Under the Scottish electoral system if the Scottish Parliament has not elected a First Minister within 28 days of an election, it's back to the drawing board and a second election has to be held. At the moment it looks improbable that Alex Salmond and the SNP will be able to put together any form of meaningful coalition now that the LibDems have snubbed them.
There are two ways of looking at this from the SNP's viewpoint. You could take the view that in any rerun they would get more votes and more seats, making their bargaining position that much stronger, or you could take the view that if the rerun election takes place as Gordon Brown takes over at Number Ten the Labour Party would do better.
I take the first view. If the SNP won a second election they would be in a far stronger position. I would expect the LibDems and the Conservatives to show a drop in support and seats. It was quite clear that many Conservatives lent their votes to the SNP last Thursday. In several of the constituency seats the rise in the level of support for the SNP was exactly matched by a fall in the Tory vote. That trend could well be extended in any second election. As an aside, this electoral trend shows that there is still a core Tory vote in Scotland, which is somewhat higher than that shown by the results.
So if I were Alex Salmond, I would be distinctly unconcerned by the lack of progress in forming a government. I'd bide my time, make the other parties look unreasonable, and then 28 days later, ask the Scottish people what they think.
37 comments:
I agree. A second election would almost certainly increase the SNP's vote. Voters resent being asked, "Did you really mean that?" and are likely to answer with a resounding YES!
By the way I complained to the BBC about their election coverage and got the following bland reply:
"Thank you for your recent e-mail.
In dealing with any matter the BBC is required to have a fair and balanced approach and our coverage of the recent elections is no different. The BBC News website has a special section on the elections and the Conservative gains have been covered in detail."
This, of course, neatly glosses over the tone of their commentary. I never suggested they suppressed the new on their website, rather that they put a spin on it in their broadcasts.
It would also resolve the issue of spoilt ballots ???
Complaining to the BBC is a waste of time, they speak of Labour thro rose tinted spectacles, Who can ever forget the R4 interview when the interviewer said "When we have won the election"
If I had unlimited power, I would privatise the BBC . It's going to happen someday, IMHO the sooner the better
Good call, Iain. The Tories should abstain rather than oppose an SNP minority administration (possibly muttering pieties about so many spoilt papers, oh dear..).
Moreover, the legal challenges from Labour will only enhance the "poor losers" mood music.
Better yet, by the end of day 28 the LDs will probably have dropped their trollies with Welsh Labour - making them look less and less like principled players.
I see your point on the tories lending their vote to the SNP for the consituency vote, but if you are trying to use that to justify the fall in tory votes, then why would they vote SNP in the list vote (where the tory share of the vote fell in every list region)?
You make a very good point. I wrote a post on my blog regarding the same subject, the SNP should wait. Either for a re-run or by letting Labour back into power.
Going into power now will only ruin the SNP
Let's all hope that Salmond is not as machiavellian as you Ian, and that the Labour, Green and Lib Dem MSPs form a grand traffic-light coalition.
You suggest a very risky strategy. On one hand it could pay off, but on the other hand it could bring out more Labour voters who didn't bother to vote last time. I think Salmond would be silly to risk it, they have just won a Scottish election for the first time ever (Scottish Parliament/Westminster Scottish MP's) and to gamble on an even bigger win would be a very risky move, especially as we saw how much the labour vote hardened in the last few days.
People generally don't like the disruption caused by elections. If they see a vote for the SNP as a vote for uncertainty and for another election a month or two down the line this could push them back to Labour, who could be seen as a 'safe pair of hands'.
The SNP are in a very difficult situation. They 'won' the election by being the largest party but they're not big enough to govern alone. So if they formed the government they wouldn't be able to get their policies through and the other parties would have a field day pointing this out. "Look, they wanted to govern but they can't acheive anything".
The Lib Dems are being very cynical. Their position on the referendum is a get-out; they want the SNP to fail and make way for themselves. Why on earth would a party supposedly keen on local democracy object to a referendum?
The SNP approach to greens is, of course, tokenism. 2 extra votes makes no difference but shows the SNP are willing and trying to form a coalition.
Possibly the SNP should take the less worse option (in the long run) and have another election. But they are past masters at clinching defeat from the jaws of vistory.
Re: Trumpeter's email.
It's interesting to note the BBC's reply said that they are "required" to have a balanced approach, implying that it would not naturally have one and it must cover up its true beliefs.
I, for one, do think there is a liberal/left-wing bias in much of the BBC's output (which does match my own beliefs), but don't thnk it goes so far as to be party political; just on principles and ideologies.
I think you are right.
