Our last pre-poll guest blog comes from the Greens’ co-convenor Patrick Harvie, standing again at the top of the party’s list in Glasgow.
So the end is in sight. After a long campaign and, for me, a tough four years of trying to make an constructive impact with a parliamentary group of just two, we’re on the eve of the 2011 Holyrood election.
Much comment has been made of the dramatic turnaround in the polls, from a clear Labour lead, through a period when they were roughly neck and neck with the SNP, to some apparently commanding poll leads for the Nationalists.
Few people would say that Labour has helped itself much over the last couple of months. Their campaign has been lacking in just about every quality which could possibly inspire people to put them back into government.
Of course nothing is certain until the votes are counted, but if the polls are right about the scale of the SNP lead (and the LibDem collapse) then the SNP might just be faced with some far more profound choices than they had to make in the last session at Holyrood.
In 2007 the SNP were given an extraordinary opportunity: their first chance to form a government. I supported many of the things they’ve done with that opportunity, and I opposed many others. But crucially they proved that minority government was viable in Scotland.
They did so in what should have been a very weak position. Fully 18 seats short of a majority, they had to find support week after week either from Labour (which was rare) or from at least two other parties. Their success rate owes a great deal to the abilities and straightforwardness of Bruce Crawford, but it wasn’t easy and on many issues it proved impossible.
But if the polls are to be believed the next five years could see a much stronger minority position for the SNP. If they lead a government which needs only the support of any one other party to form a majority, they will have a far more powerful role. But with that power would come responsibility. They would find themselves faced with a genuine choice of political direction, which arguably they have not had in the last session. So the second question in this election is about the balance of power, and the Tories have made it very clear that they hope to exert greater control over the next government.
Most SNP activists, I’m pretty sure, are resolute in their opposition to any formal coalition with the Conservatives, and the party’s rules against such a deal still stand. But even those activists must recognise that the government’s strongest informal relationship has been with Annabel in the blue corner. It has covered motions both meaningful and symbolic, legislation and amendments on many issues, all budgets, and policy development too… even if the Tories gave little sign of interest in the actual delivery of changes to drugs policy once the press releases were out.
Faced with the option of maintaining and deepening that relationship, or cutting it off to open up new possibilities in the progressive ground of Scottish politics, what will they do?
There can be no doubt that on charisma, on face recognition, and in a personality contest for the “top job”, the SNP are leading the field. But if the SNP do find themselves with a choice over who to work with in the next Parliament, they will be challenged to do what they as well as Labour have so far failed to do, and construct a serious response to the economic crisis which acknowledges the failure of the deregulated free market model which has been dominant for so long. The lack of such a response from political parties which style themselves the “mainstream centre-left” has been dismal, and it has been left to the likes of UK Uncut, the Robin Hood Tax campaign, and many in the trades union movement to begin the task.
If the SNP are interested in being part of that response, or even leading it in Scotland, they must look to an alternative balance of power in Holyrood. There is simply no prospect that it can be done by a government which is reliant on the votes of the UK Coalition parties to get through its programme.
So the change at the top of the polls over recent weeks is important, of course. But the change lower down could be even more crucial. It could open up the chance for a long term realignment in our politics, and a greater unity of purpose between centre-left and radical movements, if the will exists to see that happen. Or it could leave us with a de facto centre-right government in Scotland despite the overwhelming number of voters whose votes and opinions lean leftward.
#1 by Caron on May 4, 2011 - 2:44 pm
“We’ll argue for a multi-option referendum with choices
including the status quo, a stronger Scottish Parliament
with powers defined through a participative process, and
full independence based on a written constitution, and
we will back this third option”
How does a multi option referendum work, Patrick? I presume you use AV to get an option which a majority prefers.
I agree with you that Scotland is at a crossroads. I suspect part of the Greens’ better showing in the polls (and the SNP’s for that matter), is down to a protest against the UK Coalition and the Lib Dems in particular.
It hadn’t dawned on me until Alex Salmond said it last night that there would be no vote on the final referendum deal, which worries me greatly.
I think that many people who are thinking of voting SNP or Green tomorrow don’t favour independence, and actually might well get it anyway. They need to think carefully what they are doing. The message should be don’t vote Green or SNP if you don’t want independence.
#2 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 3:05 pm
No vote on the final referendum deal? That is a shocking admission, and one which betrays the inner mindset of the SNP which is they dont care what sort of independant Scotland we have, just so long as we get one. Which is different to how a lot of people see the situation.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on May 4, 2011 - 3:35 pm
I am very confused as I had never heard of this idea of a double referendum. I had always thought that the settlement of what independence would mean would be made clear in one referendum with the process being something like:
SNP bring forward Referendum Bill, then someone decides if it is competent (this may involve several layers of the judiciary as I am quite sure the Scotland Act does not grant independence referendum powers to the Scottish Parliament), if deemed competent then agreement between Scotland & UK about what independence would mean (things like role of Queen, currency, share of national debt etc.) is agreed and then that is put to the people of Scotland as a referendum.
