Here at Better Nation, we asked the candidates in Edinburgh Central (where Malc lives) to tell us a bit about themselves, about why we should vote for them and generally what they believe in. Jim Jepps beat us to it, asking each of the candidates for specific reasons to vote for them. We just gave them 300 words each. Here’s what they said:

Sarah Boyack (Labour): My mailbag is full of the quality of life issues people raise with me, about the security, maintenance and amenity of where they live.

In Parliament I have campaigned on behalf of residents plagued by antisocial behaviour and have persuaded the SNP to introduce new laws to hold irresponsible landlords to account.

I have also supported Labour legislation to prevent property factors from dodging their maintenance duties and am currently pressing the SNP/Lib Dem Council to take action to address the persistent problems that people encounter with statutory notices.

Our aging housing stock is not just a worry in terms of maintenance but because of the rising cost of energy bills. I want to see a green housing revolution to insulate our older properties while ensuring that new build homes are designed to energy efficient standards incorporating micro renewable technology. To achieve this Labour will use the opportunities created by the Feed in Tariff and the forthcoming Renewable Heat Incentive initiated by the previous Labour Government. This will not only tackle fuel poverty but also make a valuable contribution to meeting Scotland’s climate change targets and create skilled green jobs.

Edinburgh continues to face a shortage of quality, affordable housing. Since 2007, the number of new home completions in the city has declined by over a third, a situation not helped by cuts to Housing Association Grants. Moreover, housing and regeneration was the big loser of the SNP’s budget with a £94 million cut.

The Housing (Scotland) Act was a huge missed opportunity. Rather than tinkering with the right to buy system I would rather have seen the SNP providing more support to tenants and building more homes. During the next Parliament we need to find ways of building quality homes that people can afford to live in with access to green spaces, allotments and play areas for their children.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat): What’s happening in North Africa right now is an incredible  demonstration of what ordinary people are capable of. Whilst I’ve never known the sort of oppression that those in Egypt, Tusinia and Libya have experienced. I have complete solidartity with the belief that compels them to take to the streets. It is central principal that unites the Liberal movement across the world. People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.

It is the principal that has driven much of what we have already delivered in government in Westminster. Inch by inch we are rolling back the culture of control freakery and state intrusion that were the hall mark of the last Labour government, by scrapping ID cards and expunging the DNA records of innocent people, we are restoring civil liberties and personal freedom. Because people should not be afraid of their governments.

With a yes vote to voting reform and the passage of right to recall legislation, Lib Dems in government will have created a situation where MPs will have to work harder and listen more attentively. No more ‘safe seats’, no more duck houses. Because governments should be afraid of people.

This Scottish election is important, it’s being fought at a time of unparalleled hardship, and tough decisions must follow. Liberal Democrats have shown that when it comes to difficult decisions we are equal to that challenge. But we have an intensively positive vision for a fairer, greener and more prosperous Scotland. One in which people are trusted to make the decisions that effect them by devolving power locally, instead of centralising everything; where solutions are formulated to bring about lasting change, not just quick fixes and where opportunity and access to quality education exist for all regardless of background.

Ours is a vision of a Scotland that thrives as a world leader, in education, in green technologies and in tackling climate change. It is a bold vision, a long range vision and one that puts people, not politicians in the driving seat.

Marco Biagi (SNP): ‘What has the SNP Government ever done for us?’ asks the video, and heartily does it answer its own question. Minds are now focusing on the future. Labour – formerly the party of ‘No’ – has suddenly become the party of ‘Us too’. As well as being uninspiring, it seems unconvincing and at times faintly ridiculous.Council tax freeze? Free education? Maybe even minimum alcohol pricing? Really? It’s all hauntingly familiar…

Going into the elections in the SNP we are offering yeses. Real promises built on a record of commitment to those causes consistent in both opposition and government. Free higher education, protecting people from an unfair local tax we have worked to abolish, putting the NHS first, completing our school rebuilding, a Victims Rights Act, pushing towards an all-renewable Scotland and plenty more besides. And for all that some talk about ‘fighting the cuts’ it is only the SNP of the four main parties that back having the ability actually to do anything about them.

Indeed, I came into politics for Scottish independence, but I don’t support independence for what it is. I support independence for what it enables us to do – and right now choosing a different course to that taken by Westminster is more important than ever. My support for independence grows on the same ground as Annie Lennox’s – the hope of building a forward-thinking, ethical and moral, outward-looking Scotland. I would even go as far as to use the word liberal – with a small ‘l’ of course.

Edinburgh could be at the heart of that. As the modern capital of a better nation we perhaps have more to gain than most. This May voters should see through the polls and the pandering and the pointing at potholes, and do instead what these elections are for – choosing the leadership and direction of the nation.

Iain McGill (Conservative): I’m really pleased to be invited to take part in this online hustings – it guarantees me at least a couple of positive mentions!  A hustings usually start with the candidates introducing themselves – so here goes. I am Iain McGill, the Conservative candidate for Edinburgh Central. I am director of the Harmony Employment Agency who provide social sector staff across Scotland & Northern Ireland.

