MUNDELL IN A MUDDLE OVER WHEN THE 1990s WERE...

You mean in that last 6 months of the 1990s when parliament was just setting up and Holyrood was a royal palace? DUH!
That's the trouble with choosing your cabinet members from a long list, never mind a short list,  of one!

IF ONLY THE SMITH COMMISSION HAD DEVOLVED TRADES UNION LEGISLATION TO EDINBURGH

As I understand the situation, the SNP and Labour are in agreement about preventing the Tory's absurd Trades Union legislation affecting Scotland. Unfortunately Labour wasn't so much in agreement that it wanted to devolve Trades Union law to Scotland and so voted against this in the Smith Commission deliberations. However faced with the reality of the unions being stripped of most of their powers, they seem to be aboard with Nicola in her attempt to keep the unions' powers in Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale backed the First Minister when she attempted to get a debate under the Sewell Convention, which would almost certainly have resulted in the legislation being voted down in Scotland. 

The Presiding Officer's legal advice, however, was that this was not an area of legislation which was covered by Sewell. She therefore refused to allow the debate in parliament.

It seems that James Kelly MSP decided to take legal advice of his own, and that in the light of that advice he wished to make a point or order with Ms Marwick over her decision.

Unfortunately he stuttered and stumbled his way through some relatively unnecessary preamble, and seemed unlikely ever to get to the point. Ms Marwick hurried him along, and at that point he started to get shirty with her.

This was a bad idea. 

He was clearly questioning her judgement, and that of her legal advisers. One might have thought that the prudent thing to do in such a situation would be to be extremely respectful whilst questioning the decision. 

You can see in the video how the proceedings unfolded and their eventual outcome.

As it goes, I think that the Presiding Officer was a little hard on Kelly at the beginning of the débâcle. He was rambling and stalling, but public speaking doesn't appear to be one of his strong points and she could have cut him a little slack. However, once you have been told to sit down by the PO, you have no alternative but to sit down. 

Regardless of how right he thought himself to be, he was a fool not to do so.

To refuse to do as ordered by the Presiding Officer in any parliament inevitably means being escorted from the chamber. The Chair simply cannot accept wilful disobedience from anyone. To do so would be to invite chaos.

I'm no expert in the doings of parliament but I would imagine that Tricia Marwick didn't make the ruling on the legislation up on the spur of the moment. I'll bet that she took very senior and authoritative legal advice before her ruling. I don't know who gave Mr Kelly his legal advice which appears to be contrary to that of the PO. it may or may not have been equally senior and authoritative. 

But surely in the case where you believe that legal advice given to parliament is incorrect, the sensible course to take would be to have a meeting with the Chair, in private, rather than to try to embarrass in the chamber.

I'm sad that the debate cannot go ahead. I don't want to see the Trades Union legislation enacted for Scotland in a parliament in London. 

How different things would have been if, during the Smith deliberations, Labour had sided with the SNP to have the matter devolved.

THE ONE PARTY STATE

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 tonight (Analysis) to which I was directed by my mother (thanks, mum, because otherwise I'd never have known.)

It was on the subject of land reform in Scotland, a draft bill for which is now in process in parliament.

If you're interested in land reform, it's worth listening to it.

I'm not going to comment on it and spoil it for you, but one thing had me jumping with anger adn I have to let it out!

Like so many unionist politicians, Michael Forsyth, John Major's man in Scotland in the mid 90s, now, needless to say, a member of the lords, insisted on calling Scotland a one-party state.

Is he unaware that there are elections for parliament in Scotland held under a partially proportional representation system which balances the inadequacies of first past the post. As constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster, this election process is conducted under the watchful eye of the Conservatives (a party which is in government on less than 30 of the vote over the UK and less than 14% in Scotland).

I bet he wishes he hadn't suggested the last one.

Mick, if you are reading this, the governing party, the SNP, constitutes 50% of parliament, in short 64 members. The rest is made up of Labour (38), Conservative (15), Liberal Democrat (5) and Green Party (2) members. There are 3 independents and a Presiding Officer who has no political affiliation.

Scottish Socialists and various other parties and groups can, and do, also field members for election. As far as I know there are no restrictions on who can stand for parliament, except those stated in this document. It's a  British government publication and the terms and conditions are relatively similar to those of London's parliament. (An exception being that  active members of the House of Lords can and do stand for the Scottish parliament. There are some sitting there at present, not least your own party's most excellent Lady Goldie.)