I had never thought that the idea was to have a referendum on the idea and then a referendum on the package. In fact, I dont think I have even read anything like that about any possible future of Scotland.
Can someone point me in the direction of where this dual referendum idea has been discussed?
#4 by James on May 4, 2011 - 3:44 pm
I’d prefer just Caron’s second referendum. Let a constitutional convention be stage 1 so the people are involved and know what they’d be voting for.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on May 4, 2011 - 7:09 pm
But a constitutional convention can happen without the need of a referendum. Pretty sure that the last one did a really good job with the need for a referendum (who knows, even the Nats might take part in this one).
#6 by Douglas McLellan on May 4, 2011 - 7:10 pm
*without* the need for a referendum.
Really should start reading what I am typing.
#7 by Doug Daniel on May 4, 2011 - 6:17 pm
It was discussed last night, in Bernard Ponsonby’s head, before he put this strange notion to Alex Salmond, who did well to even understand what the hell Ponsonby was on about. I’m fairly sure everyone else on the planet with any thoughts on a Scottish independence referendum correctly understood that the idea would be to put forward a bill, inform the public about how independence would work, and then let them vote on it in the actual referendum, with parliament then taking forward the electorate’s decision.
This ridiculous idea of having a referendum on the idea of independence – followed by a second one on the actual workings – has come out of nowhere. It’s an absolutely ludicrous concept, but as we can see, opponents of a referendum are already jumping on it, as if it is some sort of weakness. Ask anyone from a country that has recently regained its independence if they needed two referendums to do so, and I’m sure they will look at you as if you are insane.
Or just imagine the following:
Man 1: “Would you like to change the voting system to PR?”
Man 2: “Maybe, how does it work?”
Man 1: “Don’t know yet, but tell us if you like it now, and then we’ll ask you again once we’ve decided how it’ll work.”
Man 2: “Why would you waste money asking me now, when you could just ask me when you have the details in place?”
Man 1: “Dunno, Bernard Ponsonby thinks you need two referendums for changing things, so I’m just doing what he said.”
Man 2: “You’re an idiot.”
#8 by cynicalHighlander on May 4, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Plus “How many embassies etc” its a wonder they didn’t ask how many bullets the defense forces would be issued with, nonsense. Mind you Tavish did offer two truthful words directed at Alex “Clever politician”.
#9 by aonghas on May 5, 2011 - 12:38 pm
“Ask anyone from a country that has recently regained its independence if they needed two referendums to do so”
Underlying all this is the fact that Scots are not enough in favour of independence to go through with it yet. Countries that have become independent did so because there was a big majority in favour. Scots on the other hand are iffy about it and hence timid and worried about the mechanics.
#10 by Gryff on May 4, 2011 - 3:37 pm
Think a free option referndum would be a ref with two questions, like a trade union strike ballot, or indeed, the 1997 referendum.
Should the SG negotiate more powers? Yes/No.
Should the SG negotiate full independence? Yes/No
SNP and greens would campaign for Yes Yes, Tories for No No. I presume LDs and poss Lab Yes No.
I’d be willing to bet that Yes No would win.
—
I remember the 2nd ballot thing floating about when I first came up to Scotland. I can see the arguments against, but then their might be a lot of people genuinely making their decision on the kind of independent Scotland. The alternative to two referendums would be for the SG to do the negotiating first, and then ask the people, but that risks being a massive waste of time if the answer is no.
#11 by Doug Daniel on May 4, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Well, I for one truly hope that the combined number of SNP and Greens MSPs is greater than 65. It’s been quite unnerving to see the Tories crowing about delivering policies that the SNP have delivered, and I expect that together, the SNP and Greens can change the political landscape in Scotland, or at least reframe the political debate. Scotland needs parties with political conviction who still believe in something other than keeping Scotland in its place, and you only get that from the SNP and the Greens.
A well balanced post, Patrick. There had been a lot of suspicion in the early days of the campaign that the Greens were more inclined towards Labour than the SNP, but you certainly seem to be making your position far more clear here. Whether that’s purely because Labour seem to have destroyed their chances for Thursday is inconsequential. If the polls have indeed been indicative and the 2011-2016 session opens with a majority of pro-independence MSPs, then we can get Scotland well and truly on the right path for the future. A fair, prosperous, nuclear-free, independent future.
(As long as you don’t try to stop the AWPR…)
#12 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Speaking as someone who isnt a Green – I dont think their position HAS changed that much – just the nationalist perception of it.