Between leaving education & starting my own business in 2005 I was an aid worker overseas, working in Albania, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique & Malawi learning Portuguese, Albanian & how to fly a hovercraft amongst other things.  I then worked in Edinburgh for a number of organisations working with the homeless in Edinburgh, including Bethany Christian Trust as Team Leader in their Care Shelter, 4 Square at their Cowgate Day & Night Centre & the Edinburgh Homelink Partnership as Special Projects Manager.

It’s not your typical background for a politician, but I feel it gives me a vital edge – when we look at the way Holyrood operates it clearly needs some real business experience on it’s benches – as a successful businessman I can bring skills that I see lacking and help Holyrood to start getting some value for money!

My background working in international development & then health & social care show were my priorities lie – I’ve spent my life advocating, helping & enabling those that need it – that would not change in Parliament – it would give a better platform to do it!

I believe the Conservatives have some exciting policies to make Scotland a better, fairer place – opening up choices in schools, freezing council tax – and lowering it for pensioner households – protecting the NHS budget & creating a cancer drugs fund – ending automatic early release and introducing elected local police commissioners.

300 words sure get used up quickly – but do engage with me to hear more! Find me on Twitter and Facebook if you want to find out a little bit more about my campaign for Edinburgh Central.

So there we go guys – the Edinburgh Central candidates in their own words. Food for thought for Malc and the 70,000+ electors in Edinburgh Central who get to vote for one of them.  Any questions, fire them into the comments and we’ll see what we can do about getting them answered!

This may well end up being one of those ‘type as you think and learn as you type’ type posts but I thought that, given that we don’t have the appealing system of one big region for all of Scotland, I’d look at one region in particular as May approaches. And, well, might aswell start at the top in the Highlands & Islands.

As a Central Belt lad and now a big City London immigrant, I would never seek to pass myself off as being au fait with the local concerns and electoral considerations at the very North of Scotland, but I can always have a go at some election predicting.

The eight constituencies can arguably be expected to go as follows:

Argyll & Bute – a close contest in 2007 with the SNP only 800 votes ahead of the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems will throw a lot of their dwindling resources at this seat as it is one of only a few potential gains for them in May and Jim Mather may have enjoyed a significant personal vote which masks just how precarious a seat this is for the Nats but, while a Barnsley by-election disaster does not a national tragedy make, one cannot see the Lib Dems going any direction other than backwards this time around. Against a weaker candidate than Mike Russell they may have had a chance, but this surely has to be an SNP hold – Mike Russell.

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross – A 2,500 majority for the Lib Dems over the SNP in the 2007 result (under the new boundaries). I really might as well toss a coin over what the 2011 result will be but given that the incumbent Jamie Stone is stepping down and the SNP’s Rob Gibson has gone from 3rd to 2nd from 2003 to 2007, I have to suggest he’ll go one better this time. SNP Gain – Rob Gibson

Inverness and Nairn – An easy enough hold for the SNP as it defends a 5,000 majority. SNP hold – Fergus Ewing

Moray – Again, an easy SNP hold with a 7,300 majority as things stand. SNP hold – Richard Lochhead

Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles) – It’s toss a coin time again. Labour finished a close second in 2007 with 5,667 votes to the SNP’s 6,354 in what will be a clear two-horse race in 2011. I expect there will be disagreement to this, Malc has already voice his objection, but I expect Labour to shade it here going by recent polling. Labour gain – Donald Crichton

Orkney – Lib Dem hold – Liam McArthur

Shetland – Lib Dem hold – Tavish Scott

Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch – I didn’t realise there were so many close calls in H&I. Lib Dems had 11,318 votes in 2007 and the SNP 8,534 (Labour – 3,857, Cons – 3,170). The question is whether the Lib Dems will fall far enough for the SNP to overhaul their lead and, like C, S &ER, the seat involves a retiring MSP in John Farquhar Munro. Indeed, the SNP’s Dave Thompson is the only candidate standing in 2011 that stood in 2007 and I have to predict that, all things considered, he will win through. SNP gain – David Thompson

This takes us onto the regional allocation and, with a national voteshare of Lab-36%, SNP-32%, Con-15%, LD-11% and Green -6%, weighted for H&I in relation to the 2007 result in this region, we have the following:

(1) Conservative (Jamie McGrigor)
(2) Labour (Rhoda Grant)
(3) Labour (David Stewart)
(4) Green (Eleanor Scott)
(5) Conservative (Mary Scanlon)
(6) Lib Dem (Jamie Paterson)
(7) SNP (John Finnie)

(8) Labour (Linda Stewart)

So, expected Highlands & Islands result (2007 in brackets):

SNP – 6 (6)
Labour – 3 (3)
Lib Dem – 3 (4)
Conservative – 2 (2)
Green – 1 (-)

So a Green gain from the Liberal Democrats once the dust has settled.

Tactical Voting considerations:
Greens – Vote Lib Dem to minimise the number of regional seats they can pick up? It looks quite clear that the SNP (and Labour) will win/lose regional MSPs for any FPTP seats that they lose/win. You’d need a real thorough analysis to pull some concrete conclusions though.

