NOTE TO UNIONIST PRESS...

Dear Unionist Press,

OK, let's make this clear. I'd be the first to congratulate Ruth Davidson for doubling the number of seats her party got in the General Election (even if to do so she was obliged to sort of 'Murdo Fraser' the party...that is to say heavily disguise the fact that the Ruth Davidson Unionist Tank Party of Unionists and more Unionists and the British Conservative and Unionist party are one and the same thing).

None the less, a job well done. Whatever you want to call them, Ruth appears to have, at least to a certain extent, detoxified the Tories.

But now, let's get it in to perspective, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Unionist Press! The Tankers came SECOND, not first. They have 31 seats out of 129.  The other parties combined have 98. In short they have fewer than quarter of the seats.

The SNP alone has 63 seats. That's twice the number the Tories have got, so the claim that Ruthie and her crack team are going to drive their tanks over Nicola's lawns or, well anything much, is fantasy. They would require the 24 Labour, 5 Liberal Democrats and 4 of the 6 Greens to vote with them, before they're going to make any difference in terms of votes. (Depending upon which party supplies the presiding officer*)

And with respect, how often is that to happen?

So, we all know that you are incredibly excited about the fact that instead of being the third party, the Tankies are now the "official" opposition, but please, let's get it into perspective, shall we? That means Ruth gets to ask the First Minister a couple more questions a week and Kezia gets to ask a couple less, doesn't it?

Now seriously ... keep calm and  do whatever it is you do.

Kind Regards

MUNGUIN

PS: It might be as well to remember that good though it is to have doubled your seats, to triple you seat count is REALLY spectacular...step forward Patrick Harvie.


* Craig Dalzell puts forward an interesting idea for presiding officer in this piece. I'd be interested in what other people think of it, either here or on Craig's own excellent blog.

A Yesser's appeal to hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'.

GUEST POST BY BRACO

Mr D'Hondt

I am not a member of any political party but I am totally committed to the Yes movement and an Independent Scotland. 

After reading a very interesting and thought provoking post-election article over on Arc of Prosperity  these are some of my own (non party political) thoughts on the issue of d'Hondt and pro-independence majorities. I would really like to thank Tris and the Republic for giving me the opportunity to try and develop that discussion on here as a guest post.

I think, after the heat of party political battle is over, the electoral evidence is now becoming clear for all to see. The voting system, which Scotland currently operates under, is designed (and was selected specifically) in order to try and make the devolved governance of Scotland reliant on the formation of coalition politics (of some sort). This is at the heart of unionist reasoning behind d'Hondt as their voting system of choice for Holyrood back in 97. 

I.e. IF Scottish governance is made dependent on coalitions and the SNP are the only effective Independence party in the country to vote for, then it will never have a coalition partner party to form a majority government with. Therefore the SNP will be unable to pass Independence Referendum legislation while in government, no matter how popular the SNP becomes. This is central and must always be kept in mind when thinking about Scotland's current electoral system.

It also explains the reason behind the Libdem leadership's point blank refusal to enter into coalition with the SNP in 2007 (and, dare I say, Lord Nicol Stephen's shock resignation as Libdem leader and subsequent enoblement in 2008). 

It was this refusal that forced the SNP into forming Holyrood's first, 'shock horror'... minority government. Also, worth noting that even the SNP themselves bought into the accepted political narrative of the time and really didn't want to take (or see the political opportunities) that minority government could bring. 

This refusal of the democratic will of the electorate to form a coalition with the SNP shocked many of the Libdem rank and file, and was the start of Libdem electoral rot in Scotland thereafter. What it did do however, was absolutely ensure that there was no Indy Ref during that first term of enforced SNP minority rule. 

I.e Short term, the system worked exactly as designed. 

As ever, though, unionist long term thinking has been shown to be more tactical than strategic and even in those terms limited and inept, as during the period of exceptional circumstances that followed, we the Scots electorate were able to first experience successful and competent minority SNP governance, and then watch the stars align during the 2011 election as the d'Hondt system was broken (just) through what we now know was a lucky balance being struck between constituencies won and regional list votes cast. All resulting in the SNP winning an incredible (and d'Hondt busting) single party absolute majority. 