I cant see anything in here that wasnt being said by the Greens at the start of the campaign – or indeed earlier. The fact that people chose not to listen to it is a different matter.
On the other hand, the fact that the Greens could work well with either Labour or the SNP is surely a positive point for our multi-partied parliamentary system in Scotland? Or is it that what we really hanker after is Government with a Iron fist?
#13 by Doug Daniel on May 4, 2011 - 5:59 pm
I’m not necessarily accusing the Greens of changing position, merely saying that any ambiguity seems to be pretty much cleared up with this post. To be honest, I never quite bought into the “vote Green, get Labour” hype, although there were certainly some nationalists who did, helped along by the Daily Record implying such a few months back.
Governing with an iron fist? Absolutely not – let’s leave the “strong government” rubbish to the right-wingers.
#14 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 4:15 pm
Oh and by the way, just because someone believes that Scotland is better off as part of a united kingdom – stronger together, weaker apart – does not mean that we want to “keep Scotland in its place”, whcih of course mis-represents the pro-union position.
#15 by Patrick on May 4, 2011 - 4:01 pm
I have to say I’m a bit nonplussed by comment about “no vote on the final referendum deal”. There will only be a referendum if Parliament votes for it, and agrees the terms and the process. It will only be won if the people vote for it, the terms being made public well in advance.
As far as I understand it, the only people who are looking to prevent a vote on this are Labour, the Libs/Con, and some on the more ‘Margo’ wing of the pro-independence movement who don’t see a referendum as the right means.
#16 by cynicalHighlander on May 4, 2011 - 7:03 pm
And they foist a pathetic AV referendum with the baggage of 5 year term parliaments I haven’t been consulted on that. Democracy suits unionists when it suit their objectives not ours.
#17 by Ezio on May 4, 2011 - 4:08 pm
So Unionists moan about the cost of a referendum and the “uncertainty” it would cause, but they want to have TWO of them!
And they argue that the Scottish Government shouldn’t be “distracted” by independence, but they think the Scottish Government should negotiate an independence settlement with Westminster before the people have even indicated that they are in favour of independence.
Makes perfect sense…right?
#18 by Danny1995 on May 4, 2011 - 4:24 pm
Does Margo want to declare independence without a referendum?
#19 by Caron on May 4, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Don’t Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives represent quite a lot of people? You make it sound like some insignificant wrecking faction.
There’s a lot of common ground between Lib Dems and Greens. Both have a long standing and heartfelt commitment to protecting the environment and building a sustainable future for the planet.
I’m not over keen on the dogmatic left/right approach, though. I think it’s more about liberal vs authoritarian. A liberal approach respects individual needs, recognises that you don’t always need big, unaccountable, inflexible monoliths to deliver public services. It’s about the quality of service available to people according to their needs. I don’t go much for one size fits all approaches. On that there is a fair bit of common ground between Lib Dem and Green although you are a bit to the left of us on that spectrum.
For me, I think the important things this new parliament should be considering are to do with tackling poverty, getting more affordable housing, improving the quality of life of our children and making us all healthier.
#20 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 11:35 pm
I quite agree. A referendum on independance is probably about number 17 on peoples list of priorities. Lets do something about the some of the 16-odd things they care more about first.
#21 by Doug Daniel on May 5, 2011 - 8:11 am
Well thankfully, we’re about to see everyone’s number one priority sorted out after today – the referendum for changing Westminster’s unfair majoritarian system to a new, ultra-fair, erm, majoritarian system…
Anyway, independence would allow Scotland to address many of those 16-odd things more effectively.
#22 by Patrick on May 4, 2011 - 5:05 pm
Yes yes, let’s do lots of good things and never do bad things.
Good grief.
Show me any party or politician who stands on a platform of “making people more unhealthy”, or seeking to “undermine the quality of life of our children”.
The point is that we disagree about what all of this means, and how to achieve it. The LibDems and Tories think it means entrenching the power of the market once more, and that it’s best achieved by slashing public spending (whether through big government departments or grants to small voluntary organisations) privatising the NHS in England and undermining the welfare state. I couldn’t disagree more.
You seem to think that there is a slight difference in emphasis between our positions. No. Tavish and co are sheepish in their attempts to distance themselves from their colleagues in Government, while refusing to oppose them actively. I want to see the UK Coalition brought down as soon as humanly possible. If we can tear their partnership agreement into little pieces and stamp on them, so much the better.
Finally, yes of course Lab/Lib/Con represent a large number of voters, my point was that they are the ones refusing a public vote on the constitution, but you’re accusing supporters of a referendum of not letting people have a say. Which is absurd.
#23 by James on May 4, 2011 - 5:06 pm
And people say I’m the Lib Dems’ staunchest critic..
#24 by Douglas McLellan on May 4, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Mostly we see the monkey. Sometimes we see the organ grinder.
