The Catalan election at the weekend has attracted a lot of interest here, and comparisons are being drawn left, right and centre. Peter Jones in the Scotsman finds it rather baffling that the centre-right independence party of Artur Mas lost vote share while independence-supporting parties overall boosted their position.
Jones suggests two main reasons for this apparently odd result, the first being the austerity imposed by Mas’s administration before the election, and the second being some kind of cultural argument that he either didn’t flesh out or I simply don’t understand. The idea that one of the reactions to austerity is a shift left makes sense, though.
And it’s true, the three other parties in the Catalan Parliament who now support some form of independence are all more radical than Mas: the Republican Left, narrowly now the largest opposition party with 21 seats; the ICV (the Greens’ sister party there, with a strong ecosocialist side) who went up to 13 seats, plus the Popular Unity Candidates, who won 3 seats.
By coincidence, the Radical Independence Convention met in Glasgow as Catalans voted. I couldn’t make it, unfortunately, but if you read the press, it sounded rather depressing. If you followed it on Twitter, however, it was buzzing with ideas and collaborations and points of contact, all united by two common themes. First, support for independence. Second, a desire for that independent Scotland not be a kind of timid low-tax tartan-austerity Westminster-remade-in-Edinburgh.
Instead, delegates wanted various more radical versions of independence, typically ones where control over the details of the constitution is vested in the people, where there’s room to build support for a Scottish republic with its own currency, a Scotland outside NATO, not beholden to the banks and the speculators, more equal, so on and so forth. It’s a desire which extends into the SNP too, despite the cautious approach the leadership seems determined to take, as illustrated not least by the close vote on NATO.
Again, by coincidence, the Scottish Greens picked their top candidate for the 2014 Euro election this weekend, choosing Edinburgh councillor Maggie Chapman from the party’s left. First elected in 2007, Maggie will be the Greens’ most experienced top candidate ever.
These three events look intertwined to me. The June 2014 Euro-election will come just four months before the independence referendum itself, and it would be a serious mistake to think the media won’t regard the it almost exclusively as a prelim for the October vote. Given that likely media narrative, let’s accept it, and confidently treat that vote as a test of views on the constitution.
If you want a more radical version of independence in October and after, voting Green will be the only plausible way to indicate that (apologies to friends in the SSP). If you want an independence referendum that isn’t just tied to the SNP’s agenda, either because you think that can’t win or because you’d prefer an open constitutional process, electing a Green MEP will be the only credible way to try and achieve it.
What’s more, to get a third SNP MEP elected in place of the Lib Dems takes three times as many votes on average, given the specific electoral system. In real life that varies quite widely. To take 2009 specifically, it would have taken 47,000 more Green votes nationwide to take that final place, but more than 60,000 extra SNP votes would have been needed to see the Nats get a third.
The risk of failure is substantial, too. Two pro-independence MEPs out of six, as now, and both from the same party: it’s quite a plausible outcome, and it would be seen as a massive dent in the Yes Scotland campaign. Electing Scotland’s first Green MEP, especially in a climate where this vote is seen as Scots giving their view on the constitution: that’d be a major prize for Yes.
Just as in Catalonia, that way the main party of independence might make no progress, but the cause of independence itself can be advanced and diversified at the same time. It’ll mean the Greens making an explicit pitch for the Radical Independence Convention vote in the runup to that June, and I hope that’s how the party chooses to take it. Cllr Chapman’s well placed to lead that argument.
#1 by Thomas Widmann on November 28, 2012 - 1:56 pm
Analysing the ERC as a left-wing version of the CiU is misleading, I think. The ERC as a party is 100% in favour of independence, where the CiU is lukewarm. There’s an argument to be had that Mas (of the CiU) strengthened the ERC rather than his own party by talking up independence.
The fact that the Greens are less strongly committed to independence than the SNP makes me think it’s unlikely the ERC’s success can be automatically transferred to the Greens here.
#2 by James on November 28, 2012 - 1:59 pm
I don’t accept the first half of your last sentence there. Greens are committed to a more radical independence than the SNP’s version: our own currency, a republic, a democratically chosen constitution, etc etc. And I disagree that a key divider in the Catalan election wasn’t left v centre-right: even Jones sees that. I think a position opposing the SNP’s local austerity (the CT freeze) will eventually gain traction. But you’re right at the end, there’s nothing automatic that can be relied upon, merely some parallels, to my mind.