SNP – There’s not really any avoiding the Conservatives getting two seats here and Labour can only really expect to take 1 FPTP seat at most, Western Isles, so the tactical voting opportunities are minimal with the SNP challenging all seats in this area.

With the Scottish Parliament election and the AV referendum (yawn) on the same day this year, there’s been a bit of chat on Twitter regarding whether the constituency element of the Scottish Parliament election should also changeover to AV in the unlikely event that people vote Yes.  But I think there’s a better way to bring some more proportionality to the system as it currently stands, and that is to make the list component a Scotland-wide list, rather than dividing it into 8 regions.

This has several advantages – we’d be looking at consistent levels of requirement to be elected across Scotland.  In 2007, for example, 10,749 votes got Patrick Harvie elected 7th on Glasgow list, and 10,663 got the last SNP MSP (Dave Thompson) elected in H&I.  However, Lord George Foulkes needed 15,099 to be elected as the last MSP for Labour in Lothians and Stuart McMillan 15,191 to be the last MSP in West.  If we had national lists, in 2007,  you would have needed 14,700 votes to be the last MSP elected, and you this could compensate for big votes in some regions and smaller votes in others.  In other words – every vote would actually count.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, the result is much more proportional.  I’ve been playing with the numbers for a while (and I can email folk my working if anyone is remotely interested!), but based on the 2007 result (on the boundaries at the time) and assuming the constituency vote stayed the same, this is what we’d be looking at:

Now there are several points which are worth exploring here, and I’ll get to some of them now.

First, you’ll notice this would elect a BNP MSP.  That’d be a downside its true – but if people will vote for them, then they will win seats.  They were particularly close to getting an AM in the Welsh Assembly in North Wales in 2007 – so that’s something to watch out for.  But electing 1 extremist is not a reason not to consider this (and there are ways you could minimise this risk, should you want to, which I’ll come to in a moment).

Secondly, you’ll also probably notice much more fragmentation of the party system, certainly compared to what we have at the moment.  That’s simply because parties in most regions accumulate anything from 1,000 to 6,000 votes in any given region, but haven’t come close to the 10,000+ required to win a seat .  But add them all together in this kind of system, and suddenly it is enough.

There is a way around this fragmentation – and its a threshold.  In Germany, they use a similar system to here (though their split is 50-50 between constituency and regional members, and its a national list they elect from) and they put a threshold at 5% of the vote – don’t make that, and you get no members elected.  It is designed to stop extremists (especially since German political parties are state funded).  If we did that with this system, the threshold may have to be lower, since only the “Big 4” would make 5%.  I’m instinctively against thresholds – again, they reduce proportionality and, in my mind, are anti-democratic since they ignore some voter’s stated preferences – but I understand the arguments for them.  Not so much the ant-extremist angle, but the controlling fragmentation (and thus allowing efficient government) I get.

I mentioned before that this would be a more proportional system.  And it would be – here’s the numbers:

For all except the Greens (who didn’t – with one exception – stand constituency candidates) I’ve averaged the vote on both constituency and regional vote to give a reflection of party support as a whole.  And you can see how close the correlation is:  The SNP and Labour seat shares are half a percent higher than they “should” be, the Conservatives’ are half a percent lower, and the Greens (and the remaining “Others”) win the seats their vote share suggests they should. Only the Lib Dems are out, by 2% – a direct result of their winning more constituencies than their national share of the vote would dictate.  They get “punished” for it on the top-up element (which happens with the regional system too).

I’ve run the figures for 1999 and 2003 as well – they appear in the table below – and the results are consistent with what I found running the 2007 vote:

You can see that in both 1999 and 2003, if the lists had been national instead of regional, then there would have been slight differences in the actual outcome.  Starting with 1999 – Labour would have returned no list MSPs (meaning 3 fewer seats in total) while the SNP and Conservatives end up with 1 and 2 more list MSPs respectively.  In similar circumstance to 2007, the Lib Dems lose out a bit because they win an over-representation in FPTP seats while the Greens and the SSP would have gained more than they actually did.  In 2003, again Labour don’t return any list MSPs (and, again, like the Lib Dems, are over-represented because of their constituency wins) and the Greens/SSP add to their actual figures while the SNP are the same.

What is interesting to note is the comparison between vote share and seat share – and the difference that AMS makes when the national vote share is the deciding factor (rather than regions).  In both 1999 and 2003, Labour’s share of seats is still much higher than its share of the vote – this is because each of their seats was won through FPTP and not AMS.  In 2003, the SNP’s seat share is down on their vote share – but that’s because there were not enough regional seats to make up for their poor showing on the constituencies.  And the Lib Dems are constantly over-represented due to their winning more FPTP seats than their vote share would allow.  But look at the rest of the vote shares compared to share of seats (the 1999 and 2003 figures in the table directly above, 2007 figures in the one above that).  They are almost exactly correlated.

My point is simply this:  If we are considering a “small step” towards making the system more proportional, let’s forget about AV and simply make the AMS element of the Holyrood system a national – and not regional – list.  Sure this would make governing coalitions more difficult (no Lab-LD coalition makes 65 in 2003, for example) and fragments the party system further, but it IS more proportional.  If that is our priority, then surely it’s something we should be considering.