It’s not been a bad election for the independence movement in Scotland. The SNP consolidated their position after increasing their share of the vote in spite of a hostile and biased media, and the reality that Scotland had one thing in mind upon entering polling stations last Thursday-stop the Tories. For most, that meant a return to Labour in a futile effort to keep David Cameron out of Downing St. Labour ran an excellent campaign that played on the fears of the Scottish psyche and they should be congratulated if not admired for doing so.
Although the loss of John Mason’s seat in Glasgow East is a disappointment for The SNP, all polling evidence suggests that the results will be very different when voters go to the polls in the Scottish General Election next year. The Scottish electorate is much more sophisticated than they are given credit for, and many Labour voters will return to the SNP when it comes to the Holyrood election.
Football pundit Jim Traynor captured the mood succinctly when he announced on his BBC RadioScotland phone in that he,“ would vote SNP because he believes in independence for Scotland”, but this time he , “voted Labour in order to stop the Tories”
Unfortunately, the electorate have failed and the possible sharp medicine of a Conservative emergency budget lies just around the corner. If as expected, The Liberal Democrats were to form a formal coalition, or a confidence/supply agreement with the Tories, David Cameron could be handed the keys to number 10 as soon as tomorrow.
There is also the intriguing notion that the Lib-Dems in Scotland will have to fight the next election with a serious “guilt by association” handicap. In a few hours time “the party of change” could well become “the party that inflicted Tory rule on Scotland”. As coalition negotiations continue, Liberal Democrat MSPs must be having heart palpitations at the thought of a Con-Lib pact- a policy of community care for paedophiles would be easier to defend than laying with the children of Thatcher.
For The SNP it is a salivating prospect. The Lib-Dems are their natural competitors for the anti-Labour vote, and in some ways they have been more of an impediment to national liberation than any other political grouping in Scotland. Apart from their core vote in the highlands, they have been adept at capturing votes amongst students in particular, and the 18-35 demographic as a whole in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is these voters that the SNP needs in order to achieve a critical mass in support needed in order to drive through both an independence referendum, and ultimately a yes vote.
It is one of the great conundrums of Scottish politics that the SNP, an effectively revolutionary organisation, has failed to inspire people under 35, and women. For the past seven years, polling evidence suggests that it is the over 55’s who are the most likely to vote SNP, and the under 35’s who are most likely to vote for a unionist party. It shouldn’t be so. Monumental social change must include the youth vote. In America it was college kids who took to the streets to stop the Vietnam War, who went south to say no to George Wallace and yes to Martin Luther King. It was les estudiantes who took to the streets during “The Quiet Revolution” in Quebec., and in the Ukraine’s orange uprising.Tiananmen Square, red shirts in Thailand, the list goes on. Despite the seemingly interchangeable nature of a position in the National Union of Students and a career in The Labour Party, it is the Liberal Democrats who have captured the cosmopolitan campuses and cities of The Central Belt.
The heady days of 2005 when The Liberal Democrats peaked in Scotland were due a great turnout from the anti-war movement and amongst students. The rest of their vote? Well, those are the people on which they are about to inflict a surprisingly frank Alistair Darling’s “Cuts worse than Thatcher”. The party has already been in decline in Scotland since their marriage with Labour in the first two parliaments. It’s almost painful to watch them collectively self immolate for the lusts of their southern masters. It’s a tough trade if you belong to a unionist party in Scotland-big brother always comes first.
There is still the slight possibility that they could change their minds and form the “progressive coalition”, but surely any government that involves The Celtic Bloc would raise a fire in the belly of Middle England. Could English independence be far away?It would have made for good television, if in the run up to the Westminster poll,a pundit had asked someone in The SNP what they would prefer?
a) The SNP win 20 seats.
b) A second unionist party will make themselves unelectable in Scotland
c) You hold the balance of power in the London parliament.
What a lovely chalace to drink from.It hasn’t been a bad election for pro-independence people in Scotland at all.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Notes On A Banana Monarchy
There’s been much talk of proportional representation and an unfair electoral system as England prepares to decide who shall be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg has intimated that electoral reform is not a deal breaker if he enters coalition talks after the poll, the issue will remain on the political radar for the foreseeable future. From a Scottish perspective it should be a done deal after The Parliament adopted the STV system as the preferred method for voting in Westminster Elections.
It once was a favourite conspiracy theory amongst nationalists that proportional representation was introduced into Scotland’s fledgling democracy as a means of stopping The SNP from obtaining a parliamentary majority. While it has had its limitations exposed, at least AMS (Additional Member System) began to address the bizarre effects of first past the post in Scottish elections. Perhaps it is fortunate that the blunt remedy England's voters administered to Labour didn’t materialize north of the border. Even if armageddon were to arrive for the party in Scotland, there could be the ludicrous scenario whereby The Labour Party finishes fourth and still ends up with the most seats.
In theory Labour could get %20.9 of the Scottish vote and still finish first in seats on 18. According to Electoral Calculus, The SNP could finish first with %27.5 of the vote and end up tied for second in seats with the Liberal Democrats (%24.1) on 17. Were there to be a modest Tory resurgence (collective national masochism), the minority party would still end up fourth with %21.7 of the vote and 7 seats. Such a result would seriously undermine what is left of Westminster's mandate it Scotland and expose the Scottish electoral system to international ridicule once again.
Were The Scottish Parliament to hold sway and STV is introduced for Westminster elections, Scotland can begin to rebuild some of its democratic credentials. Spoiled ballots, erroneous counts, missing electoral registers, and widespread suspicion of postal voting have all occurred under Westminster’s watch. Mr Clegg would be well advised to realize that a deal on PR isn't enough if he means to instigate an electoral reform agenda in Scotland. Full control of elections in Scotland must be transferred to Holyrood as part of any package of reform.
It once was a favourite conspiracy theory amongst nationalists that proportional representation was introduced into Scotland’s fledgling democracy as a means of stopping The SNP from obtaining a parliamentary majority. While it has had its limitations exposed, at least AMS (Additional Member System) began to address the bizarre effects of first past the post in Scottish elections. Perhaps it is fortunate that the blunt remedy England's voters administered to Labour didn’t materialize north of the border. Even if armageddon were to arrive for the party in Scotland, there could be the ludicrous scenario whereby The Labour Party finishes fourth and still ends up with the most seats.
In theory Labour could get %20.9 of the Scottish vote and still finish first in seats on 18. According to Electoral Calculus, The SNP could finish first with %27.5 of the vote and end up tied for second in seats with the Liberal Democrats (%24.1) on 17. Were there to be a modest Tory resurgence (collective national masochism), the minority party would still end up fourth with %21.7 of the vote and 7 seats. Such a result would seriously undermine what is left of Westminster's mandate it Scotland and expose the Scottish electoral system to international ridicule once again.
Were The Scottish Parliament to hold sway and STV is introduced for Westminster elections, Scotland can begin to rebuild some of its democratic credentials. Spoiled ballots, erroneous counts, missing electoral registers, and widespread suspicion of postal voting have all occurred under Westminster’s watch. Mr Clegg would be well advised to realize that a deal on PR isn't enough if he means to instigate an electoral reform agenda in Scotland. Full control of elections in Scotland must be transferred to Holyrood as part of any package of reform.
Court TV
Imagine it’s time for another general election (I understand that it’s a painful notion). The CBC has made arrangements for a leadership debate to be broadcast across Canada, a coast to coast opportunity for the political leaders to hawk their wares to the Canadian electorate on prime time television. At a secret location beforehand, CBC executives enter negotiations with the Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives. They hammer out a deal regarding the time and format of the debate and they also come to an agreement to exclude The Bloc Quebecois. In Quebec, presenters on Télévision de Radio-Canada tell their viewers that the Bloc shouldn’t be included in the debates because they are not standing candidates outside of their own province. The news reports portray the Bloc as irrelevant in the election, and justify their exclusion from the debate because Duceppe could never become Prime Minister. The people in Quebec, Anglophone and Francophone alike, take exception to the anti-democratic nature of the debate and inundate the CBC with complaints. The CBC respond by shutting down their political blog, the topic is banned from discussion on the radio phone-in, and certain presenters take the opportunity to berate The Bloc for getting “uppity”. What would the result be? Would there be honourable resignations from the CBC, protests on the streets of Montreal? Would the federalist cause be fatally wounded?
On May 6th there will be a general election in the United Kingdom. For the first time in British history, The BBC have arranged a leadership debate to be broadcast across the four diverse nations that meet together in the Westminster parliament. The BBC, in negotiations with the three main London based unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative) have decided to exclude The Scottish National Party (SNP) from the debate. The SNP are the Government of Scotland, and the largest party in The Scottish Parliament. They also believe in the controversial concept of independence for Scotland. The idea of Scotland withdrawing from the United Kingdom and becoming an independent nation within the European Union is vehemently opposed by the British establishment, and the fifth estate.
Many people in Scotland see the exclusion of the SNP as an affront to democracy. They see it as a “stitch-up” by the establishment in order to stifle debate and minimalize the SNP’s chance of success at the election. Last Sunday the SNP launched an online appeal in order to raise the £ 50 000 (75 000 $CDN) required to take for legal action against BBC in the Scottish courts in order to compel the broadcaster to include the SNP in this Thursday’s debate. The appeal was a rapid success. In thirty-one hours, hundreds of ordinary people across Scotland and England donated to the cause regardless of their political persuasion.
Martin Bell, a BBC employee of thirty-five years, and former MP in England said,
"I believe the election leaders' debates have been a great innovation, and are helping voters engage in the democratic process. But at the same time, the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru has been profoundly unfair to those parties - especially given the way the TV debates are so clearly dominating all media coverage of the election. And I believe that in future a better balance will have to be found to make sure that these parties are included and not squeezed out, as they have been in this campaign. I support the action being taken by the SNP in relation to the party's proposed legal challenge, as the issue is one of such fundamental democratic importance."
The legal challenge was launched on Tuesday morning at The Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP said,
“We’re not trying to stop the BBC debate; we want it to go ahead as planned and to be broadcast across the whole of the UK, including Scotland. But that must be on the basis that it is fair and democratic and includes all the main political parties in Scotland. That is why, legal jargon aside, our case is so simple and so straightforward. It is simply unfair and undemocratic not to be allowed to participate.”
Unsurprisingly the unionist parties are against SNP participation.
Labour's Lord Foulkes said:
"Basically the whole thing is a publicity stunt for the SNP."
David McLetchie, the Scottish Tory election campaign manager, also hit out and said,
"This is the most expensive stunt of the General Election campaign so far."
Publicity stunt or fundamental abuse of democracy, what is clear is that the BBC has failed to adapt to the changing political reality of The United Kingdom, and they have damaged the credibility of public service broadcasting in Scotland. Perhaps it is time they looked across the water to Canada for an example of how to deal with political coverage in these changing times. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in places like Saskatoon or Red Deer who don’t have much time for Mr. Duceppe’s vision for Canada. Would they go so far as to deny him the opportunity to have his say?
On May 6th there will be a general election in the United Kingdom. For the first time in British history, The BBC have arranged a leadership debate to be broadcast across the four diverse nations that meet together in the Westminster parliament. The BBC, in negotiations with the three main London based unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative) have decided to exclude The Scottish National Party (SNP) from the debate. The SNP are the Government of Scotland, and the largest party in The Scottish Parliament. They also believe in the controversial concept of independence for Scotland. The idea of Scotland withdrawing from the United Kingdom and becoming an independent nation within the European Union is vehemently opposed by the British establishment, and the fifth estate.
Many people in Scotland see the exclusion of the SNP as an affront to democracy. They see it as a “stitch-up” by the establishment in order to stifle debate and minimalize the SNP’s chance of success at the election. Last Sunday the SNP launched an online appeal in order to raise the £ 50 000 (75 000 $CDN) required to take for legal action against BBC in the Scottish courts in order to compel the broadcaster to include the SNP in this Thursday’s debate. The appeal was a rapid success. In thirty-one hours, hundreds of ordinary people across Scotland and England donated to the cause regardless of their political persuasion.
Martin Bell, a BBC employee of thirty-five years, and former MP in England said,
"I believe the election leaders' debates have been a great innovation, and are helping voters engage in the democratic process. But at the same time, the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru has been profoundly unfair to those parties - especially given the way the TV debates are so clearly dominating all media coverage of the election. And I believe that in future a better balance will have to be found to make sure that these parties are included and not squeezed out, as they have been in this campaign. I support the action being taken by the SNP in relation to the party's proposed legal challenge, as the issue is one of such fundamental democratic importance."
The legal challenge was launched on Tuesday morning at The Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP said,
“We’re not trying to stop the BBC debate; we want it to go ahead as planned and to be broadcast across the whole of the UK, including Scotland. But that must be on the basis that it is fair and democratic and includes all the main political parties in Scotland. That is why, legal jargon aside, our case is so simple and so straightforward. It is simply unfair and undemocratic not to be allowed to participate.”
Unsurprisingly the unionist parties are against SNP participation.
Labour's Lord Foulkes said:
"Basically the whole thing is a publicity stunt for the SNP."
David McLetchie, the Scottish Tory election campaign manager, also hit out and said,
"This is the most expensive stunt of the General Election campaign so far."
Publicity stunt or fundamental abuse of democracy, what is clear is that the BBC has failed to adapt to the changing political reality of The United Kingdom, and they have damaged the credibility of public service broadcasting in Scotland. Perhaps it is time they looked across the water to Canada for an example of how to deal with political coverage in these changing times. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in places like Saskatoon or Red Deer who don’t have much time for Mr. Duceppe’s vision for Canada. Would they go so far as to deny him the opportunity to have his say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
