It is now exactly five months until Scots head to the polls in early May and the farce of 2007 when voters were faced with a confusing array of 3 ballot slips has been replaced with a situation where voters face, well, 3 ballot slips, the referendum on AV replacing the local council elections.
Potentially adding to this confusion, and perhaps even pragmatically, deviously leveraging it, Bella Caledonia has announced that “an independence referendum will take place on 5th May 2011”, enabling a sort of 4-for-the-price-of-3 offer come May 5th.
The plan, in Bella’s own words, is as follows:
So with this in mind, we, the undersigned, call for all Scots who support our country’s independence to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV voting slip on 5th May.
Let’s make sure the piles of “spoilt†ballot papers rejecting the British electoral system – and rule from London – are greater than those voting Yes or No.
Now, the needlessly pompous “we the undersigned” notwithstanding, I reckon this is a creative and innovative way of thinking outside the ballot box and is to be applauded for its ingenuity. It shows a very impressive level of commitment and passion for their independence objective and it shows a commendable willingness to not just lie back and accept whatever the state deigns to send our way. It is also unlikely to be much of a success.
For me personally, the independence issue just isn’t a top priority so my options will remain voting Yes or No on May 5th with regard to the actual question on voting systems being asked, not that my scrawling “INDEPENDENCE” across my Camden borough ballot paper would result in much, save for a clutch of bewildered counting staff at 3am on May 6th somewhere near London’s St Pancras station.
My main reason for taking a dim view of this venture though is that I don’t really see what a win would be. I can see how amassing 50% spoiled papers from all of Scotland’s referendum votes would be a massive coup but realistically that is not going to happen. Achieving 2% should really be the extent of anyone’s ambitions here and where would that get the Nationalists? Independence referendums are, as most would agree, a once in a generation affair so I wouldn’t expect Nats would want to use up their only opportunity between now and the year 2030 on something like this. It reminds me of Joan McAlpine’s calls for the First Minister to use a ‘Scottish Statutory Instrument’ to force an independence referendum on Scotland, despite the contrary will of the Scottish Parliament. It’s all just a little too strident and cack-handed to carry the necessary force required to create a new country.
Furthermore, not that I’m necessarily saying that it exists, but any expectation that the SNP will throw its support behind this is surely errant. National referendums should be conducted by Parliaments, as Brian Souter found when he tried to finance a plebiscite on Section 28 back in 2000. Alex Salmond would be dooming his party’s Holyrood chances if he was seen to be assisting in the perceived sabotage of a fair, if limited, Westminster referendum. Indeed, the SNP may be damaged even without any direct involvement, something that I wonder whether the organisers considered before embarking on this plan.
Of course, this is all to overlook the fact that AV would be a small step towards a better system. Scotland returned the same Westminster result in 2010 as it did in 2005. A whole decade where change was only delivered through by-elections is unsustainable and improvement, any improvement, should be too important to hamper. Even the incentive to undermine the Liberal Democrat position within the coalition and force an early General Election by voting ‘No’ would be irresponsible. First Past the Post has had its day and that day was somewhere in the early 1800s.
I don’t really know what May 5th currently means or will mean for Scotland but, call me a stickler if you like, the AV referendum will be entirely a referendum based on the Alternative Vote.
#1 by Paul on December 6, 2010 - 1:30 pm
Given the confusion in 2007, how many Independence supporters will turn up at the ballot box being told to spoilt their ballot paper by writing “INDEPENDENCE”, and actually writing that one the wrong one or both ?
Like you say, it is going to be a small amount but that would only affect SNP votes as the majority of Independence supports would vote SNP.
Anyway, I can’t see why Camden can’t become independent ? Do you have any oil?
#2 by Jeff on December 6, 2010 - 1:45 pm
Camden has a lot of jojoba oil around the market; sales margins seem impressive but I don’t think one could fund a state from it.
#3 by neil craig on December 6, 2010 - 1:45 pm
A vote is validly cast if it is unambiguous which way it is being cast. Thus if you write something across the ballot but still tick the bax it will be publicly checked but still valid.
I intend to use this to express my contempt for the politicians who have, for party & anti-democracy reasons, refused to put full PR on the ballot & left us with only a minor improvement.
#4 by Alasdair on December 8, 2010 - 9:15 am
Although in this case your vote will be counted for the AV ref, and your protest will go unnoticed / uncounted.
