No one can govern Scotland

Neither a grand coalition nor a majority government are likely at the May elections

Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images

What manner of government will Scotland have after May’s devolved election? While some outcomes seem more likely than others, the truth is that almost anything could happen. It is hard to see through the fog with much clarity or to make a prediction with much confidence.

Polls indicate – and have for some time now – that the SNP is likely to emerge as the largest party, though without an overall majority. That would leave John Swinney with two options. The first would be to take leaf out of Alex Salmond’s book and seek to govern as a minority administration. Salmond’s go-it-alone government between 2007 and 2011 is regarded as one of the more successful of the devolution era: he struck legislative deals with other parties (including the Tories) and went on to win Holyrood’s only overall majority (so far) in the subsequent election.

The second option would be to seek the stability of a coalition with another party. Nicola Sturgeon tried this with the pro-independence Greens, which worked until it didn’t. The smaller, more radical party was viewed – including by some in the SNP – as having pulled Sturgeon’s government significantly to the left, with the tail too often wagging the dog. This may have been to misjudge the then first minister’s policy preferences, however overall the arrangement was not a popular one and helped dampen the Nats’ popularity in the country. There have been tensions between the two parties since Sturgeon’s successor Humza Yousaf ended the agreement, which the Greens did not take graciously and which brought about his downfall. Would Swinney, who has sought to govern in a more centrist style, really want a return to those days?

A more coherent partnership might have been with the Lib Dems, who in the past have been a coalition-friendly party, working with Labour in Edinburgh and the Conservatives in London. A deal could surely be done to exclude policy on independence from any agreement, and a programme of sensible social democracy agreed. The problem here is that the Lib Dems have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and, for now at least, insist they will not budge.

Life could be made hard for the SNP by virtue of their longevity in office. The opposition are sick of what they see as government underperformance and the obsession with independence. Agreeing to prop up a third decade of Nat power is a hard thing to swallow.

Then there is the possibility that, as Labour hopes and still claims to believe could happen, the polls change. Anas Sarwar is pinning his campaign strategy on just that outcome – the theory being that when Scots properly focus on their options for Holyrood they will decide the SNP has been indulged for long enough. If this somehow came about and Labour pipped the Nats, they would likely form a coalition with the Lib Dems, and work where possible with the other unionist parties where the numbers required it.

Which brings us to Reform. The insurgent party could win as many as 20 of the 129 seats, which would put it in a powerful position. But could Labour really do deals with Faragists? What would be the broad public reaction? What would Reform want in return? Its new Scottish leader Malcolm Offord may be a more moderate and reasonable sort than Farage, but the toxicity of his party – and likely some of those on the benches behind him – will make any kind of accord difficult.

Then there is the big question: could the SNP and Labour bury their differences and form a large, mainstream coalition? In Wales there is talk of a potential deal between independence-supporting Plaid Cymru and Labour, with the former looking certain to oust the latter from office. But there is much more bad blood between the two in Scotland after decades of the independence wars and SNP dominance election after election. They really don’t like each other, despite offering similar policy programmes. And it’s hard to imagine either agreeing to be subordinate to a first minister from the other side. I just can’t see it happening.

This may be a question of putting party before country, but such is the highly partisan nature of politics in Scotland. The next parliament is likely to be a noisy and messy one too. Almost half of the SNP’s sitting MSPs are standing down, including many of their most experienced ministers. Along with the influx from Reform and the lesser turnover in the other parties, this would mean around half of the intake would be first-timers, with no experience of how Holyrood and government works. Not all may be willing to play nice and do exactly as they’re told.

The problem with all of this is that a stable government is precisely what Scotland will need. The challenges are piling up, on the economy, education, healthcare, transport and more. The sustainability of the high current levels of public spending has been challenged by practically every economic expert going, from the Fiscal Commission to Audit Scotland to the IFS to the Fraser of Allander Institute. The next parliament will be one of hard choices, something Holyrood in the past has not shown itself capable of taking. But without them a fiscal cliff-edge is approaching.

Tackling all of this will require a level of maturity and collaboration that has been almost entirely absent during recent years. That is what worries me most about what will confront us after May. More of the same just won’t cut it, but in one form or another it may be what we are about to get.

[Further reading: Westminster’s authority over Scotland is dissolving]