The SNP’s ANGUS ROBERTSON has taken former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson’s Edinburgh Central seat.
Mr Robertson said the ’emphatic’ victory is the SNP’s ‘best ever result’ in the city centre seat. His majority is 4732.
The seat is the SNP’s third gain of the election so far.
Ms Davidson is now off to take up her seat in the House of Lords.
RESULT
ANGUS ROBERTSON (SNP) 16 276
Scott Douglas (Conservative) 11 544
SNP GAIN from Conservatives
SNP majority 4732
Turnout 63%
ALEC Cole-Hamilton has retained Edinburgh Western for the Liberal Democrats, increasing his majority over the SNP to nearly 10,000.
First gain of the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections:
SNP have won East Lothian from Labour with a majority of 1179.
The seat was previously held by former Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray, who did not stand this time round.
Edinburgh’s count this year will take place over two days at the Royal Highland Centre, Ingliston. It gets underway at 9am this morning.
Throughout the planning process, our elections team has sought guidance from public health experts, consulting extensively with the Director of Public Health, to make sure the event runs as safely and as smoothly as possible.
Today (Friday 7 May) the results for Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Southern and Edinburgh Western will be announced, while results will be declared for Edinburgh Eastern, Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh Northern and Leith as well as the list/Region vote results tomorrow, Saturday 8 May.
Safety measures in place at the count
Andrew Kerr, Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and Returning Officer for the Edinburgh constituencies and the Lothian Region, said: The arrangements for the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary Election feel very different from previous elections.
“Throughout our preparations our elections team has sought guidance from public health experts and we’ve put in place extensive additional Covid-19 health and safety measures to help keep everyone safe, reduce the risk of spreading the virus and of course protect the integrity of the Election.
“We’re taking all the necessary steps to support the COVID-safe operation of the election count at the Highland Hall. In line with Public Health Scotland (PHS) guidance every effort has been made to make sure the centre is well ventilated, hand-sanitising stations are positioned throughout the venue, facemasks are worn whenever people move about the venue and that everyone observes two-metre physical distancing at all times.
“Count assistants will adhere to two-metre distancing but don’t have to wear a face covering when seated on the count floor.
“The safety of everyone working at the count is of utmost importance and measures will be enforced by our marshalls throughout the duration of the event for the health and safety of everyone present. I want to thank the team for their efforts so far and look forward to delivering a robust process in these unprecedented times.”
The results from the count will be tweeted live from @Edinburgh_cc as they are announced by the Returning Officer, with the hashtag #SPE21RESULT.
Ipsos MORI’s final 2021 Scottish Parliament election poll for STV News indicates that the SNP is on course to win significantly more of the vote than any other party at the election on 6th May.
Our headline estimate of voting intention on the constituency vote is:
Our headline estimate of voting intention on the regional list vote is:
These findings confirm that the SNP is going into Thursday’s election in a very strong position. However, it is not possible to predict with confidence on the basis of these results whether the SNP will definitely win an outright majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament.
This is both because specific local circumstances will play a role and because all polls are subject to a margin of error, which could easily be the difference between the SNP gaining an outright majority and falling short of this.
When it comes to the contest for second place, Labour and the Conservatives look to be going into the constituency vote contest neck and neck. The Conservatives look slightly more comfortably ahead on regional list voting intention (23%, compared with 18% for Labour).
The Greens, on 12%, look set to increase their share of the regional vote on the 6% they achieved in 2016. As in 2016, they look likely to finish ahead of the Liberal Democrats in share of regional list votes.
The Alba Party, on just 2%, may struggle to gain enough votes to return any MSPs (although this is, of course, dependent on whether they secure a higher level than this in specific regions).
Among likely voters, 12% say they may still change their mind before they cast their constituency vote.
This rises to 21% of Labour supporters who may change their mind, while SNP and Conservative supporters are more likely to say that they have definitely decided to vote for their party (91% and 90%).
Similarly, 14% say they may still change their mind before they cast their regional list vote.