Voting is open to those over 16 on election day who are UK, Commonwealth or EU citizens living in Scotland (or on active service abroad) and registered to vote. Full details can be found here.

Recently your leader, Cameron, said that he hoped the Conservatives would win the Scottish election...hard to do in a one party state where the Conservative are not the one party.

By describing Scotland as a one party state, I assume that you mean that the same party has won the last two elections and has thus been in power, by the next election, for a total of 9 years, then I wonder how you would describe the governments of Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major which were in power for a total of 18 years.

Maybe you could enlighten us?

Oh, and if you lived in a one party state Michael, there would be no doubt about it. You'd most certainly know all about it.
**********

Incidentally next week's Analysis programme is on the subject of the monarchy and its future. Will George ever be king? It should be interesting. 

WHY SCOTS/SNP VOTERS SHOULD NOT BE VOTING TACTICALLY IN THE 2016 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ELECTION

Guest Post

Background

My name is Abu Haimi. I have been a supporter of the SNP since 2003 and I am now a paid up card-carrying SNP member (probably the only one in Malaysia). I could explain why I support the SNP and Scottish independence but I’d like to reserve that for another guest post (I hope).

I remember how disappointed I felt when the SNP failed to win a majority in the 2003 election and the euphoria when they became the biggest party in the third Scottish Parliament. My conviction in the SNP was affirmed in the 2011 election and I believe this conviction was shared during the Independence Referendum and the 2015 UK General Election.

Scotland now is at the crossroads on how to proceed as a nation, within or out with the UK. The SNP must truly understand the gravity and the burden of responsibility they are carrying; the entire nation and its people are on its shoulders.

I am compelled to write because of 9 June TNS poll which showed the support for Scottish Greens being enough to elect 10 members of Scottish Parliament. There is misconception being peddled around; it is possible to split the constituency and regional/list votes, resulting in more Scottish Greens being elected to the Scottish Parliament. It is erroneous at the very least to believe that tactical voting will allow this because of the complexity of the Scottish electoral system. Additional Member System is not as straightforward as First-Past-The-Post voting system and employs a series of calculations that must be fully understood and appreciated. I intend to elucidate of this matter so this confusion can be cleared off.  

I begin my argument by reminding voters (particularly the SNP ones) that all of these were possible because voters chose and kept continuously voting for the SNP in every election. The mandate allowed them to carry out and implement their policies, the ultimate one being the Independence Referendum. Therefore, crux of my argument is that voters should always vote for the parties/manifestoes they believe in.  

                                                                                                      

The Electoral System That Is the Additional Member System (AMS)

                                                                                           

The members of Scottish Parliament (MSP) are elected using the Additional Member System (AMS), which is much more proportionate than the Westminster one. However, a Scottish voter has two votes and each vote is governed by a different principle of calculation.

The constituency vote is the quintessential First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) vote i.e. in order to be elected as an MSP, the candidate must win 50% + 1 of all the votes casted. This can mean that a huge number of the electorate (up to 50% - 1 voters) may not actually be represented in the legislature if all members were to be elected solely on FPTP. (In theory that is how it works although, clearly, with multi-candidate constituencies the % required to win the seat can be smaller.) 

The regional/list vote is the proportional vote i.e. MSPs are elected from the lists provided by all contesting parties based on the percentages (this is not particularly 100% accurate and I will clarify later) of votes they have had received. What the regional/list vote does is that it will augment the constituency vote in order to give representation to the 50% - 1 voters, via the aforementioned percentages, thus making the Scottish Parliament much more proportionate. Crudely speaking, the correlation is that the more constituency seats a party gains, the less it will gain from the regional ones. The distribution of the regional/list seats are calculated based on the d’Hondt method.

It is well known why AMS was chosen as the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. Due to the d’Hondt method, it is generally difficult for any party in the Scottish Parliament to gain a majority (though it may be the biggest party). This is compounded by the fact that the ratio of constituency seats to regional/list seats is unequal, the ration being 73:56. Again, if any party wins a majority of the constituency seats, it will never be able to win a majority of the regional/list seats (as per the aforementioned correlation). The unequal ratio will almost automatically ensure that the regional/list seat gains will always be invariably smaller to the constituency seats. This is to expressly discourage a majority from being achieved. This subtle stitch-up remained true until 2011.