The evidence of the extraordinary nature of that result at the time was seen in the total and utter shock of even the SNP's own leadership, as well as the hilarious absolute blind panic and horror that followed from all other sections of the Scottish (and UK) political establishment. This 'breaking of their system' at the root of all the 'Holyrood-as-anti-democratic' psychosis and unionist schtick that still fills their media output to this day.

Yesterday we just saw a return to the normal way that the voting system was actually designed to operate. That is, no matter how popular a single party becomes, in a multiparty d'Hondt system, it will most likely NOT gain a majority. This is again shown to be true by the fact that the SNP voting figures actually went up from 2011 yet their seat count went down.

If all the above is taken into account and properly rationalised, then there is only one relatively simple way to ensure that democratically endorsed pro Independence electoral results in Scotland always have the ability to produce equally strong pro independence majority governance in Holyrood (along with all the democratic abilities that will naturally bring, such as referendums on Independence as often and as regularly as the will of the Scots electorate will allow).  

The answer is simple; don't try and 'game' the system by attempting to form a single super supported (and therefore super powerful) single Independence party that can somehow regularly overwhelm d'Hondt, as this strategy will inevitably risk wasting hundreds of thousands of pro-Indy votes on the list every time that attempted majority fails (750 000 votes in the case of the SNP on Thursday). Far better to simply go with the grain of d'Hondt and purposely set about helping the development and establishing of a good, strong and electorally successful moderate second pro independence party that can be relied upon to form strong and effective pro independence coalition governments with. (After Thursday, this is looking like it could be the Greens).  It's that simple.

As the main creators of our devolved electoral system, SLabour's leadership never truly saw the LibDems as an electoral threat in Holyrood, rather they viewed them as their key to consistently forming (and leading) majority Scottish governments.  Term, after term, after term. This is how the SNP (and the Yes electorate) should start thinking about the Green Party. There are many overlaps between SNP and Green party policy priorities (other than just Independence) within which a sensible and workable, progressive eco friendly programme for government could be formed.

Now that SLAB and the LibDems are up to their necks in the same d'Hondt electoral trap they hoped to lock the SNP into, it's that very same opportunity of consistently leading (though perhaps not totally dictating) the policy agenda of Scotland over many, many terms of majority government that now presents itself as the enormous prize to the SNP (and Greens as junior partners). 

All that is required is that each can somehow see past traditional UK party political tribalism. It's not happy clappy idealism that I am appealing to here but instead simple, hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'. This is what d'Hondt is designed to reward and it is through this (along with a powerful and autonomous YES grass-roots movement) that Scotland will quickly win it's independence.   

I think this is the lesson that the Independence movement will learn from yesterday's frustrating experience of the d'Hondt system. Hopefully all this will also be cemented in place during a term of government where the dominant pro indy party (SNP) learns to work effectively and builds strong political relationships with the other, much smaller, pro independence party that was also returned by Yes supporters to sit alongside them in Holyrood (The Greens). 

It's essential that both these parties manage to control, and then throw off, those 'me-only' party political attitudes developed and inherited from the British adversarial 'first past the post' system (essentially two party politics) and begin to adopt the more consensual, coalition based political culture that we all hoped Holyrood would help usher in (and which yesterday proved, will be needed) if timely Independence is to be achieved within the designed limitations and political realities that we the Scots electorate find ourselves having to operate under.

Thanks for a great article, Arc of Prosperity, it was much appreciated, and thanks again to Tris and Munguin's Republic for the opportunity to discuss it further in the Republic :-) 

WE MIGHT HAVE HAD THE POWER TO STOP THIS IN SCOTLAND...BUT LABOUR VOTED WITH THE TORIES TO KEEP IT IN LONDON

I am totally in agreement with this. We must work together to prevent the passing of the horrific legislation that the Tories are proposing which will remove the rights from workers. The Tory trade Union Bill is a step WAY too far.

However,  if they are serious about beating the Tories on unions, why did they fight tooth and nail with the very same Tories to maintain Westminster hegemony over trades union legislation. Surely even the meanest intelligence would know that in an independent Scotland, the various possibilities of government, coalition or single party, will not (at least for a VERY long time) include the Tories. Surely they understood that Labour or the SNP, or even the Greens or Liberals would never propose this kind of legislation? No, agreeing with the Tories and doing down the SNP was more important than the union law which may very well pass despite the combined efforts of Corbyn's Labour Party, the SNP and the smaller parties. When will Labour understand that London doesn't give a stuff about trades unions or the working person?

CAMERON WENT TO SCOTLAND AND ALL WE GOT WERE SOME DAMP SQUIBS

Him all in blue, and her in red and tartan.

I see that the Scottish TUC had something to say about the proposals for the devo super max, federalism released today by the British prime  minister.

I wonder if the newly socialist, newly Scottish, Scottish Branch office has anything to say on the subject. Are they with the TUC or the Tories?

Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) General SecretaryGrahame Smith said:

"Despite being represented on the Scotland Office Stakeholder Group to consult on the draft clauses, the STUC was not given sight of the final details.

"STUC will now analyse this paper in some detail, however it is already clear that in key areas such as welfare and capital borrowing, the recommendations will not match the intentions of the Smith Commission proposals.

“It is unacceptable that the Scottish Parliament should require Westminster approval to create new benefit entitlements in Scotland. The current proposals will also seriously hamper the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make different fiscal choices by tying Scotland to UK deficit reduction targets.

“Given that the STUC was underwhelmed by totality of the Smith Commission proposals, this further watering down of the promise that was made to voters in Scotland is unacceptable. The UK Government will present today’s publication as significant progress, but the truth is that we are not even at the end of the beginning of progress to meaningful additional devolution.

“It is now vital that the fullest possible public consultation is conducted, including a citizen-led process. It is also a matter of particular importance that the Scottish Labour Party looks very carefully at these clauses and takes a clear view on whether they meet its aspirations and the spirit of the Smith Commission proposals.”

Any comment Mr Murphy, Ms Dugdale, Ms Baillie.... Anyone?

No? 

I did all this: It was me that got you all these watered down fig leafs.
Me, I tell you. I saved the banks, I saved the world and I saved the union.
Now I'll save the universe.
Take that Alistair Loser Darling, you couldnt even save your membership
of the Faculty of Advocates!

Well somehow the BBC managed to unearth Gordon Brown from whatever 6 star hotel he's staying at, and he's enthusiastic. 

So he is clearly on the side of the Tories. Surprise surprise!

Brown said he was pleased that there are new powers "of huge significance in employment and welfare that no one can undervalue with credibility".

He added: "Two issues have dominated Scottish politics for the past 30 years: the call for action on jobs and social justice.

"And the Scottish Parliament will now have substantial powers in both areas, as well as in tax matters, which will enable it to secure jobs and make decisions in fairness for the people of Scotland.

"This will ensure the new Scotland Act is a modern version of home rule for Scotland in an interdependent world."

**********

It appears that dogged persistence, threats of legal action, and the prime minister of Britain saying that he would withdraw unless the Green Party were included in leaders' debates ahead of the British elections in May have in the end worked in favour of democracy. The BBC carry a story that their debate will include all 7 leaders of major parties on the British mainland.

Icelandic tv debate with more that 4 people!
Cunning lot these foreigners!

The original proposals had been for the two major parties along with UKIP and the Liberals having a four-way debate. Not unreasonably, given the minority nature of both UKIP and the Liberals, other parties wondered why they were to be excluded.

Various excuses were trotted out including how difficult it would be to manage a debate with so many people but that was put to bed somewhat embarrassingly when it was pointed out that Scandinavian countries and Ireland all manage to organised them.

There were then a series of arguments about the minority nature of the other parties which wanted to participate, including:

That it was a prime ministerial debate (a silly argument in a parliamentary democracy, where the majority of us do not get a vote for a potential prime minister, and in any case, why would Clegg or Farage be included in such a debate?). 

And that the SNP, Plaid and the Greens were not national parties... (but then neither is Labour as it fields no candidates in Northern Ireland).

So far the BBC has announced the parties' inclusion on its website, but at the time of writing it hadn't bothered to inform the party leaders of the decision so we base this on the BBC website. 

I wonder what will happen if the Irish parties wish to get involved. Will Cameron support them as he supported the Greens?

