A general election is composed of many specific, culturally discrete elections. When Scotland goes to the polls on Thursday it will be expressing political dynamics distinct from those animating England. But only one parliament will be chosen. The Scottish National party has in the recent past gamed this arrangement, campaigning as government and opposition at the same time; organising an insurgent mood against Westminster from the institutional advantage of Holyrood incumbency. There have been healthy consequences of Scotland’s political divergence from England in recent years. The “yes” campaign in 2014 energised voters in ways that conventional party allegiance could not. Scotland has achieved a degree of political modernisation from which England might learn. The three most prominent candidates in the campaign, the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, the Tories’ Ruth Davidson, and Labour’s Kezia Dugdale – all women, two of them gay – come across as more personable and less dogmatic than English leaders.
It is easy to forget how big a change Scotland has experienced. Before the last general election, the SNP had just six Westminster seats. In 2015 it won 56 out of 59 constituencies north of the border. It is a remarkable reordering, brought about by a democratic restoration. A parliament dissolved in controversy more than 300 years ago has resurrected a politics that many thought would have died when Holyrood came back to life. Ms Sturgeon, in particular, brings authority and dynamism to her role as first minister that is appreciable not only beyond her party’s traditional nationalist base, but beyond the Scottish border. Her energetic and unambiguous defence of EU membership is recognised by many English pro-Europeans who wish there was a figure of her stature to make their case south of the border as well as north. It is unsurprising that many Scots see years of Tory government in Westminster as a defiance of their democratically declared preference not to be governed by Tories. That sentiment is sharpest for those who voted to remain in the EU. Brexit imposed by an informal coalition of Conservatives and Ukip is an affront to pro-European, anti-Tory Scots.
Ms Sturgeon is right to assert the need for Scotland’s distinct voice to be heeded when the UK’s European fate is being decided, but she overplayed her hand in anticipating heightened demand for independence. Around a third of SNP voters voted to leave the EU. The SNP manifesto contains a reversal of the position staked out in March, when the first minister demanded an urgent rerun of the independence vote. Now the position is that it can wait. A fixation on independence was not as widely shared as some in Ms Sturgeon’s party might wish. Being in power means the SNP is rightly being held to account. In TV debates, teachers and nurses challenged Ms Sturgeon’s record on public services, unquestionably unsettling the SNP.
Scotland voted against independence and a rerun is not an obvious priority. The pitfall of nationalism is that it is more interested in separation than practical government. Ms Sturgeon is wise to distance herself from that position. But Thursday’s vote has not been called as a judgment on the administration in Edinburgh. It is about Westminster, where the SNP, led in parliament by Angus Robertson, have offered an effective voice of opposition to Tory ministers. The priority should be to thwart Theresa May’s ambitions for ongoing austerity and a version of Brexit customised to the ideological agenda of the Conservative party’s radical fringe. That requires enough Labour MPs to form an alternative government. In Scottish seats where Tory candidates run the race close, it means preferring the SNP. Mrs May called this election complacently assuming voters across the UK would vastly extend her mandate. Scottish and English voters might choose different ways to puncture that complacency, but its punishment is a common imperative across the union.