In the video I explain why I agree with the second proposal (with caveats) but not with the first, which would inadvertently abolish proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament and leave us with a majoritarian voting system that is almost as bad as unalloyed first-past-the-post. I also try to find the nub of what makes Mr Swinney's independence plan as it stands so harmful, and it's this: until now, what is good for the SNP electorally and what is good for the cause of independence has always been inseparable. If you help the SNP do well in an election, you're pretty much automatically boosting independence. But for the first time, the Swinney plan would create a situation where the SNP would be seeking votes in a way that would genuinely benefit the party while simultaneously harming the cause of independence. That would be a very dangerous decoupling which must never be allowed to happen, and that's why the Swinney plan must at the very least be modified at conference. Power for the SNP is not an end in itself - the SNP must always remain a vehicle for independence or else the whole endeavour becomes pointless. An empty shell.
You can watch the video via the embedded player below, or at the direct YouTube link.
This nonsense idea that the list vote in some way disadvantages Independence because of the disproportionate number of Unionist MSPs elected has only gained hold since 2011 when the SNP started to dominate the regional ballots garnered.
ReplyDeletePrior to that the list vote disproportionately helped the Independence parties in the 1999, 2003 and 2007 elections.
In fact taking both constituency and list votes together and comparing to the total seats obtained the Independence parties cumulatively, with the exception of 199, have obtained more seats than votes. This is particularly the case since 2011: Votes and seats were 48% and 56%, 48% and 54%, and 49% and 56% in 2011, 2016 and 2021, respectively.
The AMS is designed to offset the bias of the constituency vote … and it does a pretty good job of doing just that. It’s a corrective mechanism.
But why would you want to move to a FPTP system anyway? Isn’t the Westminster system something that we are trying to get away from.
But why would you want to move to a FPTP system anyway? Isn’t the Westminster system something that we are trying to get away from.
DeleteIt wasn't uncommon in the 2011-16 parliament to hear independence supporters complain that list MSPs were "unelected", and that we should revert to pure FPTP. This suggestion to get rid of the "constituency penalty" sounds like a variation on that theme. People have a presentist bias I guess
I find it hard to figure out who regional MSPs represent. Themselves? The same system used in Council election may be an improvement in representation and lead to MSPs from different partys working together.
DeleteThe SNP should stop faffing about and call the 2026 election as a de facto referendum right now.
ReplyDeleteWestminster elections should be where a de facto referendum happens. People who suggest it for Holyrood need to address two points:
Delete1. Would the SNP stand on a single-issue manifesto? If not, what actually makes it a de facto referendum? If they get over 50% of the vote, surely anyone can point to their manifesto and claim (almost certainly correctly) that some people were probably voting on the basis of baby boxes (or whatever), not independence, so it can't be interpreted as a popular majority for the latter. If that isn't a valid point, then why was that other stuff in the manifesto at all?
For an unambiguous result, the SNP need to say: "Vote for us if you want independence. If you don't want independence, vote for someone else." Anything else isn't really like a referendum at all and produces a result that can be dismissed.
2. If you accept the above, then how would that work at a Holyrood election? In those, the SNP are running to form a devolved administration. If they win a seat plurality, or even majority, but don't get 50% of the vote, what happens? They form a Scottish Government with no mandate for any policies? They step back and let someone else form the SG, despite being the biggest party? Those would be the only options, wouldn't they?
In addition, there's the problem of what even constitutes a popular majority when everyone has two votes. Does 51% on the list and 30% on the constituencies count? Wouldn't that mean that a majority of voters had voted *both for and against* independence?
Westminster elections, on the other hand, are basically pointless for the SNP: they're not going to be a government and their representation is unlikely to be large enough to have any influence on the government. They clearly realise this, as they struggle to come up with a reason for anyone to vote for them at these elections, and have to fall back on content-free guff like "stronger for Scotland".
The only downside that I can see is that Scotland is of course overshadowed at Westminster elections, and people may prioritise ensuring that their least favourite party doesn't take power. But there was clear alarm in Unionist circles at Nicola Sturgeon's announcement in 2022 that 2024 would be a de facto. I think the novelty of a single-issue manifesto would make enough of a splash to compensate somewhat for the fact that the spotlight is not on Scotland.