Pingback: Tweets that mention When is an AV referendum not an AV referendum? « Better Nation -- Topsy.com
#5 by Bella Caledonia on December 6, 2010 - 2:10 pm
Jeff – I have alot of respect for your writing and this blog but can’t pretend I’m not disappointed in this response. We are precisely trying to create a different sense of dynamic in a movement and to link the issues of ecology, democracy and self-determination, and ‘to not just lie back and accept whatever the state deigns to send our way.’
Our intention is to create a bit more life, insurgency and action about the movement, and to broaden it and deepen its intent. It seems both you and the Scottish Green Party are at best equivocal about the issue of independence (and possibly growing more so?) As you say ‘independence issue just isn’t a top priority’ – though this might surprise people who read your ‘SNP Tactical Voting’ blog for several years. Is this blog as mis-named? Alasdair Gray’s ‘Why Scots Should Rule Scotland’ and ‘How We Should Rule Ourselves’ included the very simple raison d’être explaining it was written to look at: ”why so many Scots have wanted independence; haven’t got it; should get it soon; and why life in a self-governed Scotland will be better but not easier’. Before continuing to argue: ‘This pamphlet omits many important things: an independent Scottish education now almost destroyed by British government action; Scotland’s usefulness as a separate testing ground for laws enforced in England (extra police powers, the poll tax) and much else.’
First of all – as we have just broached the idea I think it’s too early to say: ‘It is also unlikely to be much of a success.’ That’s your perogative but we had hoped that other pro-independence writers and blogs might have supported the idea. A great many have and we’ll be rolling out materials and fleshing out plans over the coming weeks, hopefully you might find some inspiration.
A couple of points worth clarifying. This is not an anti-AV action. AV is a banality. I am neither for or against AV. It is the Calman of electoral systems, the lowest common denominator of systems agreed by Unionist cabals to give the impression of doing something about Britain’s democratic deficit (experienced and manifest in various ways).
Second this is not an official referendum (obviously). So to say ‘Independence referendums are, as most would agree, a once in a generation affair so I wouldn’t expect Nats would want to use up their only opportunity between now and the year 2030 on something like this.’ I really can’t see this act being taken as a reason not to have a referendum. We are in various discussions but can say little about this. I should say though that our intention was for this to be a non-party political affair. It’s strength in a way is that it’s NOT sanctioned.
Our overall feeling about both the ecology movement and the independence movement is that we have grown timid and tame and need to re-capture some spirit and some hope and some elan.
#6 by James on December 6, 2010 - 2:28 pm
Hi Bella,
I’m a big fan of Jeff’s writing too, but he’s not an official representative of the Scottish Greens. In fact, as he says, his Green membership is with our sister party down south.
The Scottish Green Party’s membership did take a position at Conference, though, which was to argue for a Yes vote while campaigning for PR. We won’t be encouraging spoilt papers, and I personally think (fortunately for me) this is the right course of action.
AV is a compromise, and we can debate whether it’s more or less proportional. But a Yes vote has several key benefits. 1) it’s not a “rejection of voting reform” which would delay any further progress by years, 2) it requires more consensual politics and encourages parties to look beyond their core vote, 3) It means an end to tactical voting: we can reassure every Tory-phobic voter that a Green first pref won’t let them in, unlike say a Lib Dem first vote, 4) it gets non-Scottish voters used to preferential voting, so STV becomes “you vote the same way but we’re counting five constituencies together”.
I do support independence, the party is not heading towards unionism, but I also want to improve British governance in the mean time, especially seeing as there’s at least no guarantee of independence in the short- to medium-term. I’d also rather the Britain we eventually leave was left more democratic and accountable – it’d make for better neighbourly relations.
So yes, like Jeff I won’t be spoiling this ballot. It’s not the vote I hoped we’d see, but I want my opinion to heard on it, and one of the options offered is still distinctly better than the other.
#7 by Jeff on December 6, 2010 - 3:09 pm
If you do constructive criticism then read on Mike. And is it Mike? I don’t even know who “Bella Caledonia†is, though I do know that I am being strongly entreated to join it/him/her in something, which I find a little bit bizarre for a kickoff. I have a natural distrust of conversations, online or offline, when I don’t even know who I am talking to.
Anyway.
There seems to be a logic in your argument which goes something like: ‘I think this way, I think it’s a good idea so everyone else should think this exact same way’. Remind you of anyone? I have thought this before about your style and while it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, now seems a good time to bring it up.
By all means try to bring some dynamism to whatever it is you’re doing but don’t have a go at people who don’t join in with your specific endeavours. I hope you can see that it’s mildly offensive to suggest that any of us here don’t believe in a “Better Nation†just because we plan on voting Yes (or No) in an AV referendum rather than scrawl “INDEPENDENCE†over the ballot slip, as you would have us do instead. I think this follows on from your apparent view that media is split into unionists and pro-independence. While this may suit your personal objective of independence for Scotland, I see it as a flawed outlook.
Also, there’s a big difference between flirting with the idea of independence (as I do from time to time) and joining a campaign to create a referendum on the matter, while simultaneously eschewing a vote on a change to a voting system that badly needs updating. On that matter, you seem to have me well and truly pigeon-holed twice over and mistakenly so on each score. I started supporting and latterly joined the SNP because of Scottish Futures Trust and free school meals. I don’t know what you read on my old SNP Tactical Voting blog but if you came away with an impression that I was an avowed Nationalist then I can’t imagine how that came to be. I’m also not a particularly green Green and would probably be happier at the tax implications of a Caroline Lucas run Government than I would the environmental, though both sets of changes would be a vast improvement on the status quo.
To answer a couple of your specific points:
My confusion over whether you are calling this a referendum or not stems from your blog post saying at the top of it “An independence referendum will take place on May 5th 2011â€. You might want to change that if you have now changed your mind over what is happening.
I never said it was an anti-AV action you were embarking upon but, given that I personally am pro-AV, my spoiling my vote would in itself be anti-AV.
Overall, I’d say you’re probably right that spirit, hope and élan need to be recaptured and I did heartily commend you in your efforts, past and present, to do so. However, I am just a guy who likes politics and likes writing about it so when the little guy, like myself, says thanks but no thanks to any of your schemes, I’d politely suggest that you don’t have a go at them for it.
#8 by James Kelly on December 6, 2010 - 2:50 pm
I broadly agree with Jeff – I think it’s an interesting idea in principle, but with little chance of success, and therefore I’d be very reluctant to sacrifice my vote on the electoral system for nothing.
In response to Bella’s point about a non-party campaign being a strength, I think that’s a miscalculation. The only chance of an offbeat campaign like this working is if it has the backing of, say, a political party or a major national newspaper. Obviously the latter isn’t going to happen so it would have to be the SNP. With their support you could imagine perhaps 10-25% of people spoiling their ballot, which wouldn’t go unnoticed, so in those circumstances it might just be worth considering. Otherwise, I fear it’s a noble idea that’ll become a very minor curiosity when the history of this referendum is written. I don’t say that to offend anyone, but when you’re planning to invest hopes and enthusiasm into a long campaign, it’s important to be brutally honest with yourself from the outset about the chances of success.
#9 by Mike on December 6, 2010 - 2:57 pm
Your 1-4 list seems bewilderingly complex even for a wonk like me (careful with the spelling there). A key benefit of AV is that ‘its not a rejection of voting reform’. Wow – that’s one catchy double-negative slogan for a system most agree isn’t proportional, the key professed aim of the Lib Dems.
It would be like the Labour Party coming to power after 18 years then carrying out the Tories privatisation model – oops – that metaphor doesn’t work.
I note the SGP site has no mention of independence anywhere and don’t expect you to campaign on it. I think we were looking for allies in the wring place!
#10 by James on December 6, 2010 - 3:32 pm
Hi Mike,
Those are the actual democratic merits of the system, explained as one might to a reader of a political blog, not campaign slogans. How about the same list rewritten in two minutes?
1. A step towards fairer votes.
2. A boost for compromise, not extremism.
3. Vote the way you really want.
4. Make sure your vote means more.
Also, the SGP site has a whole variety of things missing from it, and it’s disingenuous to read absence from the formal campaign pages as the absence of a view. I recommend the last Holyrood manifesto if you want to know what the party collectively thinks on the issue.
#11 by sunsetsong on December 6, 2010 - 3:12 pm
Interesting to read different viewpoints on this. Jeff, you live in London so I guess it doesnt make much sense spoiling your AV ballot paper in favour of Scottish indepdendence. But for those of us who live in Scotland, and who see the AV referendum as utterly pointless, then a different approach is unavoidable.
