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 :-)
