Typical, you spend days considering and writing a post on the ten factors that will impact the upcoming Holyrood election and then a whopping eleventh factor comes along just as you hit ‘publish’.
So, the announcement that there will be a UK referendum in May next year on adopting the Alternative Vote was not immediately met with the ‘that’s good news’ that it perhaps should have but rather with the consideration of what having Scottish Parliament elections and a national referendum on the same day may mean.
Two distinct advantages spring to mind immediately:
1 – There are cost savings to be realised through returning officers and counters only working one day rather than two.
2 – Voter turnout will increase giving the Scottish Parliament even more legitimacy next term.
The downside is that this was sprung upon Scotland seemingly without consultation. I’m not suggesting for a second that the Scottish Government should have some say over when a UK referendum should take place but discussing the considerable impact this will have on Scotland’s election, with a cross-party delegation of MSPs or with a relevant SNP Minister, would have been evidence of the “respect” that Cameron has promised.
The really interesting considerations of all of this are at a party level though. Who will gain from this dual-vote?
In the United States, anti-abortion/anti-gay state-wide referenda have been arranged in the past to mobilise the conservative electorate while referenda on raising the minimum wage has been used to get the liberal vote out. Both rather cynical but both are examples of how personal gain can be realised from plebiscites.
The Liberal Democrats would be the most likely beneficiaries of a referendum on a more proportional voting system. They delivered this referendum in their coalition negotiations and their party is typically most in favour of such a change. Tavish Scott could reasonably expect an increased turnout amongst his supporters and an increased degree of goodwill towards his party in general. Were Tavish to be successful in aligning voting ‘Yes’ to AV with voting Liberal Democrat, then he really could expect some huge gains in the Parliament.
Note that Alex Salmond is the constituency MSP for the typically Lib Dem stronghold of Gordon. An improved showing for the Lib Dems off the back of an AV referendum could achieve the unthinkable for Team SNP - dethroning the party leader. It is difficult to imagine a First Minister of Scotland not winning his/her constituency but we could potentially face that prospect next year.
The Greens, similarly, may see an increase in their fortunes due to their supporters turning out in droves to ensure AV is introduced at future Westminster elections. Given that voting Green is not a wasted vote for Scottish Parliament elections, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t vote Green while they voted ‘Yes’.
The SNP could take a slightly different tack and campaign on something along the lines of ‘Referendum for British AV but no referendum for Scotland’ which may or may not succeed in gaining traction with the public.
Labour would campaign in favour of AV which should serve them well while the Conservatives arguably have the most to lose as they’d be seen to be an obstacle to progress, campaigning as they would in favour of continuing with First Past the Post. Then again, if (say) 30% of Scots favour First Past the Post, then there is scope there for the Scottish Tories to improve its sub-20% vote share on this issue alone.
So I seem to have ended up with the potential result where every party will increase its vote thanks to the Alternative Vote referendum. In terms of increasing the all-important share of the vote, I can’t help but think that the Liberal Democrats will have the edge and consequently may well emerge as clear coalition partners for whoever wins out between the SNP and Labour.
For the record, when the AV referendum comes around, subject to my reading up on it a bit more, I’ll be voting in the order of (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Staying at home.
Merkel, the great Eurosceptic
1 minute ago
13 comments:
Apparently Tavish was down in London last week trying to persuade them NOT to have it on 5th May. Just goes to show how important Scottish opinion is in Westminster.
Jings, remember how confused we all got last time with two votes on the same day.
Seriously, it makes sense to have them simultaneously. Otherwise, there can be all sorts of issues about the outcome of one affecting the other.
Jings, remember the problems last time when we had two votes on the same day.
Seriously it makes sense to have them both at the same time. Otherwise there can be all sorts of issues about the outcome of one affecting the other.
If the Scottish voting system which was foisted on Scotland without a referendum is so good why is it not suggested to be introduced UK wide. By EVERYONE?
And if it is not good enough should scotland have the option to go to AV as well to avoid more spoilt ballots as people get confused even more.
Having a referendum on the same day may attempt to marginalise the SNp as irrelevant, even in scotland as the focus may be on the UK parties again.
British media coverage at that time will be about the effect on libdem, con and lab votes and not on the SNP in Scotland.
So I think it will be bad for the SNP at first glance, as again focus will be on others.
I agree it is good for the Libdems, who can push a vote for them is a vote for Av, and people will perhaps do both and not see that they are separate issues, relating to both a Scots parliament and a UK voting system.
AV is not a more proportional system. It simulates run offs where a candidate gets less than a pre-set level (usually 50%). In the safest seats, the sinecures for lazy MPs, they already get over 50% (i.e. Tom Harris in Glasgow South who got 51.7%) and so would not face any run off at all. When a candidate gets less than 50% the hopeful with the least votes is eliminated and his second votes transferred at full value to the other candidates until one gets 50%. That is still a simple majority system with at least half of the votes wasted. In the most marginal seats where hopefuls are neck and neck they can employ a whole range of tactics to chase the second votes of other candidates to the detriment of their own core vote. So tactical voting is not eliminated. In order to have a proportional system electors must have choice between parties and between candidates from within the same party hence the need for multi-member constituencies.