I’ll be spoiling my ballot paper with the word INDEPENDENCE and urging others to do likewise. It doesnt matter whether the total of spoiled papers outweigh the officical Ayes and Naws. What matters is developing active support for Scottish independence and using whatever means are at our disposal to do so.
This initiative is a good constructive idea that can involved pro-Independence supporters in a campiagn that is not controlled by any political party, Perhaps a broader independence movement mayeven crystallise out of such a campaign. That would be a bonus.
Another way to look at it is this: why should Scots legitimise the Westminster government by taking part in their pointless tokenistic referendum?
These are all good coherent reasons why Scots should have the courage to do things our way, rather than jump like electoral seals when the British government in Westminster tell us to.
And anyway, a good strong VOTE INDEPENDENCE campaign running side by side with the official independence parties electoral campiagns wont do any harm to the independence cause. or the vote for the independence parties.
As the Wikileaks website states “Courage Is Contagious”. Meekly going along with the AV referendum is the very opposite.
#12 by Malc on December 6, 2010 - 3:51 pm
Another way to look at it is this: why should Scots legitimise the Westminster government by taking part in their pointless tokenistic referendum?
The logical conclusion of that statement isn’t spoiling the paper in an AV referendum – its abstentionism. Which means not voting in Westminster elections either – or indeed, having pro-independence candidates – because such an election can also be seen as “pointless and tokenistic” given it apparently doesn’t matter who we vote for here, we’ll get the government that England votes for.
I might lend my support to the campaign and do it, but only as a least worst option: I won’t vote for AV, because it isn’t the PR system we should have and I can’t stomach voting for FPTP. But I doubt it will have any real impact – sorry Mike & co.
#13 by alex buchan on December 7, 2010 - 10:11 am
Hi Malc
I think you’re right, on its own it probably won’t have any real impact, but what attracted me to this campaign was that it rejects the terms of debate as laid down by the coalition. Like the hike in fees, AV was not in either parties’ manifesto, and like the fees issue, the arguments for it are spurious and cover over the real reasons it is being put forward, which is to the allow the LibDems to say they won some concessions on democratisation.
I see this campaign as part of a growing emboldenment of people to resist the agenda of the coalition. This offers us in Scotland one way to do this, which is to use this as a means to demonstrate against the refusal to allow a meaningful referendum on Scotland’s future; given that we are likely to soon have an unwelcome tax regime imposed upon us.
#14 by Kenneth on December 6, 2010 - 3:55 pm
I strongly believe that the SNP should endorse the AV Referendum for a number of reasons.
I think that this ‘stunt’ while well intentioned will do nothing to help the independence movement and wastes an important opportunity to make a positive UK-Wide change.
#15 by Bella Caledonia on December 6, 2010 - 3:58 pm
Hi Jeff – yes it is Mike – may need to change that for Twitter and other purposes – not meaning to be mysterious.
As to who we are – we are a collection of people – just read our Contributors list here: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/contributors/ – it’s all pretty transparent and easy to access. What are we about? Again read our opening statement: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/about/ – soon to be updated with a new statement for 2011.
To me the arguments for AV are extremely weak and difficult to describe or articulate, but that’s not the point.
If you personally support it then good for you and no point arguing with you about this action.
The point of confusion may have come from your postion – which you admit is slightly confusing: ‘flirting with the idea of independence (as I do from time to time)’.
I didn’t mean to have a go at you – I mistook you and yours for something you’re / they’re clealry not, that’s fine.
Did we think / hope that people like yourselves and James Kelly might support his? Yes we did.
#16 by James Kelly on December 6, 2010 - 5:30 pm
Mike, it was always going to be very difficult for me to support it, because as I’ve explained over the last few months at my blog, I’ve been agonising at some length over how to vote in the referendum, and finally came to a reasonably firm conclusion a few weeks ago that I would plump for ‘Yes’. After all that, it’s hard to do a complete about-turn to support a spoilt ballot campaign that I genuinely feel is unlikely to have much impact as presently constituted.
I’ve no idea how important the support of bloggers was to you, but perhaps an informal consultation before the announcement was actually made would have been in order? I’m not suggesting for a moment that it would have changed your mind (indeed you’ve garnered considerable support from other bloggers) but it would have averted any surprise or dismay when one or two of us didn’t immediately fall into line after the announcement.
