CONSERVATIVE activists in the heart of London weren't the only ones enjoying David Cameron's success as he led his party to its resounding victory in last week's local elections in England and Wales.
At SNP headquarters in Edinburgh, there were
also cautious if satisfied smiles as party strategists realised just what continued Tory success might mean for them.
The SNP and the Conservatives have been at odds politically, constitutionally and in almost every way, for the past 30 years. Yet they now realise they share a common cause – furthering the collapse of the Labour vote.
For some SNP activists, the election of a Tory government in Westminster, together with an SNP Government at Holyrood, would almost be a dream ticket because, they believe, it would push forward the cause of independence considerably.
The logic goes like this: the Tories – including Mr Cameron – are not liked in Scotland so, if they win in the UK as a whole, more Scots are likely to feel alienated by the Westminster government, believing it to be distant and unrepresentative. Also, if there is a sustained backlash against Labour throughout the country, this will benefit the Tories in England but the Nationalists in Scotland.
These same strategists believe the political distance between an SNP administration in Edinburgh and a Tory government in London will be so immense that this will also push the nations apart.
So would the election of Mr Cameron, a diehard Unionist, actually help bring about the break-up of the Union?
Peter Lynch, a senior lecturer in politics at Stirling University, believes this might be the case, although he also is wary enough of the complexities of the situation to insist that nothing can be guaranteed.
He said: "If you were to construct the perfect scenario for Alex Salmond to win his referendum on independence, a Conservative government at Westminster would be part of the picture."
However, he added that the situation presented "a lot of variables which is very difficult to predict". Mr Lynch said the biggest problem was trying to work out how the Tories would approach the constitutional question and, particularly, the work of the Scottish Constitutional Commission, which is looking at more powers for the Scottish Parliament.
If the Conservatives were in power at Westminster and resisted the work of the commission, blocking more powers for Holyrood, this would play into Mr Salmond's hands.
But equally, if the commission recommended some form of fiscal autonomy, handing the parliament almost complete control over tax in Scotland, this could give Mr Salmond more power while not actually opening the door to independence.
Professor John Curtice, an elections expert from Strathclyde University, said it was impossible to predict how a UK Tory government would react to demands for a referendum in Scotland.
However, he added that there was evidence that a swing against Labour in the UK as a whole may benefit Nationalists in Scotland.
"At the moment, the polls are suggesting the Tories will not do particularly well in Scotland. If there is an anti-Labour vote in Scotland, it should be going to the Nationalists," he said.
In the 1970s, Prof Curtice said, the SNP did well out of the presence of a Conservative government in Westminster but, after Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979, the SNP vote dwindled.
However, like Mr Lynch, Prof Curtice said everything hinged on the attitude of a Tory government to the constitution and to the Scottish Constitution Commission.
"It depends on how the Tories decide to play it and we don't know how they are going to play it," he said.
Mr Salmond and Mr Cameron have never met, at least formally. A spokesman said they may have bumped into each other in the Commons, but not officially as party leaders.
Although it might suit Mr Salmond's long-term aim of independence for the Tories to win the next General Election, the First Minister has refused to support this premise, preferring to make it clear he would like to see a hung parliament after the next election.
He said yesterday: "I think a balanced parliament is much likely than an overall majority for either Labour or the Conservatives.
"The reason for that is obvious, when you look back to the 1960s, Labour and the Tories dominated the Commons, they had 620 or so of the MPs.
"Now, whatever way this cuts, even if the Liberals go back a bit and if we get the 20 or more (seats] we are hoping for, there is going to be almost 100 from the other parties in the Commons."
Mr Salmond refused to say whether he would prefer to see Gordon Brown or Mr Cameron in Downing Street, describing them as "Tweedledum and Tweedledee".
The First Minister said he had had more in common with Labour than the Tories in the past, but he was prepared to work on an issue-by-issue basis with any party to get a better deal for Scotland.
He added: "I am always prepared to do business with anybody who is democratically elected by the people."
So were his aides any more indiscreet? Did anybody hear the popping of champagne corks at SNP headquarters last Friday as the extent of Labour's defeat became clear?
"We only open champagne when we win," said an overly diplomatic SNP manager, before adding, with perhaps a touch of regret: "And then only sparingly."
The anger which the SNP used to reserve for the Tories is still reflected in an official prohibition on the party ever getting involved in a formal coalition government with the Conservatives.
But that almost obsessive level of antipathy has faded with receding memories of the Thatcher government and as SNP activists have woken up to the potential advantages of a Conservative government at Westminster.
Last week's elections have served to clarify the subtle change to the dynamics of SNP-Tory politics.
In the past, the two parties had nothing in common. Now, they share an interest in the decline of the Labour Party – they both stand to prosper from Mr Brown's woes.
That is probably enough to ensure, at the very least, an invitation for Mr Cameron to visit Mr Salmond in Bute House in the not-too-distant future.
Majority of peers say devolution has fuelled nationalism and damaged the Union FOUR out of five peers believe that the Labour government's programme of devolution has damaged the Union, according to a new poll.
Labour argued that the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales would see off separatist forces by giving an outlet to legitimate demands for Britain's nations to govern their own affairs.
But with the Scottish National Party governing at Holyrood and Plaid Cymru in coalition with Labour in Cardiff, a large majority of peers questioned for the poll said they believed the opposite outcome had resulted.
Some 60 per cent of a cross-party "peers panel" questioned by Dods Polling said that establishing the devolved institutions over the past decade had boosted nationalism slightly, and a further 20 per cent said it had done so greatly.
Among those who felt nationalism had been fuelled by devolution were 75 per cent of Labour peers and 50 per cent of Liberal Democrats – the two parties that pushed through the legislation. Just 11 per cent of members of the House of Lords questioned for the survey said the process had strengthened the Union.
The level of concern about the impact of devolution was one of the most eye-catching findings from the first-ever Dods peers panel, published on the website epolitix.com today.
Other findings included 59 per cent support among peers for a selective amnesty allowing illegal immigrants to earn British citizenship and stay in the UK. Just over one-third of members of the second chamber said no such amnesty should be granted.
About half agreed that the government should make laws that would require supermarkets to price alcohol "responsibly", against 34 per cent who said it should not.
And 57 per cent backed Chancellor Alistair Darling's decision announced last year to tax non-domiciled residents £30,000 per year, against 34 per cent who opposed it.
• Dods Polling interviewed 155 members of the House of Lords between 6 March and 27 March this year online and by post.
The full article contains 1414 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