If you remember correctly the Lib Dem sponsored Jenkins Commission advocated AV+ as the minimum that would be acceptable in the UK. Where single member constituencies would remain elected by AV with a 50% bench mark. But that a list would be drawn up, of I think 20% of the seats, elected by simple proportion of votes. Thus the worst excesses of a majoritarian system would be mitigated against. What is proposed in this referendum is a sham pure and simple, that I am sure the Tories hope will put PR on a shelf for another generation. As far as the Lib Dems are concerned it’s a sell out for a few cabinet seats. Holding the referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections is politicking of the worst order that make a grubby mockery of the so called respect agenda.
What a sensible blog. Indeed it will be cost effective and should increase the turn out for both AV and Holyrood - who could say no to that?
Well if you read the leader in Saturday's Scotsman and some of the hysterical online comments there, it is an horrendous slight at Scotland / cunning anti Nationalist conspiracy. OK some people will get confused but a spot of voter education during the debate and at the polls should sort that out. This just reads that Salmond is upset that he won't be the fornt page news...
"Salmond is just upset that he won't be front page news."
And so he ******* well should be! The First Minister of Scotland sidelined during Scottish elections?
It's an absolute disgrace and a transparent attempt to marginalise the 'minor' parties just as they did by having the Prime Ministerial debates.
Respect? What ******* respect?
What about a bit of respect for Scottish election campaigning which will now be drowned out by a UK wide referendum.
The Scottish electorate is being shat upon from a great height.
This is not a 'sleight' it is an attempt to pervert democracy.
Jeff
A few points...
- Not 'walking the talk' in terms of "respect" for Scotland may actually see the SNP and Scottish Labour in shared opposition to the coalition
- Salmond may well lose his seat next year, long before any referendum, unless he starts getting some positive press in Scotland and the NE
- AV is a compromise and the Lib Dems see it as a first step to full PR
- The majority of Labour politicians might tactically canvass against AV as they know failure could see the Lib Dems give up support for a coalition, and force a GE
- A Westminster referendum on the same day as the Holyrood elections will wipe out many SNP MSPs
"Voter turnout will increase giving the Scottish Parliament even more legitimacy next term."
Seriously? You think people will be more motivated to vote in a referendum on a voting system that will make very little difference to the Westminster system than they will be to elect the government which decides what happens with the NHS, education, policing, council tax etc?
Can't see it myself. I suspect the whole AV referendum will turn out to be a giant damp squib if it happens at all.
Why would Salmond lose his seat?? The Lib Dems are frankly f**ked in Scotland because of the coalition. Look at the polls - 9% in Westminster polling for YouGov with Clegg polling negatively in Scotland - the coalition is surely a much bigger factor than most of those printed on this blog. VAT rises and massive public sector cuts aren't going to go unnoticed and it is pretty clear to most people that the perpetrators are Lib Dems and the tories, and since the latter are pretty much at their core vote anyway it will surely be the former who suffer the most. I'm not suggesting the SNP are favourites to win - clearly Labour are in a pretty good position at the moment. But a referendum on AV is not something which will take precedent over the emergency budget partly published by a supposedly progressive party. Also, there is no longer Gordon - get up to date with the boundary changes please as this could be another factor affecting the election.
Can I correct something for anon. Salmond may well lose his constituency seat in the new constituency of Aberdeenshire East, but would be at the top of the regional list. A bit like Nicola Sturgeon who has a battle on her hands in Govan with the areas of Toryglen and Gorbals now included in her constituency. Losing these constituency seats would be very damaging to the SNP's top two.
The SNP need to find some good press and build up some momentum ahead of next year's election if they are to have any chance against Labour. And it needs to be positive, contrary to Labour's negative opposition to absolutely everything North and South of the border.
Good shout redcliffe, how did we end up with AMS/d'hondt? Presumably it was in place to ensure the SNP never won a majority. As you'll see from my last post, it is imperfect by any stretch of the imagination for other reasons.
I fear you may be right too; the AV referendum discussions may override the genuine Scottish debate, much like the leaders debates did in April/May.
Munguin,
I see what you're saying and I didn 't actually appreciate how unproportional AV really is when I was writing this post.
The kicker is, in the 2010 election, the SNP would actually LOSE a seat under AV, despite only getting 10% of the available seats with 20% of the vote (or whatever the exact numbers were, can't remember).
I'm with you (and the Jenkins Commission) that AV+ is better and should be a minimum requirement for UK.
I do wonder if AV will ultimately get rejected once those weaknesses are put under the microscope. ANd how will the coalition fair then?
Post a Comment