#17 by Laura on December 6, 2010 - 4:29 pm
It’s an exciting idea which makes a really dull vote a hell of a lot more interesting! I think AV will kick the chances of meaningful proportional representation into the long grass rather than lead to further step reforms – I can’t believe the lib dems have settled for it. Abstention would be far less effective than ballots spoiled in such a meaningful way. I hope your campaign builds a head of steam, worth a shot.
#18 by Erchie on December 6, 2010 - 4:42 pm
Type your comment here
Jeff
You are the one who brought Bella Caledonia into this. They do not hide who their contributors are.
In fact their contributors are much more transparent than who James, jeff and Malc of better nation are, and it is not hard to find out.
Stop living down to the Hamish MacDonell school of fact checking!
This is an interesting idea.Hard to assess if it will gain momentum and make an impact, but there are few outlets for actual public desires to be made known, and this is worth trying.
#19 by James on December 6, 2010 - 4:49 pm
Dude, that’s unfair. We’re very publicly listed on this site, and we comment as ourselves by name.
#20 by Erchie on December 6, 2010 - 5:26 pm
Fair enough, I overstated the case, but I had heard of, most of, Bella Caledonia’s contributors before I read who they were.
If I was a bit off the mark, what do you say to Jeff? The contributors are not hard to discover nor anonymous
I am pseudonymous, so maybe I have no right to talk
#21 by Malc on December 6, 2010 - 4:52 pm
I think it was the fact that the comment was posted as “Bella Caledonia” and not “Mike” or other contributor that led to Jeff’s comment. And Mike has conceded that he may have to look into making that clearer. He wasn’t arguing that it their site wasn’t transparent, simply that he didn’t know who he was debating with here.
Related – how is it not transparent who the Better Nation contributors are? We each have a bio under contributors, and we are all clear about where our allegiances lie. And whenever we have a new guest we add a bio under guest authors. I’m not quite sure where this criticism comes from I’m afraid.
#22 by Malc on December 6, 2010 - 4:53 pm
Apologies – while I was typing, James got there first. Which kind of underlines the point.
#23 by Jeff on December 6, 2010 - 4:58 pm
Well, not that it’s a big deal, but, irrespective of a page of contributors (and an impressive list too, I hadn’t read it before), if a comment is left in the name of ‘Bella Caledonia’ then how is one to know who it is commenting? It’s not like we have a ‘Better Nation’ comment option.
Also, how did Hamish McDonnell get into this!?
#24 by Erchie on December 6, 2010 - 9:49 pm
My apologies Jeff
Mr MacDonell has, on a few occasions, made statements that a brief bit of googling (let’s not dignify that by calling it research) can be shown to not be the case.
I was thinking since you dragged Bella Caledonia into this in your original post, you could have at least read the contributors and about of the site. that would, at least, have qualified as research.
Yours, from the freezing slush of Scotland
Erchie
#25 by DougtheDug on December 6, 2010 - 4:52 pm
Jeff:
Why would Alex Salmond’s rejection of the AV referendum doom his party’s chances? The AV referendum has been dropped onto the Scottish Parliamentary elections without a thought and with no respect for the Scottish election campaign and AV’s not exactly going to set the heather on fire. It’s not a proportional system at all and doesn’t produce a proportional result in an election. All it does is change from first past the post to first past the fifty in each individual constituency and ensures that the least disliked MP wins in each one.
You complain that Westminster returned the same result in 2010 as it did in 2005. On what basis do you think AV would have changed that Scottish result? In a post on your old blog http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2010/07/scotland-would-be-less-proportionally.html it appears that the 2010 result would have been even less proportional under AV than it is now and actually reduce the number of SNP seats for the same vote share which makes a mockery of your phrase, “small step to a better system”.
The Lib-Dems entered the coalition not because they believed in AV but because it gave them a fig-leaf that they actually had obtained some concession in return for getting into bed with the Tories. I’m not a Lib-Dem so why should it matter to me if a no vote or a complete rejection of their fig-leaf concession spoils their party? When did the Lib-Dems suddenly get turned into a protected species and why do we have to vote for a crap electoral system just in case the Lib-Dems and the Tories fall out?
I’m writing, “independence”, on my paper because:
1. I want independence
2. The Lib-Dem happy-referendum-clappers refuse point blank to give Scotland an independence referendum so I’m using theirs to get mine.