The electorate would respond in favour of the SNP if asked to vote again. Labour's attempts to scupper the result by resorting to lawyers is yet another misreading, by Labour, of the will of the electorate, and I would not be surprised if it is designed and directed by the red right hand of GordBrow
The SNP cannot trade the promise of a referendum for an alliance with Libdems, nor should they. I think most people want to give them a chance.
As for another election, it is a very good idea, if only to repair the damage done by the scandal of rejected ballot papers.
For those of us north of the border there is a feeling that we live in remarkable times, but is it a big yawn for those poor people imprisoned within the M25?
What second election? The other parties will form a government surely?
Stupid scenario.
Salmond goes to the parliament and asks to be endorsed as FM. Labour are now in the same position as Ted Heath in Feb 74. They cannot vote against and cause chaos, so they abstain and look weak.
Alternatively SNP try your policy and McConnell goes to the parliament and asks for a vote of confidence. Then the Tories and the Lib Dems have to abstain, as to do otherwise would suggest they care more for political manoeuvres than stability.
In the election that followed Labour would appeal to every Lib Dem and Tory voter to protect the union and punish the idiots leading their parties - and would get a lot of them.
The SNP won this election by less than 1% of the vote and all the evidence I have seen suggests they only got that because of the vast number of spoilt ballots. A second election would be a massive gamble for them.
The LibDems and SNP have very similar plans, except for this matter of the referrendum.
One way forward would be for the SNP to offer the LibDems a coalition deal in which the Parliament decides to hold the referrendum or not (when the time comes to decide) on a free vote.
However, if I were Salmond I would follow the Wilson tactic back in 1964. (Admittedly he had a majority but it was tiny and precarious) : Govern as a minority government, impliment only popular and generally-agreed measures, and defy the other parties to bring you down.
If they have any sense, the other parties will not want to do that at first as they will be blaimed for the subsequent election, so a minority SNP government would probably survive for a year or18 months before the rest can't resist the temptation any longer. Meanwhile the SNP's popular measures will give them a healthy lead and they will also have the opportunity to beat the opposition to the punch by calling the election at a time of their choosing.
---
As for Tories 'lending' their votes to the SNP? I don't believe it. As Unionsts before anything else, the SNP is the last place they would place their vote. They would vote Labour first.
---
Spoiled votes? Nothing to do with the SNP winning; there is abslutely no reason to suppose there were more spoilt Labour votes (for example) than SNP, or for anyone else.
I think Salmond & Co. would be better served by forming a minority government. The Canadian Tories governing with a minority government. They have been using the time to demonstrate to Canadians that the Tories are not the reactionary wreckers that the Liberals and NDP claimed that they would be and to acquaint Canadians with the idea of Stephen Harper being PM at the head of a parliamentary majority.
The SNP could use the time as a minority government to show Scots that a SNP government will more efficient and transparent and less costly than a Lab-Lib one and that Scotland's economy, society, and politics will not collapse under a SNP government. Thus, whenever Labour and/or the Liberals force an election, the SNP will be able to run as a natural party of government as well as a bulwark against Lab-Lib scheming.
" It was quite clear that many Conservatives lent their votes to the SNP last Thursday.."
Interesting. I agreed with the idea of a Scottish Parliament all along, but actually respected the Tories for their talk of preserving the Union (until this election campaign). Now it seems those of us in Labour were consistent all along and the Tories are just being oppurtunistic.
Sad really, and it's the Scottish people who lose out.
I hope Alex Salmond fails in forming a coalition because 1) He has little alternative and 2) I actually think Labour will do better in Scotland. At least they are more constitutionally honest than the Tories!
I think you'll find that the SNP vote generally increased by the share won by the Scottish Socialist Party at the last election - which dissipated as a result of the Tommy Sheridan debacle and the splitting of the left wing parties and vote.
There were some seats where this trend was bucked (such as Gordon itself where Salmond won due to a reduction in the Conservative vote - hinting that the old Labour cry of "Tartan Tories" may have somehting in it in the rural north east) but it was not the general trend on the night.
As for First Minister the likelihood is that Lib Dems and Conservatives will both abstain in the vote for First Minister meaning that Salmond backed by the Greens will win. I find it a little odd that some are criticising the Lib Dem position on the referendum. The pro-independence parties won around 40% of the vote; 60% were pro-Unionist. This is reflected in the parliamentary arithmetic. The Lib Dems are merely supporting a position they consistently gave through the campaign, and which has the backing of the vast majority of MSPs within the Parliament.
The real story though lies elsewhere. Keep your eyes on electoral petitions as a number of instances of spoiled papers given in the press over the past few days are clearly ultra vires the election rules and would found good grounds for challenge.
Remember, if anyone becomes First Minister within the 28 days, any General Election subsequently proposed requires a 2/3rds majority of MSPs to be called (86 out of 129).
The parliamentary numbers mean the SNP and Labour would have to vote for this in order to carry the motion.