15% of Labour supporters, 11% of Conservative supporters and 9% of SNP supporters say they may change their mind on the list vote
Three quarters (74%) of SNP constituency voters say they will vote ‘both votes SNP’ by casting their regional list vote for the party as well.
The remaining 26% are most likely to say they will cast their list vote for the Scottish Green Party (18% of SNP constituency voters say this), with a small minority saying they will vote for The Alba Party (4%) or Scottish Labour (3%) on the regional list.
The Scottish public are evenly split on independence. Among those likely to vote in an independence referendum, 50% say they would vote Yes while 50% would vote No.
Emily Gray, Managing Director of Ipsos MORI Scotland, commented: “Whether there will be a SNP majority or not hangs in the balance.
“The election result may come down to how the parties perform in a small number of key marginal seats, as well as in the regional vote, which is likely to prove particularly important in determining which party is in second place.
“With a relatively high percentage of voters still saying they’ve not definitely decided, all the parties still have something to play for tomorrow.”
IT’S been the dullest election I can remember. Yes, you can blame COVID, but pandemic aside, it’s hardly been riveting, has it?
Even the return of Alex Salmond – mair comebacks than Frank Sinatrawifie said – did little to raise excitement levels to anything above ‘mildly interesting’. The one memorable moment of the campaign for me was not Anas Sarwar’s dad dancing, it was ‘Gorgeous George’ Galloway’s party election broadcast. I haven’t a clue what it was all about, but it was unforgettable nonetheless.
The Leader Debates were dominated by middle class blokes in ties (occasionally during they were slightly risqué and removed the neckwear to show that they are ordinary blokes just like us). The ties – like the rosettes – are a different colour, but they are still ties. The uniform. All in this together? You bet they are, mired in identikit neo-liberal politics that will change little for the most disadvantaged.
The debates looked like the sort of middle-management meeting that might take place in any big bank or insurance company.
And the women must also play the game. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, serious, statesmanlike (should that be statespersonlike?), looking to be given the opportunity to ‘get on with the job’. No tie, but the smart business suits are a model of conservatism. More of the same, we’re promised. There’s more to do, we’re told. Trust me, she appeals.
There’s every indication that the public do indeed trust Nicola Sturgeon. The unpleasant uncertainties of the Salmond affair have barely left a mark, and confident daily press briefings throughout the pandemic – much as she would say it is the last thing she would have wanted – has given Ms Sturgeon a platform other politicians would dream of.
She has undoubtedly come out of the worst of the pandemic with her reputation enhanced; seen as a safe and steady pair of hands throughout the crisis while Prime Minister Boris Johnson bumbled and blundered from one self-inflicted crisis to another.
Scots voters will deliver their verdict tomorrow but it seems inevitable that a grateful nation will reward Ms Sturgeon’s apparent competence with a further five year term. True, the government’s rhetoric was seldom matched by concrete achievements over the last five years, but many voters will see this as a time for continuity as we plan our way back to some semblance of normality. Conservative with a small ‘c’. And anyway, what’s the alternative?
New Labour (in both senses) leader Anas Sarwar unilaterally declared a new kind of politics. A break from the past, just as Sarwar is a break from the recent socialist past of Jeremy Corbyn and Ricard Leonard. Let’s put the politics of division behind us, he appealed. We must focus on Scotland’s National Recovery, he said. Trouble is, so did everyone else, including Nicola Sturgeon. Indeed, is there anyone in the land who would argue with that?
Certainly not Lib Dem leader, he of the famous photoshoot stunts but not a lot else, Willie Rennie. Or Patrick Harvie. Or Douglas Ross. All agree – the national recovery must be paramount, they sing from the same hymn-sheet.
And maybe that’s the problem: there’s nothing new here. Nothing radical. Nothing different. Nothing to fire up passion and nothing that will shake voters from their apathy.
Opposition parties should have started the election campaign on the front foot, but right from the start of the election campaign, just days after a weakened Nicola Sturgeon survived accusations of misleading parliament during the Salmond Affair, it was back to business as usual – and the opposition parties retreated into their deferential, subservient roles.
