WHEN is a supermajority not a supermajority? When it actively undermines the case for a second independence referendum.
Since the launch of the Alba Party there’s been renewed interest in arguments for so-called tactical voting in the upcoming election to supposedly maximise the Yes vote.
However, I broadly think this is a terrible approach to securing another vote on our constitutional future – even if I released a popular video in 2016 on how the voting system worked, explicitly noting how the Parliament could be gamed into a pro-Yes majority by voting SNP one and Green two.
But that was five years ago, and I’m not the only one to have changed my mind. Interestingly, some of those currently arguing in favour of tactically backing Alex Salmond’s new party are those who aggressively opposed my analysis ahead of the last election.
The argument goes thus. Since the SNP are likely to take the majority of constituency seats in Scotland, a vote for another party on the list is more likely to get additional seats for pro-independence politicians, while taking votes away from the pro-Union parties standing in the way. Our voting system is significantly better than the undemocratic first-past-the-post system used at Westminster, which is so broken that it handed the Conservatives a parliamentary majority in 2015 even though they gained just 36.7% of the vote across the whole of the United Kingdom.
It’s laughable to hold the UK up as a functioning democracy, especially when Scotland is a working example of how elections can be done better and more fairly. The semi-proportional system used for Holyrood means that the political make-up of the Parliament broadly represents the people of Scotland.
It does, however, lead some to think they can manipulate the system in such a way as to make it less representative of Scotland as a whole, but more aligned with their own political goals.
This is the route proposed by the Alba Party, and it is a route that, if taken, could have disastrous consequences on the legitimacy of our movement.
The problem with positioning yourself as a party whose sole purpose is to game the system into giving Holyrood a pro-independence “supermajority” is that it undermines the very mandate it claims to support. How easy will it be for pro-Union politicians to dismiss a legitimate mandate for a second independence referendum if, in their eyes, it wasn’t really achieved by popular consent but through manipulation?
This isn’t to say that it’s unreasonable to vote for different parties for the constituency and on the list. Many Greens lend their constituency votes to other parties for the sole reason that they are unlikely to have a Green constituency candidate to vote for.
Equally, some may choose to back a particularly good candidate from one party, while supporting the policies of another, or even just wish to see a greater diversity of voices in Holyrood.
THERE are legitimate reasons to back different positions across both votes but I can’t say that artificially inflating support for independence is one of them.
The Alba Party’s political strategy is, in my opinion, its own undoing – and it is a weakness that opponents of independence will gleefully seize upon.
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to dismiss calls to tactically vote in this election, above and beyond the fact that it would be a detriment to achieving a second independence referendum.
First and foremost is the simple fact that, although we may disagree with them, Unionists have every right to be represented in our Parliament.
In the StuAnon wing of the independence movement there has always existed a streak of contempt toward democracy in Scotland, whether that was the desire for a unilateral declaration of independence immediately following the 2014 referendum in direct opposition to the views of the majority of Scots, or the scepticism that Unionist politicians elected on the list vote have any right to be in the Scottish Parliament.
For whatever reason, and God knows it’s a real head-scratcher for me, there is enough support for the Scottish Tories across our nation that there’s no valid argument for functionally trying to overturn the democratic process to deny them a seat.
Equally, there hasn’t been a Scottish election in my memory where muttering of pacts and tactical alliances has come to any fruition whatsoever, despite being discussed at great length.
My own position on the Alba Party is pretty clear. Between their choice of candidates and cynical use of populist policies, it’s not a party I could even consider supporting regardless of their pro-indy credentials.
But outwith my own politics, the case for voting Alba when an authentic supermajority was already on the cards just doesn’t add up for me – particularly when it turns out that the coming storm never quite escapes the teacup it was born in.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel