Claims of ‘permanent Conservative rule’ after Scottish independence don’t stand up to history

For some reason I didn't get around to posting this before the referendum on Scottish Independence.  At the Labour Party conference last week I heard the "myth" still being repeated.

"It’s common to hear claims like this about the effect of Scottish independence on future UK elections. The argument goes that since Scotland has predominantly Labour MPs, then without Scotland the UK would have a permanent Conservative majority in the House of Commons.

This reasoning doesn’t stand up to past experience. Since 1918, only four UK general election outcomes would have been affected had Scottish MPs been taken out of the equation.

Election	Winner	Winner (no Scotland)
1918	CON	CON
1922	CON	CON
1923	Hung – CON largest	Hung – CON largest
1924	CON	CON
1929	Hung – LAB largest	Hung – LAB largest
1931	CON	CON
1935	CON	CON
1945	LAB	LAB
1950	LAB	LAB
1951	CON	CON
1955	CON	CON
1959	CON	CON
1964	LAB	Hung – CON largest
1966	LAB	LAB
1970	CON	CON
1974 Feb	Hung – LAB largest	Hung – CON largest
1974 Oct	LAB	Hung – LAB largest
1979	CON	CON
1983	CON	CON
1987	CON	CON
1992	CON	CON
1997	LAB	LAB
2001	LAB	LAB
2005	LAB	LAB
2010	Hung – CON largest	CON

In 1964 Labour won a slim majority; without Scottish MPs it would have been a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. In the October 1974 election (the second that year), Labour again secured a wafer-thin majority, but without Scotland it would have fallen short with the Conservatives as the largest party. Most recently, in 2010 the Conservative party would have had a majority if Scotland were taken out; in reality of course it fell short.

That’s not to say it wouldn’t be more difficult for Labour: a majority of Scottish MPs have been Labour at every election since 1955, and Labour remains dominant by historical standards. Hence the ‘advantage’ to the Conservatives in Scotland’s absence is getting bigger