Why The Regional/List Vote Is Much More Important That Voters Believe But Very Much Misunderstood

Let us attempt to understand and calculate the distribution of the regional/list seats. Constituency vote can be easily understood as it is governed by FPTP principle. As it is governed by FPTP principle, the constituency vote has no bearing on the regional/list vote. Regional/list vote is governed by a totally different principle in order to achieve proportionality. Figures like the percentages of votes, actual votes casts etc. are RED HERRING. The only figures that matters are the ACTUAL NUMBERS OF SEATS WON by parties, as only these will used in the d’Hondt method.

The same can be said in relation to the regional/list vote. The only figures that matters are the ACTUAL NUMBERS OF VOTES WON by parties, as only these will used in the d’Hondt method. The others are RED HERRING.

The d’Hondt Method

For the purpose of illustration, the results for the constituency and regional/list votes for Central Scotland are listed below for our use:

Scottish Parliament general election, 2011: Central Scotland
Constituency		Elected member	Result
	Airdrie and Shotts	Alex Neil	SNP gain from Labour
	Coatbridge and Chryston	Elaine Smith	Labour hold
	Cumbernauld and Kilsyth	Jamie Hepburn	SNP gain from Labour
	East Kilbride	Linda Fabiani	SNP gain from Labour
	Falkirk East	Angus MacDonald	SNP gain from Labour
	Falkirk West	Michael Matheson	SNP hold
	Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse	Christina McKelvie	SNP gain from Labour
	Motherwell and Wishaw	John Pentland	Labour hold
	Uddingston and Bellshill	Michael McMahon	Labour hold

Scottish parliamentary election, 2011: Central Scotland
Party		Elected candidates	Seats	+/−	Votes	%	+/−%
	SNP	Richard Lyle John Wilson Claire Adamson	3	−2	108,261	46.4%	+15.5%
	Labour	Siobhan McMahon Mark Griffin Margaret McCulloch	3	+3	82,459	35.3%	−4.6%
	Conservative	Margaret Mitchell	1	±0	14,870	6.4%	−1.9%
	Liberal Democrats		0	−1	3,318	1.4%	−3.8%

The d’Hondt method used in calculating the allocation of regional list seats is as follows:

Quot = V divided by S + 1

where:

·        quot is the figures in the schedule derived from the d’Hondt method

·        V is the total number of votes that the party received in the regional/list vote, and

·        s is the number of constituency seats that the party has won.

The total votes cast for each party in the electoral district is divided, first by 1, then by 2, then 3, right up to the total number of seats to be allocated for the regional/list seats i.e. seven (7).

Party	/1	/2	/3	/4	/5	/6	/7
SNP (s=6)	15,465	13,533	12,029	10,826	9842	9,021	8,328
LAB (s=3)	20,615	16,492	13,743	11,780	10,307	9,612	8,246
CON (s=0)	14,870	7,435	4,957	3,718	2,974	2,478	2,124
LIB (s=0)	3,318	1,654	1,106	830	664	553	474

The regional/list seats will be allocated to the seven highest figures derived from the calculations as highlighted. For a clearer understanding of the significance of these figures, the table below ranks the priority of seats in terms of votes (from highest to lowest):

Seat No	Party	Votes
1	LAB	20,615
2	LAB	16,492
3	SNP	15,465
4	CON	14,870
5	LAB	13,743
6	SNP	13,533
7	SNP	12,029

To achieve the finality of seat distribution, several factors must be fulfilled; a) number of constituency seats must be precisely known (which MAY be predicted from the polls at best) and b) number of actual votes casted in the regional/list vote must be precisely known (IMPOSSIBLE until on the election day itself). Most tactical voters are harping on the regional/list votes. The above example shows the non-feasibility and improbability of the proposition to vote tactically.

I cannot fully emphasise how important it is for voters to vote for the parties/manifestoes they believe in. Scottish parliamentary election employs a sophisticated electoral system and a lot of Scots do not fully grasp this sophistication. Voters must understand what are the relevant numbers being used in the d’Hondt method and the red herrings. Minute difference in numbers and calculations can have big impacts. In an ideal electoral system, it would be fully proportionate and seats would be allocated solely on the percentages of votes cast. This is not the case with the Scottish Parliament.

Vote Smartly

Tactical voting is cynical and destructive. The idea of a Labour voter voting for a Tory candidate is dumbfounding. The total conflict of ideology is astounding. The result would be self-harming, literally. Each vote should be based on an informed decision. This allows voters to flexible and chooses their MSPs sensibly.

