Beginning his second term as first minister the SNP leader is a political wizard, weaving the spell of national destiny
The end of Britain? Don't believe it, or at least don't believe it quite yet. True, a week after Scotland voted in a majority SNP government, the result looks no less extraordinary. Dozens of first-time MSPs were sworn in at Holyrood yesterday and three opposition parties are looking for new leaders. A referendum on independence of some sort, at some time, is a certainty. Scotland, and Britain, will be profoundly changed by what has happened. Alex Salmond, beginning his second term as Scotland's first minister, is nothing short of a political wizard, weaving the spell of national destiny. But none of this means the union with England is necessarily at its end, or that its future will even be the main issue to confront Scots over the new parliament's five-year term.
What matters in Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain, are the economy, the deficit and the provision of good public services. These are the things the majority SNP government must confront, now without the excuse of minority rule or a Labour predecessor to explain away any failings. Mr Salmond knows this. He will not be so silly as to stage an immediate constitutional fight he would lose – Scottish independence still being more popular in England than Scotland. He needs to show (as it is doubtful he can do) how the universal free provision of services such as university education is affordable without making them worse. He needs to reduce spending by 12% in real terms by 2015, while preparing for the much greater degree of fiscal autonomy now passing through Westminster in the Scotland bill. Most of all he needs to prove that the different path taken in Scotland can lead to a better, rather than a spendthrift and unproductive public sector. There is, Westminster's Scottish Affairs committee (Labour chaired and with a single SNP MP among its 11 members) concluded in a recent report, "a strong element of both a grievance and a dependency culture in Scottish politics". It noted that while state spending in Scotland shot up from £13.2bn in 2000 to £24.1bn in 2008-09, "it is not clear that an ever larger flow of money has resulted in better or more efficient spending".
None of this is to diminish Mr Salmond's brilliant political success. Although, in total, only a quarter of Scottish voters turned out for his party (and many might not do the same in a Westminster election), the result was a personal and party triumph. Mr Salmond was clearly Scotland's choice, winning 69 seats in all parts of the nation. He set out a positive vision, as Labour, obsessed with coalition government in London, did not. The Scottish Lib Dems have lost their role, while the Scottish Tories did not live up to what seemed the promise of their likable former leader. The SNP also succeeded in winning much middle class and business support. As Douglas Alexander points out in an interview in Progress magazine, Labour, north of the border, did not. Unionist parties can no longer take for granted the support of people who once feared nationalism would leave Scotland poorer and more isolated. Instead, Mr Salmond has succeeded in making the opposite case.
Even without an SNP government, Scotland would have remained on course to gain greater powers. The Scotland bill vastly extends Scotland's existing right to vary income tax rates and allows some borrowing rights. Mr Salmond wants more than this, including a possible cut in corporation tax. London politicians will have to judge their response carefully, as Mr Salmond himself did in the last parliament. He showed then that the SNP could run a competent administration and has been rewarded for it. For all the excitement of last week's election, Scotland's future will once again be decided by the slow, boring work of government. Only if they judge the SNP to have succeeded in that, should Scotland's voters be prepared to consider their national constitutional future.