Sorry Keaton we do not need to address your points. Your post is just another, admittedly longer , comment trying to justify doing nothing. All of which you say can be easily addressed.
Delete8:19 Address them then. Let’s hear what you have to say. Seriously!!!
DeleteBizarre that he goes to the trouble of reading all my waffle and then can't be bothered to answer any of the easily answered points
DeleteKeaton perhaps it’s because you have posted this before and your points have been addressed before but here you are saying the same stuff again.
DeleteFor the first time ever, I just don't know who to vote for in 2026. The SNP aren't serious about independence, still too distracted by identity guff and still too full of lightweights. Meanwhile Alba are a bunch of ferrets in a sack while the Greens are just weird.
ReplyDeleteWon't vote unionists as I wouldn't want my vote to be interpreted as anti-independence.
Perhaps the new Corbyn party will be an option if they take a democratic stance on Scottish independence.
Don't be stupid - the Corbyn party is a British party.
DeleteThe idea of asking Westminster for anything to do with Scottish self-determination rights and sovereignty is a silly idea for so many reasons.
DeleteCorbyn is a unionist (except when it comes to Ireland).
DeleteSo what you are really saying is that once again SNP is putting PARTY before COUNTRY.. Like they have done since 2015.. For many of us we knew back in 2015 that the SNP was no longer a party of Independence. How come this is coming as a shock to you James..
ReplyDeleteThe point previously is not that you were helping the SNP do well. You were voting for an independence referendum. Multiple mandates for indyref2 ignored by the SNP. There currently is a majority for independence in Holyrood and a live mandate. Ignored by Swinney the man who in his own words told Nicola NOT to hold an independence referendum. Yet now we are expected to trust Swinney. Swinney must think we are all idiots.
ReplyDeleteWhat other parties' votes can the SNP realistically borrow, though?
ReplyDeleteThe Greens? They've flirted with watering down their pro-indy stance and been unhelpful during this term.
Alba? You've told us they're finished.
Liberate Scotland? At least 33% fascist and untouchable.
It's not hard to see why the SNP isn't interested this time around.
That doesn't make sense - the whole point is that the SNP *are* interested in grabbing those votes. That's the only basis on which the Swinney plan is in any way logical.
Delete500,000 ex-SNP voters who stayed home in 2024 are worth TEN times as much as peak Alba or the lunatic fringe beyond them. Swinney's going after the former and not wasting time fucking around with the latter.
DeleteThe fact that the proposers of of the voting changes base their arguments on a lie ... that their proposal will increase proportionality when it will do the opposite... tells you everything you need to know about the people proposing it.
ReplyDeleteThe unionist vote is now very entrenched indeed, the only unknown is exactly which unionist party they will choose in 2026.
ReplyDeleteThey will never vote SNP.
So, Swinney must target the former SNP voters who have either drifted to other pro-indy parties or now do not vote at all and the substantial cohort of folk who seemingly never vote in any elections.
Party before Independence is the basic point. I made it several times in recent posts but got the usual “you’re a unionist” nonsense. Swinney either revises his stupidity policy now and engages now with the greens and gets their commitment to Indy nailed down, via list voting, or Indy is screwed. It is that simple.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP need wavering Green voters to vote SNP on constituency AND list. The only way to do that is to be 1,000,000% Independence. They even need to convince remaining Alba voters and the others - and stop SNP voters moving to Corbyn's thing.
DeleteOr they're a' doomed, doomed I tell ye, doomed.
YIR2. You exhibit so much ignorance, stupidity and misunderstanding in such a short post. That’s an achievement in itself. Look at SNP votes on the list in the last two elections. How many list MSP’s did that get the SNP? If even half of them had voted green, guess what? Rhetorical question. Go away and educate yourself. I see we now have, inadvertently, discovered the true identity of the Anon making multiple “we’re all doomed” comments.
Delete2011.
DeleteYou selectively mentioned the last two elections - 2011 was the one before that when the SNP got 16 list seats. Without which there wouldn't have been a referendum at all as the SNP wouldn't have had an overall majority.
And no, "we" haven't discovered anything. Stupid boy.