3. I want to show my displeasure with both the voting system proposed and the Lib-Dems in a pro-active not passive fashion by spoiling my ballot paper.
#26 by Jeff on December 6, 2010 - 5:07 pm
I never said Alex Salmond rejecting the AV referendum would doom his party’s chances at the Holyrood election, I said that supporting this quasi-independence referendum would.
I’m not going to defend the AV referendum too staunchly as it is a scabby compromise and the lack of a truly PR option is a damning indictment of the lack of follow through on Nick Clegg’s promise of a new politics.
I can understand people abstaining, I can understanding people voting No and I can understand people trying to turn it into an independence referendum. I just think that if you genuinely want to improve the voting system and move away from First Past the Post, then voting No to AV is a funny way of going about showing that.
How we vote may well get parked for a generation after this vote, but it certainly will if the UK votes No and gives First Past the Post a valuable mandate that it surely doesn’t deserve.
#27 by Mike on December 6, 2010 - 5:05 pm
I’ll comment as ‘Mike’ from now on. I think Better Nation’s pretty clear about who’s who and from where. I have no problem with that and I can see how Jeff as confused. My point is just that this was unintentional.
#28 by James on December 6, 2010 - 5:07 pm
Thanks Mike, that is clearer.
#29 by Jeff on December 6, 2010 - 5:09 pm
And I, in turn, didn’t intend to make a big deal out of it.
#30 by neil craig on December 6, 2010 - 5:13 pm
I don’t see how a vote for AV would “kick PR into the long grass”. Its effect is pirely that people voting for minority parties can do so wothout being disenfranchised but that is quite a lot. At the Euro election the majority of votes went to PR supportingparties (Labour then being against) so an election where people felt free to vote forwho they wanted would be likely to produce a more reformist result & a dig vote forchange would make full PR difficult to argue against.
On the other hand if the Con/Labs get away with a NO vote that will indeed justify them in opposing any future reform.
AV is certainly not the best option but it is the least bad choice we are being allowed.
#31 by Mike on December 6, 2010 - 5:15 pm
The irony is of course that – like in most UK elections – what we vote won’t matter. Who rules Britain, just as how these people are voted on is decided elsewhere.
This central truth about our political experience will one day dawn on us.
#32 by Erchie on December 6, 2010 - 5:28 pm
AV is a horrible idea, BUT, if the Greens in England can displace the Lib Dems as the second choice for Tories and Labour then there is an opportunity there
#33 by James on December 6, 2010 - 5:32 pm
I doubt we’ll take too many Tory second prefs, although the 1989 false dawn for the party was mostly disaffected Tories. But Labour second prefs would be a good step.. but nowhere near persuading previous Labour supporters to vote Green at the top and then Labour.
#34 by James on December 6, 2010 - 5:35 pm
Also, Mike, I just noticed that the top comment on your own site is a properly nonsensical Godwin moment. You might want to do something about that.
#35 by neil craig on December 6, 2010 - 5:36 pm
I do not want a large Green vote but certainly under AV if Labour was against or untrustworthy on PR they could credibly expect a lot of pro PR voters of both big parties to put them as a preference ahead of their traditional parties.
#36 by alex buchan on December 6, 2010 - 8:15 pm
From what I’ve read the Australian experience has been that AV has tended to entrench the position of the two main parties, so I can’t quite see where the idea that any party other than Labour or the Tories would benefit comes from. This is especially so given the fact that in UK general elections have become increasingly presidential contests and this focus on personality will mean that media coverage will continue to exclude smaller parties. In other words there is nothing to stop the Australian experience being repeated here.
I also can’t see any strong case that a vote for AV would make a move to a proportional voting system more likely. For one this hasn’t happened in Australia and secondly there are strong reasons why it wouldn’t happen here. For a start the Australian example will be cited and it will be in both Labour and the Tories interests to claim that the UK’s voting system has been modernised and requires no further change.
I would say that the LibDems agreed to it because they were persuaded that no system that broke the one member one constituency convention would get through parliament and I can’t see any scenario in the future where that would not continue to be the case
#37 by NoOffenceAlan on December 6, 2010 - 9:51 pm
If you want Independence, you vote SNP, surely?
In answer to the last point about Australia, 1 of the 2 main ‘parties’ is in fact, a coalition.
