The hidden dangers of Sturgeon mania

Election campaigns do odd things to the usually phlegmatic British. Before the last general election in 2010, a passably competent performance in the televised party leaders' debates briefly made Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, the most admired British political leader since Sir Winston Churchill, according to at least one opinion poll.

This year's election race is following a similar script. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National party, impressed the audience in last week's TV debate with her calm manner and straightforwardness. She has since been anointed by political pundits as the success story of the campaign.

The surge in popularity of the nationalist leader is even more improbable than the "Cleggmania" of five years ago. Far from promising to reinvigorate the UK, as the Lib Dem leader did then, Ms Sturgeon's self-avowed goal is to break the country up. She is not even standing as a candidate in next month's election, in which her party may end up winning more than 40 of Scotland's 59 seats.

Ms Sturgeon has capitalised on her lack of association with a distrusted Westminster establishment and the inestimable advantage of not being Alex Salmond, her abrasive predecessor. One recent survey has given her a net approval rating of plus 15 per cent, higher than any other UK party leader.

Ms Sturgeon's TV-induced popularity may, of course, prove transient. Cleggmania faded as the 2010 campaign dragged on, although the Lib Dems still ended up receiving more votes than at any time since their heyday a century ago. However, Ms Sturgeon's appeal rests also on her apparent willingness to co-operate equably with other UK parties. Talk of Scottish independence has been downplayed in the wake of last September's referendum. In its place, Ms Sturgeon talks about the SNP being a "progressive ally" to other parties of the left in the governance of Britain.

In what promises to be a close electoral race, this tactic may hold appeal for parties of the left. However, even those that regard themselves as part of the same broad progressive tradition should acknowledge the fundamental conflict of interest the SNP would face in supporting a minority UK government at Westminster.

Since the SNP sees its responsibility as being only to the people of Scotland, the logic of its position would lead it to campaign for the highest possible level of public spending in Scotland regardless of the fiscal consequences for the UK, a country that it wishes to leave. Indeed it could be argued that a UK that was in serious fiscal trouble would actually serve the purposes of Scottish nationalists as it would make the union a less attractive proposition.

Ms Sturgeon has already given notice of the approach she would pursue. She stands foursquare against austerity, whatever economic pressures the UK may face. This week she vowed to block any moves to increase the pensionable age, on the grounds that this would disadvantage Scots, who tend to die slightly younger.

As Mr Clegg demonstrated five years ago, a relatively unknown politician can shoot to prominence on the back of a few persuasive minutes on national television. The following five years were, however, a painful education both for the public and Mr Clegg in the difficult compromises involved in being the junior partner in a national coalition.

The contradictions inherent in Ms Sturgeon's position in a UK election are far more fundamental than those that faced Mr Clegg. It would be much better were those exposed now rather than over the next half decade.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation