I AM gratified that the issue of SNP list votes electing relatively few of their candidates is being raised some time in advance of the next election.
For instance, in 2016 it took 953,587 votes for the SNP to elect their four list MSPs. On the other hand, it took only 524,222 for the Conservatives to secure 24 list seats, and 435,919 votes for Labour to win 21. To those who say there is no problem, I say, there’s the numbers. It took 238,396 votes to elect each list SNP MSP, but only 21,842 for each Conservative and 20,758 for each list Labour member.
What to do about it? Your letters page on Sunday canvassed a number of possibilities, but I think Ashley McGregor gets it nearest right with the suggestion that what is needed is “a little outside-the-box thinking by the SNP”.
READ MORE: The Wings party will have to overcome this crucial challenge
My own view is that closing Yes Scotland in 2014 is now proving a serious historical mistake. With its by then well-established brand as a focal point for all of us who support independence, of all parties and none, it could have acted as a forum for discussion about Scotland’s future. In the present context, it might have been possible for Yes Scotland regional members to put up a slate of candidates in each region, using crowd funding. Perhaps it’s too late for that now, for I noticed in Monday’s edition that Elaine C Smith has just been elected “first president of the Scottish Independence Convention”. How about it Elaine? Your country needs you.
However, as Steve Arnott points out, for such a strategy to work, “everyone would have to make some sacrifices and compromises”. Would they? Put to one side practical issues, such as what the policy position of any group – Wings, Team Scotland or Alba Alliance – would be on any matter that is not independence (incisively illustrated by Donald Anderson in his letter) and ask instead whether the SNP would go along with this? After all, it reduces their chance of a majority on their own to practically nil if they don’t stand on the list. And let’s be realistic, based on current polls none of the parties Mr Arnott mentions have even a remote chance of many MSPs at a future election if they stand alone. Currently the Greens have six – two more than the SNP – and the rest (Rise, SSP, Solidarity) none at all.
Yet the need is great, and David Mundell’s recent statement that there should be another referendum if there is a majority of “independence-supporting parties” suggests the reward could be even greater. In conclusion, while I agree with Jennifer Rodger that “this strategy will indeed be the deciding factor in achieving that decisive majority of independence-supporting parties at Holyrood”, I trust our politicians will not let us down.
Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton
CLEVER political tactics can win, even against the odds, and an Indy List Coalition Party in 2021 is certainly worth considering if we don’t have our independence by then.
A version of this was floated last year by Grant Thoms of the Scots Independent newspaper and really just needs the agreement of the SNP not to stand in the list to be a runner, as SNP list votes would be needed to make this work.
It could be done very simply with a party constitution containing only one clause committing its members to independence. Everything else would be a matter for the individual list MSP elected under the indy banner to decide.
This would give total flexibility to SNP, Green and SSP parties and Yes/indy candidates standing under the indy banner on all matters apart from indy. It would accommodate the widest possible diversity of candidates with an indisputable mandate for indy. What is there not to like? All that is needed is for all to put Scotland first!
Dave Thompson
Inverness
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel