Vote shares are likely to raise difficult questions
AS the most uninspiring of Holyrood election campaigns crawls to a close, it’s hard to imagine anyone is relishing the prospect of governing for the next five years.
While it seems certain the SNP will win, it is unlikely to be a resounding victory. Even if lightning strikes twice and they achieve another majority, they might do so with a low share of the vote, at an election with a worryingly low turnout. Questions will need to be asked. Voters may reasonably ask what the Scottish Parliament is really for, and whether its composition actually makes any difference to their lives.
The result certainly won’t be as jarring as Labour’s landslide win at the 2024 General Election, but some of the figures may be comparable. Thanks to Westminster’s first-pastthe-post system, Labour won a preposterous 411 seats with just 34% of the vote – with the party doubling its seat tally despite a vote-share rise of less than two percentage points compared to the previous election.
A majority for the SNP will, of course, be far less easily won due to the Additional Member System used for Scottish Parliament elections, but the polls suggest a similar constituency vote share will be enough to propel John Swinney back into Bute House.
It’s interesting to ponder whether he will then be in a weaker or stronger position than Starmer, who doesn’t need support from any other parties to pass legislation but now can’t rely on his own colleagues to back him as leader. That stonking majority also hasn’t made the job of reviving the UK economy any easier.
Assuming he continues as First Minister, Swinney will have to dig his way out of a financial hole while also delivering on his promise of a “Plan B” when Starmer inevitably says no to his Section 30 request. Few would envy him these tasks, even if he has the chance to bask in the glory of a win for a few weeks.
If 34% of the votes for a huge majority sounds low, it’s worth bearing in mind that only 20% of the electorate actually voted for Labour, because fewer than 60% of those eligible voted at all – the lowest turnout in more than 20 years.
It is widely acknowledged that Scottish voters are feeling scunnered with politicians and unconvinced that their votes will make a difference – and you can’t blame them for that. Being scunnered is not the same as being apathetic. A low turnout should not be interpreted as a sign people couldn’t be bothered.
A highly skewed outcome like that seen in 2024 would, in the past, have inspired calls for a shake-up of the electoral system, bringing some form of proportional representation to Westminster. It’s clear why the likes of the LibDems are not banging that drum at this particular time, despite the fact that it could benefit them. Proportional representation also benefits Reform UK.
Holyrood’s system produces a more representative parliament than Westminster’s, but it is not fully proportional as constituency seats are still allocated via first-pastthe-post contests. The list ballot empowers voters to endorse a party at regional level, but not to choose which candidate should represent them as a list MSP. So they have at once more and less control, unless they are a party member who gets a say about who makes the lists.
Most voters will not know who
their list candidates are. Indeed, with the mass exodus from Holyrood and a new party in the mix, many might not know who their constituency candidates are either this time around. Reform has now lost nine candidates – the most recent one on Sunday – so even the ballot papers can’t be relied on.
IN announcing his resignation, Dr Tim Kelly, who was supposed to be Reform’s candidate for East Kilbride and Strathaven, said the party was not supportive of anyone “offering substance” rather than simply repeating a script.
Some of the substantive positions taken by Kelly include Covid vaccine scepticism and a belief that it’s “totally insane” to worry about CO2 levels, but that may be beside the point. It’s highly debatable whether Reform is standing candidates for Holyrood in order to influence policy on devolved matters.
It’s perhaps much more likely that getting bums on chamber seats is
Voters just aren’t buying empty promises
just part of Nigel Farage’s plan to keep building momentum around his party so that it reaches a crescendo in time for the next General Election. Candidates with policy ideas may be in for a shock.
We already know that the greater the threat of a Reform UK government, the more support for independence will rise. The party’s grotesque and confused latest announcement, vowing to take revenge on voters who back the Scottish Greens by building asylumseeker detention centres in their constituencies, is an unsubtle hint that Scottish voters are being used as pawns in a much bigger game.
We’re about to see big changes at Holyrood. Big questions will follow. Is the problem uninspiring politicians, or are we hitting against the constraints of the devolution settlement?
Voters just aren’t buying empty promises and uncosted policies – and many are only too aware that meaningful, radical change is only possible with independence.
However, of all Scotland’s political parties, it is Labour that most deserve the electoral oblivion they seem sure to face later this week.
WHILE services collapse and the UK’s complicity in genocide continues apace, Scottish Labour’s leader has instead promised that his day one priority as first minister would be to roll back the rights of transgender people.
For Scottish Labour to capitalise on a moral panic in the hope of political gain is beyond redemption. When the party wakes up with quite the hangover on Friday, I wonder who will look at its measly result
ing in party manifestos, the level of ambition shown so far falls short of the radical action this emergency demands.”
She urged policymakers to focus on prevention in order to reduce pressure on local services.
Brunjes added: “We know what works. Prevention, early intervention and joined-up services can stop homelessness before it starts – but only if they are properly funded and and consider if it was worth it. Some of the party’s more outwardly “progressive” politicians will, I suspect, eventually make clear that it was never their personal position, yadda yadda – but it doesn’t matter.
Politicians aren’t to be trusted at the best of times, but to be so casually flexible on human rights is the mark of someone who should never be near power.
Not least because this kind of “flexibility” is exactly why trust for establishment politicians is nonexistent. If they choose to build themselves a nasty little bed, they can lie in it.
But, dear reader, contrary to everything I’ve written, there is still hope. Absent as it may have been
Housing insecurity is no longer a fringe issue
delivered. This election is a major opportunity for all parties to show they understand the scale of the housing emergency and are prepared to meet it with the ambition required.”
The latest figures suggest that about 250,000 people are on housing waiting lists across Scotland.
More than 17,000 households are believed to be living in temporary accommodation, including 10,000 children. from this election cycle, there is much to read between the lines.
Establishment narratives are collapsing. The centre is breaking. And across the press and politics, there is an incredible desperation and absurdity to it all. Keir Starmer is posting TikToks of himself staring at helicopters.
And while Jeremy Corbyn and his coterie of London MPs may have significantly fumbled a rising leftist movement in Scotland, that energy was still there for a moment – is still there now.
So here’s to the new boss. Same as the old boss. They might be promising five more years of the status quo, but I’m not convinced it can last that long.