The above comment is wrong - see Section 3(1)b: the presiding officer may dissolve the parliament if no FM is appointed within 28 days. 3(1)a - an extraordinary dissolution - may occur at any time with 2/3rds of the parliament voting for it.
That's what I said! If someone becomes FM, there is no dissolution, so any subsequent election requires a 2/3rd majority.
Re
:Let's all hope that Salmond is not as machiavellian as you Ian, and that the Labour, Green and Lib Dem MSPs form a grand traffic-light coalition.
This is not possible
There are 129 members
therefore any coalition needs 65 members for a 1 member majority.
Labour have 46 members.
Lib Dems have 16 members
Greens have 2 members
That is 64 members
Margo MacDonald is 1 member. As she is an ex-SNP, pro-independence, and has ruled out standing in coalition, a Labour/Lib/Green coalition is not a viable option.
The SNP should tell the LibDems to GTF, and form a minority Government. They should then propose a Constitutional Convention whish will examine Scotland's future relationships with ALL the countries of the British Isles, leading to a referendum in 2010 in which everyone will get to vote on ---the status quo, more devolved powers, federalism, complete independence.
If the 3 Unionist parties vote against this proposal they will be shown up for the "non-democrats" they appear to be.
I'm not ignoring the interests of England and Wales, but this discussion is mainly about Scotland. The move to have a separate England has its own momentum.
I can well imagine that Scots Tories voted SNP to give Labour a kicking, but let's not forget that the SNP is a Leftist Party, so it's out of the frying pan into the fire!
Excellent article Iain, and you finally hit the nail on the head regarding the Conservative vote, most Scottish tories had been predicting this for months.
As I have said before many of these loyal voters have stuck with us through thick and thin over the last 10 years, but they just could not miss the chance of kicking Labour out of power in Scotland.
"As for Tories 'lending' their votes to the SNP? I don't believe it. As Unionsts before anything else, the SNP is the last place they would place their vote. They would vote Labour first" Anon, go check your figures because Iain is right.
On the subject of the SNP governing as a minority administration, Annabel Goldie made it clear during the election campaign that the largest party had the mandate to govern as a minority party if no coalition was formed. I don't expect the Conservatives to block it, in fact looking back to before the election she seems to have made the right choices.
"Annabel Goldie made it clear during the election campaign that the largest party had the mandate to govern as a minority party"
crazy Tory logic. This from the lot who opposed PR but only continue to exist because of it!
"Labour have 46 members.
Lib Dems have 16 members
Greens have 2 members
That is 64 members"
So?
Goldilocks and her 16 bears wouldn't dare vote such a coalition down. to do so would be the abnegation of the Union - and the union is just about the only point of most Scots' fourth choice of party.
England is yoked to a cold, wet rust-belt that pours millions down the Clyde and the Forth every day, and the SNP are volunteering to take it off our hands. For goodness sake, let's not stand in their way.
The Lib Dems seem to be saying no to coalition talks until the SNP drop their referendum pledge, while the SNP seem to be hinting that they won't drop their referendum pledge unless the Lib Dems first sit round the table.
Stalemate at the moment, but it's not inconceivable that a way round this could be found.
"crazy Tory logic. This from the lot who opposed PR but only continue to exist because of it!"
"Labour have 46 members.
Lib Dems have 16 members
Greens have 2 members
That is 64 members"
Oh dear Anon, not getting your figures right tonight are you. I suggest you go and have a look at the results, and while your at it have a look at the headlines about the Libdems decision not to go into coalition with the SNP and deduct 16 from 64!!
Annabel Goldie is not sitting between a rock and a hard place like the libdems tonight.
Neil Kinnock director of electronic voting company in Scotland fiasco
The stench of nepotism and election fixing is getting stronger and more pungent as it emerged last night that one of the directors of the company DRS, responsible for the electronic voting systems and postal vote counting machines is non other than Neil Kinnock.
One of Tony Blair’s best mates, a guru to the prime minister, Kinnock was formerly a European Commissioner. Now a Labour Peer, he was hired by the Milton Keynes-based company in 2005. A year later, DRS won the lucrative contract with the then Labour-run Scottish Executive to provide electronic counting machines for both Scottish parliament and local elections.
DRS, which last year had sales of £16million, has also been involved in elections for the Mayor of London and the European Parliament, which were hit by delays.
Lord Kinnock stepped down from his EU job in 2004 but his wife Glenys remains a member of the Brussels Parliament. (source)
Angus MacNeil, MP for the Scottish Nationalists, who narrowly beat Labour into second place last week, promised his party would hold a second separate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the award of the contract.
A spokesman for DRS Data Services said: "There was a blockage at the end of the counting process that stopped the consolidation of the data.