You are it seems the only person who does not know that 2011 was a complete fluke, and is never being repeated. Unless you know more than John Curtice? I “selectively” mention the last two elections because these are the two in which I voted that way and that was the result. I gave the SNP both my votes in the one before that, and guess what?Are you really so much of a dullard that you cannot understand? Sadly for you I think you are. No doomed patter in this post? At least you are too stupid and lacking in awareness to be embarrassed. Off you toddle/waddle. Silly billy boy.
DeleteAnon at 10:06 AM - may the Force be with you.
Delete"What happened at the Glasgow launch of Jeremy Corbyn’s new party"
ReplyDeletefrom the National: https://archive.is/B9JsL
"One organiser told The National that they privately worry that the Westminster arm of Your Party is being too slow and risks not taking full advantage of the bubble of excitement that is developing."
I think they're right - now is the time. There's also a lot of interest in Reform UK, and despite the labels people like putting on things, it's right wing but not "far" right, for the most part.
While the your party might take a lot of votes from labour and greens, and reform from the Conservatives, they'll both take votes from the SNP unless Swinney and all his party and campaigners and MPs and MSPs make it very clear - a vote for the SNP isn't just a pretendy one for Independence, the SNP will be serious this time, and courageous.
Have they got it in them? Many think not. And if not, they're in trouble. Deep doo dah. Smelly. Stinky. In your boots.
You still don’t understand. That is astonishing, but sadly not surprising.
Delete3.27am some of us understand what you are.
Deleteunless Swinney and all his party and campaigners and MPs and MSPs make it very clear - a vote for the SNP isn't just a pretendy one for Independence, the SNP will be serious this time, and courageous.
DeleteSadly they've already made it clear that they're being less serious than ever with the current scheme: even in the highly unlikely event that a single-party majority is achieved, it's no more difficult for WM to ignore than a multi-party majority, so what on earth is the point?
Keaton - timing is everything, the UN NSGT thing is this month, but the SNP conference the month after. The Swinney / Brown resolution needs strong and sturdy amendments, asserting the full right to self-determination for the Scottish Parliament, and perhaps on the day firmed up by amendment if that sort of thing is allowed.
DeleteIf in 2026 it turns out to be as weak and watery as a thrice used teabag on a Calmac ferry to Castlebay, then they're not getting my votes, either of them.
Down with that sort of thing!
Keaton you are right that Westminster will ignore a single party majority just as easily as a multi party majority.
DeleteTheSNP leadership being “courageous is just a joke.
11:20 Reform are a far right party. Look at the bollocks racism at there conference. Look at the elite racists in their party. Look at their insane plans for their UK ein reich ein volk ein farage. Corbyn couldn’t give a monkeys f**k about Scotland and will never give us our independence despite all of the bullshit rhetoric. The South of Engerland will never allow him to be their PM. They are both unionist parties!!?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen anybody elsewhere making the point James does about the SNP setting an unwanted precedent for future elections. It's a really important detail that, if highlighted, might help temper the Swinney plan.
ReplyDeleteWe've had weeks now to try to get to grips with what Swinney is proposing and to be completely honest I just find it very strange. Like, really, really odd. Like there's something going on we are not party to which has heavily influenced his strategy.
Laying an elaborate trap for yourself and then calmly walking into it is not normal behaviour. JS has gone out of his way to dismiss alternatives, determined to tie himself to the mast but this could be far more damaging to us in the future than 'once in a generation' has been.
The people who say to just blindly get behind it really aren't looking at the detail. Lemmings off a cliff is what I'm seeing. There's a madness here. A collective and irrational foolishness borne out of desperation and Lord knows what else.
If the Swinney plan gets through conference unmodified we may never see independence. That's what is at stake here.
