IS it a crime against independence to vote for a party other than the SNP on May 5? Does criticism of the SNP inevitably weaken the independence cause? Is it disloyal and dangerous to ask if the dominance of one party is good for Scotland?
If so, I must plead guilty on all counts.
I’ll be voting Green on the list and last night took part in a debate organised by the Electoral Reform Society Scotland (ERS) entitled; One Party To Rule Them All: Does Scotland Have A Predominant-Party Problem? Actually I wouldn’t have chosen that title – as my old friend Alistair McIntosh of the Centre for Human Ecology says; “It irks me when I hear people call Scotland a one-party state.
“That expression is linked to the former Soviet Union, Communist China and tin-hat dictatorships – a world of difference from the free democratic choice the people of Scotland have made.”
Agreed.
Just while we’re at it, there’s no doubt Scotland would be a weaker, poorer and less confident place without the lifelong efforts of senior SNP figures who have put independence and Scotland’s distinctive political culture first – especially Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
But does that justify turning a blind eye to the dangers that might arise from the SNP’s current domination of Scottish politics? A couple of things should be made clear. That dominance is hardly the fault of the SNP and mostly the fault of competition between Unionist parties for the 55 per cent of Scots who voted No.
And the problematic “predominance” described in a report by the Electoral Reform Society is a very particular kind. Using a typology of parliamentary systems devised by Italian academic Giovanni Sartori, the ERS suggests that Scotland has a tendency towards type 3 – the predominant-party system where open party competition exists, but one party consistently wins a majority of the vote instead of type 5 – moderate pluralism where no party can win an absolute majority, and all parties accept the legitimacy of the system, gravitating towards coalitions around the “centre-ground” which appeared to be our direction of travel in 2003, when seven Greens and six Scottish Socialists were elected in addition to the usual suspects.
Do lofty academic categorisations really matter? You betcha.
The Wee Ginger Dug’s column in yesterday’s National prompted the following reader’s comment: “Why will I give both votes to the SNP, and hope they get an overall majority, in spite of my belief that Holyrood itself functions better with a minority government and therefore some level of “consensus”? Because I believe in Independence, Independence, Independence for Scotland. Nothing else matters.
“The rest is all bickering about how the hamstrung, limited, pigeon-holed, and heavily disadvantaged Scottish Government can work with limited powers. What’s more important, independence which enables all politics, or party politics which could disable the chance of getting independence?”
That’s a powerful and attractive argument – powerful enough to help deliver an SNP majority government on May 5 with less than 50 per cent of the vote. It’s better than the Tories winning complete control of the UK with just 37 per cent of the vote. But not miles better.
As the report puts it, the all-powerful SNP Government that’s certain to be elected on May 5 is part of an old sang – not a new one. It’s a continuation of Scotland’s habit of electing one powerful party to govern, oppose Tory taxation and stand up for Scottish interests.
That party used to be Labour, who famously weighed rather than counted votes in “safe” constituencies, but got complacent and finally got the bullet. Is another version of the same what Scotland wants or needs? Actually, to be fair to Jack McConnell, he did introduce
PR to council elections in the full knowledge it would end many of the old fiefdoms controlled by his own party. The ERS is calling for some of the same selflessness from the SNP.
They want a written Scottish constitution, created through a massive public process similar to the independence referendum. Norwegians did this back in 1814 when they were part of a Union of Crowns with Sweden. Their constitution was published on May 17, 1814, and it’s this date – not the date of final independence in 1905 – that’s celebrated every year as “National Day”.
THAT bit of pre-independence constitutional heavy lifting shaped the nation that was to become and whetted the appetite of Norwegians for more. You could make the same argument about little Iceland – which had limited self-government from 1882. The hard work done before “birth” governed the health and outlook of these nations as surely as the health of a mother-to-be shapes the life-chances of her bairns.
Studying the history of the various Nordic peoples, I’ve come to think that the creation of an independent-minded population is the real catalyst for change. Self-starting, quizzical, thrawn folk who are able to fight their way past obstacles and propaganda to achieve the level of national and local control they desire.
There was an explosion of such independent-mindedness during and after the referendum – and its essential this thrawn, unbiddable element remains outside the governing party. Partly because those unconvinced about independence are even less impressed with the idea all criticism of the SNP should be put on hold until the Glorious Day arrives. It’s true that hostile newspapers will try to suggest split votes on May 5 are a demonstration of disaffection with independence rather than the SNP.
What’s new? People with agendas always find reasons to grind their axes – muting all criticism of the Scottish Government for an indefinite period will make no difference to that.
Indeed votes cast for Rise would suggest Scots demand a more urgent rerun of the indyref than the SNP, since Rise want indyref2 within four years and the SNP didn’t make a specific time commitment in their manifesto.
Most importantly though, #wheeshtforindy will produce big mistakes. If the Greens and groups like Our Land hadn’t campaigned for more radical land reform for example, Scotland might have been caught out by the Panama papers. As it is Nicola Sturgeon has promised a crackdown on tax haven ownership thanks to the fact MSPs put good legislation ahead of party loyalty.
Indeed, if we want to see Holyrood working better, another ERS proposal should get serious consideration – electing committee conveners by fellow MSPs (as even creaking old Westminster does), to ensure committees are independent of party patronage. The ERS suggest Scotland should consider establishing a “People’s Assembly” – a second Holyrood chamber composed of voters selected at random like a jury, and given “democratic leave” from work to propose, scrutinise and amend legislation – and a change in the current voting system to make election easier for small parties and independents.
I can understand the attraction of making one big, loud statement with a whopping SNP victory. But I can hear other voices from our culture reminding us of a different Scottish heritage – one “whaur extremes meet”, there are “No Gods and Precious Few Heroes” and the carnaptious are as welcome as the party faithful. Surely in this “multiform, infinite Scotland” there’s room for disagreement?
Sturgeon: We will build enough support to win a second referendum
How did the other parties react to the manifesto?
Analysis: Sturgeon, the SNP’s biggest-ever asset, presented a manifesto her party could believe in
The National View: When will the next indyref be? When we know we’ll win
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here