Independent analyses, by experts neither paid by nor reporting to voting machine vendors, have discovered many areas for improvement in today’s technologies, yet most vendors systematically try to prevent such analyses.
Perhaps it is time for the DRS equipment used in Scotland to undergo forensic testing to ensure that the algorithms used are legal and have not been tampered with in any way, especially following the well documented cases in the US. here and here (scroll down for references).
One thing that needs to be done immediately, a Judge needs to order ALL electronic voting data be seized and secured, so that it can be examined at a later date should that be necessary.
Imagine this, after the election, someone discovers rogue software in the voting machines that flipped some votes from A to B. Or someone gets caught vote tampering -- changing the data on electronic memory cards. The problem is that the original data is lost forever; all we have is the hacked vote.
Remember, the results in Scotland were not as bad for Labour as the media had been telling us, nor what the election experts nor the political pundits and betting industry had predicted. Could they all have been so wrong. The question is, did Labour fix the machines to ensure their losses were only measured ones.?
The whole fiasco stinks
"The whole fiasco stinks"
Won't comment on the allegations mentioned, but lets face it 10 years of power is all it took for the Labour party to reduce the whole voting system in this country to a joke.
We have always been cynical about our politicians, but to actually achieve a level of cynicism and distrust in our democratic elections must be far more damaging. Sadly I don't even think an enquiry no matter how thorough will remove the stench from this voting fiasco!
Alex Salmond continually repeats that the SNP is only interested in what's best for Scotland. Nicol Steven's lot are a bunch of opportunist mamby-pambies who are never going to govern anything, anywhere and Salmond would do well to have nothing to do with them. Salmond should do exactly what you say and go for broke. The Scots would love him for it. The SNP would win hand down and it would show the libdems up for what they really are.
The thing that is stopping a coalition is that the LDs (& Tories but they aren't being asked) won't vote for an independence referendum. I don't think refusing that looks intransigent. Indeed Labour's main, almost only, plank in the election was that, bad as they implicitly accepted they were, voting SNP would mean the end of the union.
I think if the SNP insist on not forming a government on that issue it is they who will look intransigent & Tory votes lent to them may disappear. The smart move wopuld be for Labour to immediately change their leader. This would make them look listening and new & they would walk it.
Not sure I agree with your analysis Iain. I suggest that a more accurate analysis is that the far left and green vote in Scotland has gone to the SNP. This would make more sense as all of these parties support independence and have reason to hate (with the exception of the Greens) new Labour.
The mixed PR system in Scotland gave the far left 6 party seats (Socialist Party, Solidarity) and at least 2 of the 5 independents were also from the same political family. All of these were lost in the recent elections and the individual votes collapsed with the notorious Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity party getting 8 thousand in Glasgow where. If you throw in the 5 Green MSPs lost then you can see where all of the new SNP support came from.
I also disagree that the SNP would benefit from a snap election now. Salmond has looked arrogant in his moment of victory and his inability to form a government could well see the far left and green votes returning to their natural homes. Especially given their complete lack of representation now.
Left a sentence on Tommy Sheridan hanging by mistake. I meant to point out that in 2004 the Socialist Party got 31,000 votes whereas in 07 the combined votes for the Socialists and the new Solidarity party was only 11,000. Meanwhile the SNP went up by almost an identical margin.
It is not often that one has cause to congratulate the Liberal Democrats, but their principled refusal to acquiese to the SNP's demand for a Scotland-only referendum on the continued existence of my country, the United Kingdom, is truly exemplary.
The Unionists easily won the Scottish Election. And the United Kingdom is my country, which no one has the right to take away from me. Those are the two points that matter.
"England is yoked to a cold, wet rust-belt that pours millions down the Clyde and the Forth every day, and the SNP are volunteering to take it off our hands. For goodness sake, let's not stand in their way."
Rust-belt? I gather you've not been in Scotland for a few decades...
As for Scotland being 'on English hands':
(a) I Have the distinct impression that in Westminster, it's more a case of England being on Scottish hands
(b) Ditto doctors, engineers, accountants, soccer managers, etc., etc. (Every time someone moves from Scotland to England, the average IQ of both countries increases, they say.)
(c) Tax/spend-wise, be careful about what you wish for. It's true that per-capita spendinding on social programmes (education, health, benefits, etc.) is higher in Scotland than England. But(coincidentally) it happens that that surplus is roughly equal to the tax take from Scottish oil fields. And then, a proper estimate would have to take into account the £billions spent by the government centrally, on the civil service, defence, etc., etc., which Scotland contribues to through taxation but gets very little back into Scotland.
I'd hazard a guess that by the time you completed a proper analysis, you'd find that the financial looser in a split-up would not be Scotland but England.
[2br02b]
Post a Comment