CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Oh well… so much for my prediction that May 1 might not be a night for headlines in the Lothians. Margo Macdonald re-elected comfortably as an independent, Labour’s Ian Gray and Angus MacKay both turfed out, 2 Greens and an SSP candidate elected off the regional list and the SNP reduced to 2 list MSPs, albeit by an excruciatingly small margin. Who needs the excitement of the Big Brother house when you have the carnage of an election in Lothian?

Just 203 more list votes would have seen the SNP’s Dr. Ian McKee elected in place of the SSP’s Colin Fox. The electoral system played another of its cruel jokes on us at local authority level, with only 9 votes in Fountainbridge keeping Labour in power in the city. The SNP was deprived of any councillors in Edinburgh, again by margins of around 200 in all but one of the wards we targeted. Roll on the Single Transferable Vote and multi-member wards!

A KICK IN THE BALLOTS

Wily old Donald Dewar knew exactly what he was doing when he agreed on behalf of Labour to introduce a hybrid of the First Past The Post and Additional Member System for elections to the Scottish Parliament. FPTP retained an advantage for Labour while the list system, in allowing representation for any party polling around 15000 votes, was designed to deliver plurality rather than proportionality.

It was for this reason that the SNP badly needed to make progress in the constituencies. By this yardstick, it wasn’t a bad night, winning 9 and coming within 1500 votes in 8 others. This made it our best performance in terms of constituencies won since October 1974 despite the fact that in terms of votes cast, it was our worst performance since 1987.

There was always a danger that the emergence of smaller parties could lead to slippage in our numbers. The drop in the SNP and Labour vote saw the Greens and SSP increase their representation, albeit at the expense of the SNP rather than Labour. In another of those ironies which politics occasionally throws up, despite the fall in SNP numbers there are now more independence supporting MSPs elected than there were in 1999.

In the determination of certain sections of the media to turn up the heat on John Swinney’s leadership, its almost gone unnoticed that Labour had their worst result since 1931. While the hybrid FPTP/additional member system spared Labour’s blushes this time, their strategists know that the party will soon be in trouble if their vote continues to fall as it has been.

There’s no doubt that the overall slip in the SNP vote let Labour off the hook. However, the lesson from May is that where the SNP is well organised it can ride out the so-called national swings and deliver victories in Labour held seats. While the talk at the moment is of the SNP reappraising its tactics, the party’s opponents must be hoping that it is headed for a period of early 80’s style introspection.

The route to success for the SNP relies on putting down stronger roots in our communities and improving our local organisation to better deliver the independence message. In doing so, the challenge is to continue linking the constitutional issue of independence with the condition of Scotland and her peoples. If by holding our nerve in the face of a disappointing result we can bring this about, Labour will have a serious fight on its hands in 2007.

THE REFERENDUM STRATEGY – BEFORE OR AFTER?

The SNP’s decision to hold a referendum prior to Independence negotiations has never been wholly accepted by everyone within the party. Having kept their counsel, at least publicly, throughout the campaign, in the aftermath of the election there have been those who sought to lay at least part of the blame for a poor result on this particular policy. Consequently, there was much evidence of water being tested at last Saturday’s meeting of the SNP’s National Council in Perth.

THE CASE AGAINST…

The arguments against the referendum strategy are varied. Perhaps the most damaging charge is that by pursuing a referendum strategy, the party risks getting sucked into arguing for the referendum itself rather than explaining why people should vote for independence. This makes it seem like the party is sidelining independence, which then de-motivates activists and supporters.

Another charge is that the referendum doesn’t allow a finalised settlement to be put before the people. As the constitution is a reserved matter, the question is asked about what happens if the Secretary of State or the Advocate General rules that it is outwith the powers of the Parliament to hold a referendum. In the event that a referendum goes ahead, who sets the question? Who runs it and who oversees it? And finally, what happens if people vote against independence?

THE CASE FOR…

Previously, SNP policy was to win a majority of seats, negotiate an independence settlement and then put that to the people in a referendum. The policy was simple, straightforward, accepted by political opponents – and completely out of step with the realities of devolution.