#25 by James on May 5, 2011 - 10:13 am
Monkey approved this rude comment personally.
#26 by Doug Daniel on May 4, 2011 - 5:54 pm
This is what the TV debates were missing. Looking forward to the next round of debates, round about 2014, for the independence referendum.
#27 by aonghas on May 5, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I think the characterisation of the Lib Dems as rabid marketeer spending-slashers is unfair. They’d probably argue that when you run out of money, you really ought to deal with the problem rather than sticking your head in the sand. But I suppose for the Greens the LibDems are the target for winning votes, so the opponent must be savaged.
So, Patrick Harvie – the Lord Monkton of deficit denial? I can see where James gets his hard-left spend spend spend, “higher tax solves everything” ideas from 😉
#28 by douglas clark on May 4, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Is this the only post by a prospective MSP that doesn’t directly ask for your vote?
Quite astonishing and well argued too.
#29 by Caron on May 4, 2011 - 6:08 pm
Patrick, are you really replying to comments on the Eve of Poll? Very impressive multi-tasking I must say.
I’ve always been fairly relaxed about a referendum on independence. I don’t always agree with the policy decisions my party makes, as numerous posts on Trump, Megrahi and minimum alcohol pricing, not to mention welfare reform, housing benefit and the like. The wording was to approve the opening of negotiations on independence. It seems polite and logical, if you’re going to do that, to ask approval for the outcome before it’s too late.
Of course no party actively campaigns for people to be unhealthy or for kids to have a crap quality of life, but nobody really does anything about it. People who could be helped back to health are parked on benefits and left. I don’t want to take the benefits off them, but I do want them to get the counselling/treatment they need. I know from personal experience that, for example, Depression is horrible to live with but I’ve always been lucky enough to have access to decent therapy and support. I know of a young girl who’s just about to hit 20, who can’t go out because of depression andaagoraphobia, yet can’t get any help at all. It’s a total nightmare for her and such a waste of someone who is really talented.
When have children been mentioned in this election in any sort of meaningful way? By anybody?
You may work yourself into a frenzy wanting to stamp on the Coalition Agreement, but would it not be better just to accept where we are and finding ways of improving these things with what’s available.
What would you actually have done in the exact position we were in last May? Just sat there and waited until the second election which would have delivered a Tory majority? Sat by and watched while our economy disintegrated like Ireland’s as there was a real danger of at the time? Put together a coalition with a reluctant Labour Party which would have disintegrated within weeks because it was the last thing they wanted?
I still take the view that it was better to go into Coalition even though most of the time when Cameron’s speaking alone his words make me want to throw up. What he said the other week about people on Incapacity Benefit was vile, and then there’s been the immigration stuff, and the patronising sexist bull he comes out with at PMQs and his revelling in Bin Laden’s killing. Not that I shed any tears for the man, I just would have preferred to see him subjected to due process. This whole thing isn’t doing our party any favours, but I do believe we are limiting the Tories. We’re not getting everything we want, and I absolutely hate some of the welfare reform stuff, but this Government is doing good, liberal things.
We haven’t become Tories – if you want to see the difference between us look at Lynne Featherstone’s body confidence campaign which is making some progress on one hand compared to Nadine Dorries’ ill informed and bigoted attempt to enforce the teaching of abstinence to girls, because they are clearly the only ones who have sex. There are times I’m very grateful I live in Scotland.
The Coalition is here to stay for the forseeable future. This election won’t change that, whatever the outcome. I worry that some of the things you propose, like Land Value Taxation, could make life a lot more difficult for some pensioners, students and single parents, for example, who live in city centres. I don’t think you can just sit there and leave their rents at the mercy of the housing market which is already pressured enough. And, yes, I know that some Lib Dems like it – but what is important is how it affects families here and now. The reality will cause problems for some poorer people.
#30 by Max on May 4, 2011 - 7:48 pm
Crude oil was at $120 / barrel this morning.
None of the mainstream debate has touched on how to deal with the end of mass motoring that end of cheap oil will force on us. Scotland has some of the most car-dependent people in the world. Rural buses are being cut. Road equivalent tarriff for big car ferries will become hopelessly expencive. Of course high oil prices cause recessions which cut demand, and the price falls, but remember the oil price effect as we enter the double dip.
Land value tax will be good news for city center tenement dwellers since the tax will be on a tiny land area and split between 4 floors. City center mansion dwellers should pay alot more.
#31 by Danny1995 on May 4, 2011 - 8:26 pm
I see the forecast is for heavy rain expected tomorrow. Great news for the SNP, Greens and the Yes2AV campaign. It keeps pensioners away from the ballot box.
#32 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 11:37 pm
Not the “only pensioners vote Labour” fallacy again? How about some facts to back that up?