Quickly out of the starting blocks, Labour proclaimed: ‘We want to be the official opposition!’ Hardly the sparkiest motivator for the troops out on the streets delivering leaflets, is it? ‘Vote for us – we’re nearly second best!’ Honestly, who wants to be Number Two? Well, Labour does. That is the limit of their ambitions – to defeat the Tories and finish second. Even a distant second would do.
For present-day Labour – a party that dominated Scottish politics for generations – second place would be seen, and spun, as progress. Opinion polls suggest that even that target has proved beyond them this time round, however. And they can’t even blame Corbyn.
The Tories know that their best hope of progress – finishing second again, that is (even the most loyal true-blue zealots dismiss the idea that they could do any better than that!) – lies in the top-up lists whereby MSPs gain seats, almost through the back door, in Holyrood’s hybrid proportional representation voting system.
While the SNP government’s shortcomings have been increasingly documented – education, drug deaths, starving local government of adequate funding, to name but three – the Tories decided instead to concentrate their fire on another independence referendum!
It’s their tried and tested strategy: only by voting for us can you stop a ‘damaging referendum’, they claim. They can’t – it’s uncertain now that their London bosses would even try – but the argument seems to be a compelling one for unionists in Scotland: no matter how bad the SNP government is in Holyrood, they have the comforting certainty of remaining part of the UK.
Turning the election into a straight Independence vs Union choice suits the Tories down to the ground: the Conservative and Unionist Party is surely the party anxious voters will turn to again in the fight to preserve the union? The clue’s in the name!
And you don’t even have the inconvenience of having to come up with policies to address the nitty-gritty of domestic politics. So ‘Stop The Referendum’ is the simple Tory message – and this despite some frustrated nationalists arguing that there seems to be little appetite among the SNP leadership for an early referendum anyway!
So while we know that the SNP will almost certainly be the biggest party following tomorrow’s elections, there are some things we do not know. Most importantly, will the SNP gain an overall majority?
Scotland will elect 129 MSPs tomorrow. 73 of these are constituency MSPs who are elected using the traditional ‘First Past the Post’ method.
The other 56 are ‘List’ MSPs who are elected through the Additional Member system of proportional representation. Scotland is split into eight regions, each of which will elect seven list MSPs.
To form a majority government a party must win at least 65 seats. The SNP won 63 seats in the 2016 elections and formed a minority administration with the support of the independence-supporting Scottish Greens. So near but yet so far – can the SNP reach that magic number this time round?
Other issues of interest: Will Alex Salmond’s Alba party win any seats? And, if so, will the SNP hold their noses and do a deal with them to advance the case for another referendum should they need to do so?
Alba has argued, with some justification, that a vote for the SNP on the peach ballot paper is effectively a wasted vote as the SNP is expected to hoover up the vast majority of constituencies so will gain few list seats. Will nationalist voters take heed to ensure a ‘supermajority’ or take their chances with an SNP1, 2?
One thing is certain. There will be a lot of new faces in the new Holyrood Parliament. No fewer than 33 MSPs have stood down and will not contest tomorrow’s election. That’s a lot of experience to lose as the new parliament attempts to formulate a strategy for post-pandemic recovery.
Among the best known are Jeane Freeman, Aileen Campbell and Mike Russell of the SNP, Tories Ruth Davidson and Margaret Mitchell, Labour’s Neil Findlay and Iain Gray, Green John Finnie and Lib Dem Mike Rumbles. Presiding Officer Ken Mackintosh also steps down.
Also leaving at last are ‘Independent’ MSPs Derek Mackay and Mark McDonald, former SNP Ministers who left office in disgrace but doggedly held on to their Holyrood seats – and £64,470 annual salaries – until the bitter end.
Here’s hoping the new parliament can agree cross-party legislation to ensure that democratic disgraces like these will not be allowed to happen again.
So good luck to all the candidates as they deliver their final leaflets this evening. None will sleep too well tonight, whether you have the biggest majority in Scotland or you are standing for the very first time in an ‘unwinnable’ seat. It’s the adrenaline!