IN SHORT, VOTERS SHOULD VOTE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I will highlight several important reasons on why voters should not vote tactically in the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election. The reasons are as follows:

1. For SNP party members/voters, we are where we are because we keep voting for the SNP. The 2011 majority, the Independence Referendum, the best Westminster election results and the political awakening of the Scots, among others, were achieved because of this. The end game has and will always be the independence of Scotland. Only the SNP remains steadfast in this. Remember we are only halfway through; Labour Fortress Glasgow has yet to be won. We cannot deviate from this purpose. We have to keep voting for SNP until independence is achieved and/or a better proportionate representative electoral system is devised.

2. Tactical voting is only possible when the choice is binary-like (for example the SNP versus one of the Unionist parties). The outcome can be relatively predicted if the electoral system is based on FPTP. The 2015 UK general election illustrated this perfectly. The SNP won 56 seats because of the solid voting by SNP members/voters/Yes voters (45%).  The SNPOut campaigned failed because for the same reason. The Unionist/No voters (55%) failed to consolidate behind one of the Unionist candidates. This was also particularly true in the election of David Mundell. SNP members/voters/Yes voters (45%) failed to consolidate behind SNP’s Emma Harper and some blamed Green voters for splitting the Yes vote. If the SNP have had asked the Greens to vote tactically for Emma Harper, it is a bit hypocritical for the SNP now to ask the Scottish Green Party to stop asking SNP members from tactically vote from them in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election.

Polls are merely snapshots of what the electorate thinking and cannot accurately predict the outcome that is needed to vote tactically in a complicated electoral system such as AMS. There will always be core voters that will vote for their parties regardless. This is especially dangerous when dealing with Scottish Tories. They believe that they are experiencing a (self-perceived?) political renaissance in Scotland. I believe the Scottish Tories will go all out in the 2016 Scottish Election and will try to position itself as the main opposition in the Scottish Parliament. If the calculation is a bit skewed, not only the Scottish Greens will fail to win the regional/list seats, Scottish Labour or Tories will end up with additional MSPs.

Another quirk of tactical voting is as such; it is used TO VOTE OUT NOT VOTE IN. Tactical voting is feasible when the choice is binary-like. Under AMS, the equation is already SNP+LAB+CON+LIB. Now we are trying to get GR in it. Not only it is not binary-like, we are actually trying to expand the equation! The calculations will be very difficult at the very least and possibilities of distribution of seats are infinite.

3. Under AMS, Unionist Party will always be represented in the Scottish Parliament. This must be accepted. The caveat in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election is that only 50% of the electorate turned out to vote. I believe the recent poll safely gauge the percentage of the core Unionist votes. This means another 15-30% of the electorate may be voting in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election this and still open to persuasion by any political party (on the assumption that the turnout will be around 65-80%). For me, it is laziness if Scottish Greens would want to win just by riding on the back of the SNP. Voters should for vote Scottish Greens on their merit. All parties must start registration of voters drive and get as many voters to turn out on 5 May 2016. On the issue of 16 & 17 year-old voters, all parties must be vigilant and be prepared to do mass registration.

4. Scottish Green Party has different (Green) political priorities than the SNP. Unless and until the Scottish Greens are explicitly committed to Independence cause, please keep voting the SNP in both votes in order to ensure an SNP majority. This is most paramount. Vote differently if you think the non-SNP candidate/manifestoes is worth voting for (for me I would only vote for Scottish Greens if Andy Wightman [go Andy!] is standing in my constituency). If not, any vote for a party other than the SNP will serve to weaken the Independence cause (Refer again to Reason No 1).

5. Policy areas worth considering when casting your vote are land reform, local government, child care, public transportation (railways in particular), telecommunications and education. Any party promoting good policies on these areas are worth your votes. These policies, in my opinion, will strengthen and hasten the Independence cause.

Conclusion

The only way to gauge a party’s strength vis-à-vis the electorate is for all voters to vote for the parties they believe in. Tactical voting is almost impossible and inevitably self-defeating. In order to vote in Scottish Greens, the calculations (i.e. numbers of constituency seats and actual votes casted in the regional/list vote) must be precise and exact. Basing the calculations on the 9 June TNS Poll is foolish, misleading and not feasible at all.

One week is a long time in politics, what more a year. Polls will change; it may not even be correct. Many factors discussed in this post and other blogs have highlighted the uncertainty of tactical voting. Even the seemingly straightforward SNPOut campaign cannot and did not get it right.

The best advice I can give: VOTE SNP/SNP OR WHATEVER PARTY YOU BELIEVE IN.

(p/s: I wish we had had elected Emma Harper.)

* Some segments of the post were copied in toto from Wikipedia.