I WOULD like to thank Andy Anderson for his respectful and thoughtful long letter (July 15). This shows how the debate should be conducted about the consideration of list votes in the next Scottish Parliament election. Like many in the Yes movement, we are committed to independence and agree on most things but have a difference on tactics.
I set out the many reasons why a third (or fourth) independence-supporting party contesting the list vote is unnecessary and will damage our opportunity to gain independence. Andy quite rightly asks some further questions of my reasoning and I am happy to oblige. To save readers hunting out their back copy – I will attempt to summarise Andy’s points before answering them.
Andy states “The First Minister is doing a great job – so the SNP will win most, if not all, constituency seats probably gaining a majority without the need for list seats”. Well – I wish we could guarantee that. Polls have a habit of being wrong. In 2011 the SNP required to win list seats to have an overall majority (despite poll predictions) and thus the legitimacy to demand an independence referendum. I expect much of the media (The National excepted) to up its attack on the SNP and the Salmond inquiry will be grist to their mill. Those list seats may well be necessary to progress a referendum.
Andy considers the party loyalty of voters to be easily re-directed. However voter behaviour does not back this up (think Rise). Voter loyalty to their party of choice is very high and, in most cases, unshakable. I would further contend that that esteem voters hold in our First Minister – steering us through the pandemic – is probably unshakable and is now the biggest asset of the independence movement. I doubt significant numbers of voters will be redirected to a third (or fourth) independence party – but the loss of those votes to the SNP or the Greens could well cost actual seats to the detriment of an independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. In 2016, the election of a sole SNP MSP on the Lothians list was denied by just 0.9% of votes. The same number of votes that Rise and SSP achieved. History shows that Scottish electors do not tend to vote for new parties – as Professor John Curtice has pointed out in The National.
READ MORE: If we want to break through, we must Max the Yes... but how?
Andy asks also “what’s not to like?” I start by saying that this is an unnecessary gamble. An SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament will bring about the independence we seek. A supposed (and risky) super-majority will make no difference. A vote of over 50% in the list for the SNP would further legitimize the SNP Government position showing the backing of the Scottish people. Votes for parties trying to distort the system would cast a shadow over our claim as the opposition call the result “trickery” or “gerrymandering”.
Our movement is built on transparency and honesty. We should not jeopardise our future by anything that can be categorized as underhanded or even slightly dodgy. We can win independence in a straightforward way and it is in our grasp.
Tony Grahame
Edinburgh
IF we vote for SNP for the candidate vote and a Scottish independence group for the regional vote, we could end up with SNP in government and a pro-independence group as the “main opposition”. Fine by me.
M Ross
Aviemore
WHAT is the difference between an Emmanuel Macron France and a Boris Johnson Britain? Macron has just given his health workers a substantial pay rise. Johnson has taken their free parking away, and of course France doesn’t have an incompetent clown running the country.
Pete Rowberry
Duns
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