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 for 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
The 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.
For 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.
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.
Delete