The possibility of the SNP winning an outright majority in Holyrood, far less forming a viable administration out of the pro-independence parties, is always going to be slim. Being able to call on 65 seats as a viable mandate for negotiations is going to be even tougher.

The fact that people vote for parties for a variety of reasons in elections is reason enough for Westminster to ignore any such claim. It is far easier to win a majority in favour of a referendum authorising ministers to negotiate independence, than it would be to win a parliamentary majority for independence itself.

A VELVET DIVORCE?

Timing is of the essence, as independence negotiations are likely to be tough. Although the 6 month ‘velvet divorce’ between Slovakia and the Czech Republic is often cited as a example for Scotland, negotiators there did not have to worry about the safe relocation of nuclear weapons or the setting of maritime boundaries for oil and gas production.

Its also easy to forget that there are senior officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have had direct experience of the African and Caribbean Commonwealth states negotiating independence from Britain. Without a positive referendum result settling the principle at outset, the temptation for a UK government will be to try and string things along indefinitely, in the hope that an SNP administration gets bogged down domestically and loses popularity before it can hold a referendum on the finalised scheme.

While many aspects of the negotiations could take place quite quickly and amicably following such a vote, there are likely to be issues that take several years to resolve completely. By which time, an SNP administration is likely to have succumbed to the laws of political gravity. A governing party declining in popularity less likely to win a referendum, as voters take the opportunity to register their dissatisfaction.

The post negotiation referendum also risks alienating voters unhappy with a particular aspect of what is proposed. Look no further than the recent Australian referendum on the monarchy, where a republican majority voted down proposed reforms and ended up retaining a constitutional monarchy as a consequence.

No British government is likely to be moved by anything other than the clear and unambiguous mandate given by a pre-legislative referendum. Ironically, the best lead comes from Labour and their devolution strategy. We set out the terms we seek to negotiate in a white paper and then hold a pre-legislative referendum within the first year, while an SNP administration is still in the ‘honeymoon’ period.

This separates the independence issue from party politics, allowing independence supporters who don’t vote SNP to cast their votes in favour. It is quick, decisive, avoids getting bogged down in detail and most of all in a democracy, is now accepted by our political opponents as a valid route to independence.

So what happens if we lose? Well, we start work on governing, and from there winning another mandate for a referendum in the future. It is surely far better for the cause of independence to lose a referendum at the outset of an administration, than for the SNP to go into an election crippled by a ‘No’ vote. 

The pre-legislative referendum worked magnificently for Labour in 1997 - who is to say that it wouldn’t work just as magnificently for the SNP as well?

OUR ADVERTISERS
Please support our Advertisers by visiting their web sites

Send a superb bouquet of flowers from Wild About Flowers to any UK address. Use our special login name and password to ensure you get your special price negotiated for you by the Flag!
Login Name: Scots  Password: Independent

Buy The Scottish Saltire!

You can also purchase your own Scottish Saltire Flag from 0.5 yards up to 4 yards in size in our Shopping Mall. Prices start from £27.74 (approx $US38) including shipping.

SCOTTISH FOOD, TRADITIONS AND CUSTOMS
(if you have any suggestions on what you'd like us to include email peter@scotsindependent.org

See our Scottish Food, Traditions and Customs in our Features section

DATES IN HISTORY

SING A SANG AT LEAST
(compiled by Peter D Wright)

"That I for poor auld Scotland's sake
Some useful plan or book could make
Or sing a sang at least ........"

- Robert Burn

See the SING A SANG AT LEAST in our features section

A KIST O FERLIES
A Keek at the Guid Scots Tung

By Peter & Marilyn Wright 
(Note: All words underlined in this section are RealAudio links)

See Scots Language in our Features Section
for other poems, stories, songs, sayings, jokes and words in the Scots language

THE MONTHLY PRIZE CROSSWORD

Each month the Scots Independent Newspaper offers a prize crossword and we're now offering this online in the Flag in the Wind as well.   Should you complete the crossword by the deadline you can fax it over to the SI and the first correct one opened on the closing date will win a £10.00 book token.

SI Prize Crossword No. 42 JUNE 2003
[Click here to bring up the crosswords]