Long term readers (and my handful of ever-beloved stalkers) may recall that I got involved in some pretty unpleasant exchanges last July with a number of people on social media who were being willfully obtuse about how a de facto referendum would work. Whenever I made the point that smaller pro-independence parties had to be very careful not to split the vote in a plebiscite election conducted by first past the post, these people would instantly pop up and say "but Nicola Sturgeon has already said it's a majority of votes that counts, not a majority of seats, so she can't have it both ways, can she?" The reality is that it's got nothing to do with Nicola Sturgeon having it both ways, because Nicola Sturgeon is not the Electoral Commission, or the UK Government, or God, or the international community, or any of the other authorities that a de facto referendum is trying to impress. She can't just set whatever "rules" she likes and expect everyone else to defer to her decree. A vote in favour of independence will only give us leverage if it looks watertight to neutrals, and to the media, and to reasonable unionists. That's why setting a majority of the popular vote as the target for victory was not so much a choice as a statement of the inevitable - if we demanded independence negotiations on the basis of a majority of seats won on 35% of the vote, we'd just be laughed at. It's also why seats matter as well as votes, because in the real world losing seats would be regarded as complicating any mandate won on the popular vote.
However, I'm beginning to feel like it's the SNP rather than the smaller parties that need to be reminded that Nicola Sturgeon can't just make up "rules" as she goes on. If you look at the details of the second option put forward in the NEC proposal from earlier this month, the one about delaying the de facto referendum until Holyrood 2026, they're just absolutely laughable. A majority of the popular vote will still be required at the plebiscite in 2026, but paving the way for that will be an earlier mandate at Westminster 2024 - for which, randomly, only a majority of seats will be required, not a majority of votes. Why should anyone in London take that remotely seriously? They'll just say "you can't unilaterally pick and choose which elections you need a majority of votes and which you don't". It'll look like student politics or playground politics. If the SNP get 40% of the vote in 2024, people will wryly say "but that's OK, because they've self-identified a lower victory threshold for this particular election".
There are many excellent reasons why a plebiscite election must be held by 2024 at the latest, and should ideally be an early Holyrood election brought about by the entirely practical means that have been clearly identified. Avoiding turning the Yes movement into a laughing-stock may be the very best reason of the lot.
* * *
James. Surely there can be a difference in threshold requirements between the two forms of election because westminster results are based entirely on seats won through FPTP while our own elections are designed to reflect the weight of votes cast for each party?
ReplyDeleteNo, that makes no sense at all. The NEC put forward two options in the same motion. In option 1, a majority of votes would be required in a FPTP election in 2024. In option 2, a majority of seats, but not a majority of votes, would be required in a FPTP election in 2024. So it's got nothing whatever to do with different electoral systems, it's all about the ever-shifting whims of the SNP leadership.
DeleteYou're right, but in a way it's academic, I think. The thing the SNP really need to expand upon is WHAT THEY'D ACTUALLY DO if they met whatever self-imposed target they set for a de facto referendum.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that even if the rules are fair, Westminster are just going to retort with the exact same logic of "she can't just set whatever "rules" she likes and expect everyone else to defer to her decree." So the important bit is what the SNP response is going to be if and inevitably when HMG sees the election result and just ignores it anyway.
Because at that point you've reached the end of the brinkmanship. There isn't really anywhere else to go. You're either in essence declaring UDI, or effectively you're saying "we accept the power is still all with you but we've demonstrated another way to ask for a legitimate way out you will still deny us".
And if you're not doing the former what happens after the latter? There aren't really many other escalation routes available. "We won a de facto referendum and the UK Government ignored us, so let's do it all again at the next election!" It's not much of a proposition, is it? Which is why you've got to be crystal clear what you'll do in that instance before the election happens, not wait for it to happen and then mumble something about democratic outrage.
Which is another reason why they'll never agree to a holyrood plebsicite...as this would empower the other parties, basically real yes Alba..who would hold then to account when they do nothing.
DeleteSo, we get this charade of a wm pleb being dangled and then reneged upon despite it being the wrong place for it. They'll dangle some shite in 2026 and the morons will vote for it
Whatever happens it's bound to be Nicola Sturgeons fault though eh
DeleteIf only the Scottish electorate had wisdom of De sf. I mean it's 68 years since Scotland returned a majority of Tory MPs, how dumb are we?
DeleteIf the English nationalists ignore Scotland again I hear on good authority the FM is going to open the armoury and hand out machine guns to the Alba party so they can shoot the voters of Scotland for not voting for them, then campaign for the Tories to spite us all
DeleteIs that not the big Stuart Campbell Alba plan?
A definite winner if you ask me, oh it was a Trump idea !! I keep getting all these political genius's mixed up
Alex Lomax - mock me all you want. but voting for parties who'll actually deliver a yes alliance at the correct election and then act on its outcome is how you deliver independence. You're the fake yes nawbag here.
DeleteI predicted yesterday that, although Stuart Campbell had written THIRTEEN Wings posts in a row about the trans issue, there was no way he'd write a fourteenth in a row today, because that would be silly.
ReplyDeleteI MUST NOW INFORM YOU THAT I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG AND HE HAS IN FACT WRITTEN A FOURTEENTH IN A ROW ABOUT THE TRANS ISSUE
Are you as stunned as I am? He won't make it fifteen, though, no way will he make it fifteen. Mark my words.
He has such a broad range of interests in life, doesn't he? Hating trans people, blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough, and...well, that's it. No wonder they call him Stu "Eclectic" Campbell.
DeleteTo be fair, Campbell has esteemed company with his opinion about Hillsborough such as..Boris Johnson, The Sun, Sir Bernard Ingham. Yesterday the police chiefs in England apologised for the Hillsborough disaster ...33 years after the event.
DeleteWell said, James.
ReplyDeleteThe big Dug blogging about "lies deceit and delusion," he knows his numpties very well, especially the deranged, deluded and demented numpty British/Irish liar Skier who says Scotland will be independent when it wants to be.
ReplyDeleteHi Independence for Scotland ! Where ye been? We've been worried aboot ye . How's yer Tory pal in Bath ?
DeleteAnd why has he suddenly reinvented himself as an "Anonymite"?
Delete