GET RID OF TRIDENT

Tomorrow there is a vote in the London House of Commons on the renewal of the Trident Weapons System.

The Greens, Plaid and the SNP will vote against, but it is expected that the *three London parties will largely vote for spending more than £100 billion on a weapons system that is very little use for today's wars or today's enemies.

I know we live in a dangerous world. But most of today's danger seems to me to come from terrorism. You can't fight terrorism with nuclear weapons. Even if a terror organisation got hold of a nuclear bomb and threatened to use it... 

what could the West do with a nuclear deterrent? Where would we target it? 

In any case the United States of America has more than enough weapons to deal with the "mutually assured destruction" question, and for those who feel it is wrong to let the American's take  the financial strain, there is no reason why a financial contribution to their costs couldn't be made by other Nato countries.

No western country (that means France or the UK) would dare use a nuclear weapon without permission from America. But at least France does have the dignity of that option. The UK does not. While the French President does have a red button, the British government does not. The weapons system is part of America's defence capability, and the launch codes are held by the USA.

Retired senior military have said that they would prefer that the money be spent on something that they can actually use.

Some say that America, too, would rather than Britain spent some more money on conventional forces which could be used by them in the various wars in the Middle East that we get involved in. On the other hand, some say that America would prefer us to maintain the nuclear capability because it guarantees us a seat on the Security Council where, in anything important, we take America's side.. or you might say, 'vote the way America tells us to'.

Tony Blair apparently said in his autobiography that the weapons system was of no strategic value and maintained only for prestige. It is the membership fee for the big boys' table, at which, along with France, the UK really should have no place.

I discovered from Neil Findlay, during his unsuccessful leadership campaign, that the Labour Party's Scottish conference voted to scrap Trident, but was overruled by the party leadership. 

When there are hungry kids (look at the figures for food banks), freezing pensioners, folk living on the street adn sleeping rough in sub zero temperatures and so many privations for so many people, why are we paying over £100,000,000,000,000 (that we don't have) for weapons that we won't use?

I'm sure that every Tory will vote for the system, but some decent Labour and Liberal MPs will vote against. You can urge them to do so here.

Correction: * I've just read on Twitter that the Labour Party intends to ignore the debate, classing it as a meaningless stunt.

If the SNP, Plaid, Greens, Labour and some Liberals and maybe a few of the Northern politicians voted together, then we could rid the country of these abominations.

And we'd have £100,000,000,000 to spend on improving the lives of the wretched. And Labour thinks it's a stunt because the SNP is involved in organising it?????

And Jim Murphy says that they care about Scotland and its poor.

Oh well...

OFF TO THE STATES FOR EASTER TO LEARN ABOUT SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT

I’ve always wondered why it is that people need to fly all over the world to talk about man-made climate change, and whether or not you believe in it, people are doing that all the time.

It doesn’t particularly interest me normally, but this time it is the Scottish parliament which is sending 4 MSPs and 2 officials to America, in fact to Boston, New York and Washington DC to “highlight” the dangers of climate change, whatever that means. This is a non party thing. The presiding officer is going, along with members from the SNP, the Labour Party and the Tories. Whether the Liberals didn’t want to go, or just weren’t asked remains to be answered.

The total cost of this exercise, supposedly connected with tartan week in the USA, is thought to be in the region of £30,000, given that the MSPs, officials are travelling club class.

According to the Scotsman they ‘will focus on the three key areas of climate change, sustainable transport and opportunities around the green economy’. What expertise in these matters any of the visitors had is also not known.

MSP Robin Harper (Greens) said: "For this cross-party Holyrood delegation to be jetting off on a jolly to multiple US cities in order to fact-find on issues relating to sustainability and the environment is ever so slightly ridiculous and largely unnecessary.” He also pointed out, not unreasonably, that if sustainability was the name of the game then the USA was perhaps not the best place to go to learn more.

I agree. We already have three ministers going to America for Tartan week, that’s fair enough. We need to make a good impression there. Trade and tourism depends upon it. But there is no need to have other members of parliament there. The rest of us are belt tightening, and parliament should be too. Easter jollies should be a thing of the past.


Pictures: Transport in Boston and Washington not looking overly sustainable to me.