The Scottish constitutional crisis is fictitious

It is an axiom of journalism that good news does not sell newspapers. It follows, therefore, that a post-election landscape in which Britain appears to have achieved an unusual degree of consensus and there are no obvious obstacles to the government pursuing its objectives means lean pickings for journalists.

That applies to neutral commentators; but the situation is even worse for the many “progressive” opinion-formers who had set their hearts on recording every one of Jeremy Corbyn’s golden words as he pressed the plunger to demolish Buckingham Palace in a controlled explosion at the inauguration of his premiership. Instead, everywhere they look it is plain sailing for Boris Johnson under a cloudless political sky.

Surely there must be some ominous threat to his unchallenged hegemony? Yes, of course there is: just look at the boiling discontent on the permanently aggrieved side of Hadrian’s Wall. Scotland is disaffected. It is the one part of the United Kingdom that has devised a slogan as succinct as “Get Brexit done” and carrying equal resonance: “We’re a’ doomed!” It has the added advantage that it can be used – and has been – at every election since the passing of the Misery (Scotland) Act 1560.

For commentators desperate to rain on Boris’s parade Scotland provides the ideal memento mori. The Scottish Conservatives have been reduced to just six parliamentary seats while the SNP has 48. That will give Nicola Sturgeon the opportunity to demand a second independence referendum and the British state has no moral right to deny such a democratic exercise. (It is not good form to point out that many of the indignant scribes penning such drivel showed scant respect for the outcome of a UK-wide referendum on Brexit).

For embittered Remainers the line to take is: “Look what you have done with your irresponsible Brexit – the Union is dissolving before our eyes.” The consensus from the commentariat is that this is a constitutional crisis. It is no such thing. There is nothing to be alarmed about in the current Scottish situation, provided unionists do not respond to events with complacency.

Viewed over the long term, the future that is at risk is not that of the Union but of the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon knows that and is relying on chutzpah to carry her through the real crisis – the impending implosion of nationalism. Consider the realities that lie behind the hype.

First, the election result. Tory wipe-out in Scotland? Hardly. A poor outcome, certainly, but in fact, with the exception of 2017, this was the Scottish Tories’ best result since 1992.  The retention of his seat by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack means that the parliamentary contingent was not decapitated and the Tories have survived worse situations than this, including zero seats in 1997. So, why is this an exceptional crisis?

As for the SNP, throughout the campaign they were forecast to win 45 seats which all commentators said would be a good result for them and would enable Nicola Sturgeon to bang on a bit more about indyref2, but nobody suggested it would be a seismic moment. So, why does the SNP winning three more seats than broadly forecast amount to a constitutional crisis?

Consider the switchback history of Scotland at the last three general elections. In 2015 the SNP won 56 seats out of 59, with a 50 per cent share of the vote, while the Tories held only one seat, with 14.9 per cent of the vote – but that was not a constitutional crisis. Just two years later, in 2017, the SNP slumped from 56 to 35 seats, with its vote share down to 36.9 per cent.

Now, at this latest contest, the SNP has recovered ground, with 48 seats and 45 per cent of the vote, but still significantly down from its 2015 performance which did not shift the United Kingdom on its axis. The Tories are badly down, from 13 seats to six and with their vote share reduced from 28.6 per cent in 2017 to 25.1 per cent today. In assessing that result it should be borne in mind that the Scottish Conservatives’ result in 2017 was their best since since 1983 in terms of seats and since 1979 in vote share. A tumble was always on the cards.

The question remains: why should this see-saw voting by a volatile electorate amount to a crisis? Consider next the constitutional context. At the independence referendum in 2014 Alex Salmond and all of the SNP leadership pledged that it would be a once-in-a-generation event – as a plebiscite on something so radical as the dissolution of the United Kingdom was bound to be. Now, just five years later, Nicola Sturgeon is bawling for a second referendum.

This is not grown-up politics. The notion that the future of the United Kingdom should be balloted on as frequently as general elections is untenable. Nobody would invest in this country, north or south of the Border, if it were subjected to such unremitting instability. No business could plan its future in a situation that would make Brexit uncertainty look like a minor disruption.

As for a referendum next year, immediately post-Brexit but in the midst of trade negotiations, such a complication is unthinkable to any adult mind. The EU would probably refuse to continue negotiations in such an anarchic situation and it would be justified in doing so. Here, too, we come to the nub of the matter and the reason why Scottish separatism is not a viable proposition.

The absurdity of the nationalist slogan “Independence in Europe” is self-evident: the notion that a nation of five million people, with a very high degree of devolved governance, feeling stifled in a longstanding partnership of 60 million people, would gain autonomy in a behemoth of 500 million people such as the EU, increasingly integrated and centralised, is an insult to any human intelligence.

Scots love nothing better than twisting the British lion’s tail. Declarations of separatist voting intentions to pollsters come cheap. So, even, in certain circumstances, do votes at general elections – as distinct from referenda. When it comes down to the chill reality of a referendum as binding as the Brexit plebiscite what would Scottish voters see?

They would see that a Yes vote would place them simultaneously outside the United Kingdom and outside the European Union on whose door they would have to knock as supplicants. Having seen the treatment meted out to Britain – the world’s fifth largest economy, a nuclear power and with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – what sort of consideration could Scotland expect?

At least the currency conundrum would be settled, since the EU would impose the euro. Then there is the question of the convergence criteria whereby the government deficit cannot be higher than 3 per cent of GDP: Scotland’s deficit is 7 per cent of GDP – a fact used as an argument for independence by the SNP earlier this year. Add to that several thousand other sanctions, pressures and obstacles that Michel Barnier and his colleagues would impose and it does not seem a very seductive option for canny Scots.

The SNP may be riding high at the moment, but its prospects are ominous. Its neglect of health and education in Scotland has been worse than reprehensible, as witness the list of failures read out by Andrew Neil to Nicola Sturgeon at her car-crash election interview. If Boris Johnson spurs a renaissance in health and education in northern England, Scots are bound to ask why similar improvements in these devolved areas are not being implemented by the SNP.

Next year, too, the trial of Alex Salmond is expected to have a divisive effect on the SNP. The whole nationalist thesis – constitutionally, fiscally, economically – cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. Scots dislike Boris Johnson and the Tories, so will gladly second the SNP’s efforts to harass the Westminster government. Just don’t expect them, in the final outcome, to follow the lemmings in the yellow rosettes over the cliff edge.