CommentPlus: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning’s papers.

1. By playing nasty, Labour is wrecking its own chances (Guardian)

Jackie Ashley says that the public likes the shift in tone to more amiable, co-operative politics -- but still Labour's leadership hopefuls are acting tribal, competing to see who can be nastiest to the Lib Dems.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

2. The Liberals have a history of splitting (Daily Telegraph)

What's unique about the Charles Kennedy silly-season rumour is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not, says Stephen Pollard. Most Lib Dems would feel happier with Labour.

3. Labor paid the price for its lack of principle (Times)

The Australian MP Malcolm Turnbull argues that on 21 August Julia Gillard learned that voters will forgive incompetence, but not failure of conviction.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

4. Can talks bring peace at last? (Independent)

Donald Macintyre looks at the Middle East peace process, and asks whether Binyamin Netanyahu remains the opportunistic rightist of old, or if he has decided he wants a real place in history.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

5. A missed chance to quell the fanatics (Financial Times)

Barack Obama's statement on the "Ground Zero mosque" looked vacillating, says Clive Crook. Whether or not he made the case for the project to go ahead, he could have sought to unify, and insisted on tolerance on both sides.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

6. Democrats' fright club (Guardian)

Obama's approval rating is fine, says Michael Tomasky, but his party's fear of the Republicans means they'll suffer at the polls.

7. Children of addicts deserve a chance of a better life (Times)

Looking at the coalition's proposals on cutting welfare for addicts, Libby Purves argues that it's not taking away benefits that will make a difference, but taking away children from damaging and chaotic parents.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

8. Cuts are one thing, revenue another (Independent)

Mary Ann Sieghart warns that if tax takes fall, we could end up with spending cuts, a spiral back into recession and a deficit just as big as it was before -- the worst outcome for the country and the coalition.

Read the CommenPlus summary.

9. Why Europe fears Petraeus's urge to surge (Financial Times)

General Petraeus is expected to push for a troop surge, notes Ahmed Rashid, but Europe wants a negotiated endgame and regional settlement -- and that must include talking to the Taliban.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

10. Generational warriors have a point. But go easy on the old (Guardian)

Political short-termism has failed the young, says Madeline Bunting. Yet attacking the elderly and sick instead of inequality will only help Osborne.

Nicola Sturgeon. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nicola Sturgeon's half-hearted "reset" is not enough to win back voters to the SNP

Election campaigners report that the doorstep feedback suggests the First Minister is now seen as aloof, with little interest in the average voter’s concerns.

In Scots law, under a charge of robbery, theft, breach of trust, embezzlement, falsehood, fraud or wilful imposition, the accused may be convicted of "reset". It’s not clear which of these particular terms Nicola Sturgeon had in mind this week when she used that word to describe her reformed plans for a second independence referendum. Fraud seems a little too strong. Breach of trust or wilful imposition are perhaps closer to the mark.

It’s been many, many years since the SNP has seemed this unsure of its footing. Fair enough: who in politics isn’t, these days? But the slow-motion car crash that is Scotland’s governing party deserves a prime-time slot all of its own. "The SNP has squandered what was an extraordinarily strong position," says a thoughtful observer from the opposition benches.

If Sturgeon’s authority hasn’t gone – and she continues to rule Scotland’s most popular mainstream party, both at Holyrood and Westminster – it has undeniably taken a shellacking. The aura of invincibility that surrounded the First Minister’s early years in power is no more, both within and without the SNP. "What struck me as she announced her 'reset' was that a woman who was often listened to in respectful silence in the past found herself being shouted at by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories," says a source. "There was giggling and mockery, which is new. She seemed diminished."

My own judgement is that the reset proposal, which amounts to little more than extending the deadline for a second indyref by six months to a year, will do almost nothing to woo back the half-million voters who deserted the Nats between the 2015 and 2017 general elections. In my experience, these people don’t want the referendum delayed for six months, they want it off the table. They also want the SNP to shut up about it, and they want to see the public services and the economy given full attention. That is the challenge they have set the First Minister in the four years left of this Holyrood parliament. In an enlightening article in the Guardian this week, Severin Carrell quotes voters from the "Tartan Tory" areas that recently unseated Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson. "Fed up with the SNP, simple as."

Fed up. Sturgeon’s greatest error – a charge levelled by internal critics – was to force and win a vote at Holyrood on the holding of another referendum, after the Brexit decision but before Article 50 was triggered. In the minds of voters already worried about leaving the EU and looking for what we might call strong and stable leadership, this merely confirmed the SNP’s monomania: that it saw literally everything as a pretext for independence. The step looked cynical, it looked rushed, it looked, well, desperate.

To be fair to the First Minister, she was playing a double game. Obviously, she supports breaking up the UK and needs to continually feed the beast that is the separatist movement, but she also hoped the looming threat of another referendum would give her leverage as the UK negotiated Brexit, perhaps to secure a distinct deal of some kind for Scotland. She was wrong. "Theresa May would show up for meetings with the various leaders of the UK’s nations, read from a script and then refuse to take questions," says an SNP insider. "The whole thing has been a shambles. The British government just isn’t interested."

This deliberate mutual misunderstanding is a problem not just for the SNP, but for the smooth running of the UK. Pre-devolution, a deal such as that struck with the DUP would have been discussed in Cabinet where powerful Scottish and Welsh secretaries would demand and usually emerge with some goodies for back home. Now, each nation is run by a different tribe, the relationships are oppositional and antagonistic, and no side wants to make things easier for the other. Britain has stopped talking to itself, and stopped trading with itself. We have spiralled off into our own mini-cultures, which often bear little resemblance to each other.

Ultimately, though, Sturgeon looks like the author of her own misfortune. Her tone in Holyrood as she announced the ‘reset’ was unapologetic and belligerent. There was no real humility or admission of error, and no sense that an indyref was in any way off the table. Election campaigners report that the doorstep feedback suggests she is now seen as aloof, with little interest in the average voter’s day-to-day concerns or in listening to them. Her team seem unable or unwilling to absorb this. "They’re still pushing far too hard," says one Tory source. "The only way I can make sense of it is that they’re playing it like a poker hand. They’ve come too far and feel they have no choice but to go all-in. But it’s a losing hand."

There are only two routes I can see that might, perhaps, make something of a difference. The first is a comprehensive reshuffle that brings some of the smarter, younger MSPs into the government. Many of them, as newcomers to the cause, speak differently about independence and their reasons for joining the SNP than do the generation of Sturgeon, Salmond, John Swinney and Mike Russell.

The second is to return to the debate about devo max or federalism. Again, in conversation with the new generation of Nats you are more likely to discuss these options. A number of them are technocrats who have a view of the way Scotland should be governed. They might see independence as the best way to achieve this, but they are also open to a looser relationship within the UK, one that might involve greater powers around taxation, spending and borrowing. With every UK region outside London running a chunky deficit, Scotland could set its own deficit-reduction target and develop a plan to get there. Not only would that be good for the UK economy, it would also allow the SNP to demonstrate that a separate state could work - and indeed, would work.

In short, the SNP will not whine its way to independence. Its best option now is to do what the Scottish people are asking it to do: make a better job of running the place, and stop talking about independence for a while. First, though, that requires the party to listen.

Chris Deerin is the New Statesman's contributing editor (Scotland). 

0800 7318496