and who has the strength to take on the political and bureaucratic establishment which prevents Scotland from making real progress. Sadly, all the indications are that the dominant political culture makes the emergence of such a leader rather a remote possibility.

Walter Humes is research professor in education at the University of the West of Scotland