Circling back on this post and also this one, I think the EVEL fiasco has been a really important political event, because it has decided a really important issue.
Coming out of the elections, there was a possibility at least that the SNP and the Government would come to an arrangement. The Government would give them what they wanted regarding devomax, and in return, the SNP would take a strict interpretation of the idea that they stayed out of non-Scottish issues. This could have been formalised by EVEL or just left as a political agreement. This would have suited the Conservatives rather well, as it would have given them a free hand on anything that could be coloured as an England-and-Wales issue.
The alternative was that the SNP would stay in protest mode and assert Scottish interest in almost anything controversial. As we’ve seen this week, this wouldn’t suit the Conservatives at all. The first option would basically replace the Lib Dems with a sort of negative coalition partner – rather than adding to the government bench, it would subtract from the opposition bench. The second would do the opposite.
For the SNP this amounts to a choice between holding onto their precious capital of authenticity, and cashing it in for influence. I discussed this issue in a previous post. Arguably their authenticity is so precious they would be well advised always to pick opposition, but as with a lot of political decisions, leaving it uncertain up to the last minute has value. Also, they have to balance cooperating at Westminster with competing at Holyrood.
So the ideal situation for the SNP is one where Labour decides to go quiet on some issue, because they can’t count on the SNP to vote against, and the SNP then flips, making them look like the real opposition. We’ve seen this play out over the Welfare bill this week – although the tax credit elements are clearly UK-wide, housing is a devolved issue and as Joe Halewood points out, the SNP might want to implement some of the Bill themselves in order to give social tenants a rate cut and ram the bill to Labour-run local councils.
Going back to my authenticity post, I think the idea of an In-party in Holyrood that’s an Out-party in Westminster fits the facts pretty well and therefore Labour should work on the presumption they will show up. So, yes, joining the bandwagon against Harman a bit late.
I think Harmans approach was sound – purely in terms of parliamentary whipping you’ve pointed out we still need some tories to abstain ,thats unlikely to happen around attempts to vote the entirety of a key bill down so surely the idea of concentrating where Tories are likley to waver is sensible.
In public opinion terms I dont think total opposition to a newly elected govt goes down well .Also the Evel/foxhunting move by the SNP has only just happend so she couldnt rely on that .
I think you could be right re Its implications from now on with the added bonus that Labour now have an opportunity to come back on any votes the SNP duck out of because they have already ‘crossed the rubicon’
Cameron never quite knows how much opposition he is going to face on any particular measure. That might lead to some interesting situations.