#3 by Iain Menzies on November 28, 2012 - 2:31 pm
I dont doubt that you are right about green policy re indy. However thats not always how it comes across. Anytime i have seen Patrick Harvey on a panel with someone from the SNP where they are both ment to be essentially on the same side, he just doesnt seem as keen on indy as the SNP rep is.
No one doubts that the SNP are pro indy….but i think you would agree that people dont see indy as being the greens principle issue.
#4 by James on November 28, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Of course I’d agree with that last bit – that’s still probably 80% pure environment plus 20% equalities, social justice, other stuff Greens have worked on.
#5 by BM on November 28, 2012 - 1:58 pm
Mas’ CiU wasn’t pro-independence before the beginning of campaigning. The CiU had the support of Catalans who were against independence at the election before this one. If you don’t support independence, why would you continue to vote CiU, when they have made it clear that they will seek what you don’t want.
I predict that there will be some very interesting vote transfer patterns, just like the ones form the last Scottish election (Lib -> SNP/Labour, Lab -> SNP, SNP -> Green), and I hope someone in Catalonia commissions and carries out such a study.
#6 by Tom Cresswell on November 29, 2012 - 7:10 pm
What I’ve said repetitively for the past couple of years is that the best strategy for the 2014 European Parliament elections would be to have the SNP and Scottish Greens stand on a joint list. The number of SNP or Green voters who would be put off from voting for a joint list are virtually miniscule, and as you say it would be in the SNP’s interest 2 SNP MEPs and 1 Green rether then 2 SNP and 4 Unionists, even if it means having to have a Green candidate second on their list…
There’s also a bit of mistake in your analysis of the 2009 results. It wasn’t the Lib Dems that won the last seat but Labour (The order the candidates were elected was 1) SNP, 2) Lab, 3) Con, 4) SNP, 5) LD, 6) Lab). Also it was actually the SNP who were closer to getting the final seat, only about 23,000 extra votes were needed as opposed to 35,000 for the Greens.
The reason for this is that the seats are distributed Proportionally by the d’Hont method, which means that it is actually easier for a larger party to win the last seats than a smaller party, and I believe someone wrote an article on this very blog explaining how the SNP owe their majority to the d’Hont method and had the Saint-Legue method been used the Greens would have gained five seats at the expense of the SNP (Such as Mark MacDonald in NE Scotland and Annabelle Ewing in Mid & Fife). For this reason it would be beneficial to both parties (who are in the same European Grouping by the way) to combine their b=votes and allow them to win an extra seat.
#7 by Jeff on December 1, 2012 - 2:22 pm
I would welcome that, it would certainly make it an easier decision for me at election time.
I don’t think the Greens would go for it as they are already vulnerable to be looking the green wing of the SNP party and this would certainly not help that. The SNP is also a very pale green party when it comes to policy, look at the emissions targets being missed and the spending on cars/roads. Plenty of policy differences for them to stand on a separate ticket, and I fancy either the SNP or Greens to get that sixth spot either way so I don’t see the value in the Greens risking their political independnece for a seat they might win anyway.
Would be a very clever way to carve up 50% of those seats if both parties were up for it, definitely. (that said, the Greens have already picked their Euro candidate so it’s probably too later – Maggie Chapman)
#8 by Ross on November 30, 2012 - 7:54 pm
Tom that’s a colossal misunderstanding of Green voters if you think a joint list with an oil-loving, corporation tax cutting, nationalist party wouldn’t put them off. We agree on independence and are both to the Left of the political centre (though the SNP swing the other way on certain issues) but we are not similar parties.
I also think you’ve got your numbers wrong on the 2009 result.
#9 by James on December 3, 2012 - 2:31 pm
It’s right that Labour got the last slot, but I think it’s also right that it’s the LD seat that’s up for grabs, hence the calculations. Ross – my view is that the SNP are socially left of centre (instincts pretty good on equalities, John Mason notwithstanding) but economically right-ish.