First past the post system is to blame for democratic deficit
WILLIAM Durward (Letters, December 8) is concerned about the arithmetic of the SNP’s landslide victory in 2011, and questions its democratic, if not its legal validity, claiming that it resulted from “first past the post prevailing”.
First past the post did not prevail, though – the Scottish Government is elected on the basis of proportional representation called the d’Hondt system, specifically adopted by the Westminster Government to stop any one party forming the government of Scotland – especially the SNP – and to ensure a permanent state of coalition for the new Scottish Parliament. The fact that this failed spectacularly in 2011, to the dismay of the Westminster Unionist parties – and the utter horror of the Scottish “branch office” of the London Labour Party – simply underlined the magnitude of the SNP’s democratic victory.
If Mr Durward wants to find a government elected by first past the post he need look no further than Westminster, which operates this system, and indeed re-endorsed it in a Commons vote just a few years ago. Not only does this frequently result in a minority of the electorate determining the government of UK, it has created a democratic deficit that ensured that Scotland did not get the government it voted for in a majority of elections.
In the 2010 General Election, this system produced initially a hung Parliament, then the ill-fated Coalition Government that has brought us to our present parlous state.
Who knows what 2015 will produce under the same first past the post system? We can be sure, however, that it will not be the ideal democratic outcome that Mr Durward hopes for. Peter Curran, 1 B Main Street, Kirkliston. THE quote often attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, “Lies, damned lies and statistics”, surely is appropriate in relation to certain contributors’ manipulation of the referendum voting. I expect any day now to find out that statistically I was the only person who voted Yes.
However William Durward takes the absurdity a step further. Now it is the SNP’s crime that they gained an overall majority in a parliament which the Unionists (with their usual stunning efficiency) had designed to prevent this very event ever occurring. It would appear that he advocates the party in power should amend the voting to ensure that they cannot ever get back into power. I have checked my history books and am having difficulty finding any such action by any Unionist party.
As so many people are concerned about the voting representing the will of the people does this mean that in the event of SNP gaining a majority of the Scottish seats in the 2015 General Election that we have voted for independence? David Stubley, 22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick. MARTIN Redfern (Letters, December 6) displays unreasonable bitterness about the Yes campaign and the SNP. He refers to “a day of retribution” and attributes that to Jim Sillars. Those remarks were measured and calm compared to those of MP Ian Davidson, who talked about the “bayonetting of the wounded” after the Yes camp was defeated.
Mr Redfern then refers to the new Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) as “punishment” by John Swinney and the “ever-divisive SNP”. Far from being divisive, the SNP is at last able to start narrowing the outrageous divide between the haves and the have-nots in Scotland.
The LBTT comes as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, which at last gives the Scottish Government the chance to start reversing (in a small way) one of the regressive taxes levied by Westminster. This Scottish version allows us to start a little bit of wealth redistribution, long overdue in this country. Mr Redfern’s comment that this tax will affect those in more affluent areas is perfectly correct – that is precisely the intention.
He goes on to complain that these areas were less supportive of the Yes vote and that is also true. The conclusion, sadly, is that the more prosperous Scots were, on average, rather more concerned to protect their financial superiority against possible attempts by an independent Scottish Government to correct the appalling disparity between rich and poor, which has become steadily worse for many years under Westminster rule. In my experience, this “I’m alright, Jack” attitude was clearly displayed among many of those who argued for a No vote last September.
I say all this in the knowledge that I myself am towards the upper end of the wealth spectrum, but would be happy to see more progressive taxation that would make our society fairer. That is just one of many reasons for continuing the campaign for independence. Dr Willie Wilson, 57 Gallowhill Road, Lenzie. DAVID Torrance does his best to hide his relief but it shines through the caustic prose of his begrudged admiration for the big beast (“Mr Salmond is a big beast and politics needs more”, The Herald, December 8).
With Alex Salmond’s decision to stand for the Gordon constituency at the next General Election it ensures that Mr Torrance will be able to continue his symbiotic relationship with the former First Minister. Perhaps the relationship of a remora fish to a shark would be more apt .
Mr Salmond’s continued political career will ensure that an embryonic journalistic career will also continue. Do I see another (unofficial ) political biography in the offing? James Mills, 29 Armour Square, Johnstone. I WAS clearly mistaken in wishing Alex Salmond well if he was returned to Westminster and on reflection should have known better (Letters, December 8). His boast of holding the balance of power, warning of turning Westminster “upside down”, bombast and aggression are disturbing and intemperate.
It would be best for the nation that neither of the Westminster main parties compromised themselves in a deal in the event of a hung parliament and Ed Milliband should now have the bottle to make Labour’s position clear.
I had expected balance and statesmanship but then one remembers that this was the man who would have split the nation and given the chance it seems he will try to do so again. R Russell Smith, 96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.