A number of posters, myself included, have been making the points about Swinney and his plan for weeks. We are shouted down as really being unionists. It pains me to say it but Swinney has to know what the consequences of his policy are. They would maximise the chances of SNP constituency MSP’s keeping their seats/jobs and perks. They would minimise the chances of any other Indy party securing list seats. That is not my opinion. It is a fact. Why would he want to do that? There can only be one answer. Party before Indy. I have said this countless times. In my constituency, SNP Constituency vote and Green list vote has seen the return of one SNP MSP and one Green MSP at each of the last two elections. The problems with the Greens this term are a direct consequence of N S’s complete failure to manage and control the Greens. She was too caught up in, and compromised by, the gender brigade. The consequences were disastrous. The pragmatic element within the greens understands this. Get them on board, keep them in line, and encourage SNP constituency and Green list. The result could be a significant majority. As things stand we are facing, at best, minority SNP govt and an incoming Farage govt down south.
Delete“ We may never see independence.” That has been the plan all along by the collaborators in the SNP. Two years of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and no condemnation of Westminster by Swinney.
DeleteAnon at 9.30. Swinney has condemned from pretty much day one. What you claim is an outright lie. Go away.
Delete“ Incoming Farage government down south” what is stop Farage closing down Holyrood. Nothing at all except independence. The SNP ultra loyalists should pay more attention to this fact or we end up back in the situation we had in the pre Scot Parliament days.
DeleteNever forget that Swinney has been there through all of it. He knows everything. What, who, when, why and how much. The UK establishment know that he knows everything.
DeleteNow ask yourself again why Swinney would come up with a plan that apparently kills indy stone dead.
Anon at 10.31. Gibberish.
DeleteThere are a number of members of Alba (fifth columnists ? ) who would be happy to close the Scottish Parliament.
Delete“One in five people is anti-Semitic, study finds” screams sub-headline in voice of the Security Services, The Telegraph.
ReplyDelete“… 21% of the public affirmed four of more anti-Semitic statements, compared either 16% last year.”.
Perhaps the headline should have read “Public are no longer scared of being smeared with false accusations of ant-Semitism.”.
A couple of weeks ago, a junior Government Minister was sent to tour the Sunday, TV studios to propagate the line that Palestine Action were “attacking Jewish owned businesses”. If true, that would deserve to be unconditionally condemned. What passes for journalists in this country didn’t seek clarification of the statement. Presumably, the Welsh witch spreading the attack line meant Elbit Systems. Elbit Systems is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Was she inferring that Elbit only permits their shares to be purchased by adherents to the Jewish faith? Now that really would be a vile, anti-Semitic smear. Why are the defenders of Zionism the worst offenders when it comes to spreading anti-Semitism?
Presumably using the definition of antisemitism that includes criticising the activities of the Jewish state and its government? Activities that include, in case the Telegraph and its readership hadn’t noticed, genocide. The antisemitic trope has been defused and discredited. Take your “survey” and stick it……
DeleteEncouraging to see indy support in the More In Common seats projection holding steady at 52%.
ReplyDeleteFrom the National: "But within a day of being removed from the UK Government, Murray was appointed a role in a junior ministerial reshuffle."
ReplyDeleteHas he no pride just accepting being demoted? At least Kate Forbes told Yousaf to shove it when he tried to do that to her.
He is a grifter. It’s presumably extra money.
DeleteOpinium, Westminster voting intention, field work 3 - 5 Sept.
ReplyDeleteUK headline; RefUK 7% lead
Scottish sub-sample (130)
Con 7%, Lab 24%, LibDem 8%, SNP 25%, RefUK 22%, Green 12%.
These low sample, and low confidence sub-samples keep picking up unusually high support for Scottish Greens.
Surely the Swinney plan should at least attempt to consult Westminster and the international community before it becomes official election strategy.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that Westminster will finally agree to a ref because precedent was set in 2011 isn't worth the paper it's written on and Swinney knows it.
Starmer will probably say as much mid campaign.
Face the facts. Reform are topping the polls by a long way consistently.
ReplyDeleteLabour are self destructing. The price of food is rocketing in the shops.
Immigration is no longer a hypothetical thing, the person in the street can see the local impact on services.
Swinney needs to get a grip as we could be facing an election in 2027.. maybe before.
Reform will revise the Scotland act. The Overton window has shifted a lot.
The main stream media is now often days behind current events. Ordinary Scots have social media and can see what's going on.
The SNP on the current trend don't have another 5 years to fix this!
The window of oportunity for indy is rapidly closing.
Anon at 12.55. We see you, you silly billy. How was Falkirk?
Delete