Personally, I’ll be voting ‘no’ in the AV referendum, because it is less proportional than FPTP (in the sense that even fewer people get the candidate they prefer elected) .
#38 by cynicalHighlander on December 6, 2010 - 11:06 pm
I know who I am in case anyone is worried.
The Alternative Vote – the system noâ€one wants
Its an undemocratic system as bad as if not worse than FPTP, why do you think GB proposed it and the LibDems ran with it. I was going to spoil my vote by voting “None of the above a grown up PR system”, Independence is less writing and more effective.
#39 by James on December 6, 2010 - 11:49 pm
What a dire report. It tells us that in Australia..
“In 2010 Labor secured fewer first preference votes than the Liberalâ€National Coalition but still managed to put together a coalition government.”
Yes, because there were almost 1.5m Green voters who almost all preferred Labor to the Lib-Nat Coalition. Check out the two-party preferred.
That’s almost a third as many Greens voters as Labor voters, yet just one Greens MP to 72 Labor ones. So no, AV isn’t fair. But it should be noted that with FPTP every last one of those voters would have been disenfranchised.
#40 by Erchie on December 7, 2010 - 12:06 am
I remember reading an analysis of this year’s election if AV had been in place. OK there is some guesswork involved, but they reckoned that that AV tends to strengthen FPTP voting results
#41 by Indy on December 7, 2010 - 9:57 am
Of course the SNP won’t offically support this but personally I do. It’s not just that I think AV will make practically no difference to the outcome of UK elections. It’s that I am enraged by the arrogance that is being displayed here.
Not only will the referendum skew the media coverage of the Scottish elections but the counting of the AV votes will take priority over the counting of the Scottish Parliament votes. Westminster has decreed and so it must be. When polls close we will all have to troop to the count to watch them count the ballot papers for an AV referendum that very few people give a friar tuck about and then come back on Friday to watch them do the Scottish Parliament election count, the one which people actually care about.
Such arrogance deserves to be recognised I think, don’t you?
#42 by James on December 7, 2010 - 10:39 am
I absolutely agree about the timing: it’s a disgrace, and yet again I’m in the bizarre situation of cheering on the Lords as they try to fix that.
However, this plan also adds another layer of confusion to that melée and distracts from the one I agree most people will care about, the Holyrood vote.
#43 by Exiled Nat on December 7, 2010 - 2:04 pm
Anyone who thinks spoiling a ballot about an unrelated issue is a complete fool.
#44 by cynicalHighlander on December 7, 2010 - 4:55 pm
Never mind after this weeks trial with the snow the SNP have booked a severe weather event for May 5th just for spite.
#45 by Chris on December 8, 2010 - 10:14 am
I don’t support Independence, but there is some validity in Bella Caledonia’s campaign. My biggest objection to the SNP’s referendum proposals was that they were trying to bounce a referendum and independence without doing the really difficult work of changing hearts and minds. In my opinion the proposals were a technocratic shortcut in place of winning a consensus.
I think people who believe in independence should by using imaginative campaigns, try to build momentum and, of course, political stunts are part of that campaign. Now I would much rather they voted yes to AV (although with this awful coalition I am wavering): but if it really means nothing to people who strongly support independence then it is a useful political strategy.
As support for Independence appears to be falling further, its supporters need to do something.
#46 by Indy on December 8, 2010 - 11:07 am
The point you may not have grasped Exiled Nat is that the AV referendum is going to be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election. So when I go to vote I will be handed a ballot paper for the AV referendum. I will be handed that before I am handed the ballot paper for the Scottish election and that paper will be counted before my Scottish Parliament votes are counted. In the run-up to polling day (or referendum day as we will not doubt be advised to call it) we will be inundated with a lot of debate and analysis about whether the Uk should consider changing the voting system ever so slightly. Not to P.R. or anything like that, just tinker with the existing system just ever so slightly. To such a slight extent indeed that it will make practically no difference to election outcomes. We will be treated to great passionate debates about whether the UK is ready for this giant step – never mind that the Celtic fringes of the UK have been quite happily using PR for years. And all this ballyhoo about a very small change in the electoral system will not only bore us all to death but will take precedence over the election of the next Scottish Government.
Frankly I think you would be a fool not to spoil your ballot paper.
Pingback: Who’s who in the four AV campaigns « Better Nation