They will all be up at the crack of dawn to get their A-boards out at the polling stations, hoping for decent weather – we had some snow and hail flurries in Edinburgh today – to encourage a good voter turnout. It will be a long day – and then there’s the long wait until Friday’s count, so a second night of troubled sleep ahead!
Locally, it’s hard to see any shock results, but Edinburgh Central – Ruth Davidson’s seat before she left for that lucrative, unelected retirement home, the House of Lords – will be interesting. Can the Tories hold on to this SNP target seat?
Other seats to keep an eye on are East Lothian (Labour seat; SNP target), Airdrie & Shotts (SNP held; Labour target), Moray (SNP seat; Tory target), Dumbarton (Labour; SNP target) and Perthshire North (SNP; Tory target).
Whoever you support, do use your votes.
Polling stations are open from 7am – 10pm.
A group of students from Edinburgh Napier’s Journalism department are to provide live coverage of the Scottish election results.
And they have already gained an exclusive interview with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Third year Journalism BA student Steven Brown is editor for the event, which will be staged on Friday, May 7 as the results from the previous day’s election are revealed.
Around 20 students will take part in the Merchiston campus event, which will feature eight hours of live broadcasting on the Radio ENRG platform plus online support on the ENRG Debrief website.
Steven said: “We are really looking forward to the event. We have secured a number of interviews already, with virtually all of the party leaders in Scotland agreeing to talk to us. We aim to provide expert analysis too as the results happen.
“It will be a great experience. Radio ENRG and the Debrief website have established real credibility and are treated pretty much like other professional media.”
The event follows the hugely successful live coverage of the US elections back in November.
That ambitious enterprise caught the attention of the BBC’s North America Editor Jon Sopel, who tweeted his support, saying: “Have a great night. When I was a journalism student, it was me and Steve Richards (another well-known UK print and broadcast journalist) commenting on the Peckham by-election (of 1982). Glad to see you guys starting with the most consequential presidential election in decades.”
This time round, another top BBC journalist will be involved. Edinburgh Napier journalism graduate Nick Eardley, one of the corporation’s leading political commentators, will give his thoughts on the elections in an exclusive interview with ENRG.
Steven said: “It was fantastic to get support from Jon Sopel last time. It’s great to know that people like him started out in exactly the same way we are. And this time Nick Eardley will be helping us out. Just ten years ago he was himself a student in these same classrooms.”
Hours and hours of preparation – agreeing the broadcast and online schedules, sourcing story ideas, sorting out interviewees – will be done before even an article is published on the website or any audio hits the airwaves.
The live coverage itself will begin at 10am on Friday (May 7) on Radio ENRG and run through to 6pm, while the ENRG Debrief website has already begun publishing content.
Steven added: “These events are incredibly inspiring to work on and offer students a unique and invaluable opportunity to learn and gain knowledge and understanding of what it’s like to work as a journalist on huge events.
“To be able to publish our coverage in two mediums, on the radio and online, will give the event a true industry-like feel. It’s going to be an amazing experience.”
Students taking part come from all four years of the Journalism BA plus the Masters programme.
Radio ENRG is a student-led broadcasting platform, organised from Napier’s journalism department. Since its launch in 2014, it has gone from strength to strength, winning numerous national awards for the quality of its content.
Over the years, the ENRG family has grown to include three websites – Debrief, Sport, and Music & Arts – all of which are led by student editors and publish new content most days. More sites are due to come online in the next few months,
Tune in to Radio ENRG from 10am on Friday, May 7 to hear the live coverage at:
While the ENRG Debrief website can be found here:
Ahead of Thursday’s elections, a new report from the 1928 Institute, a University of Oxford backed think-tank focused on researching and representing the British Indian community, has analysed the political alignment and priorities of British Indians from across the United Kingdom.
Analysis of over 2,300 British Indians across a broad spectrum of migration paths, religious identities, and geographical locations in the United Kingdom found that despite the majority (36%) voting Labour in the 2019 General Elections, the 2021 local elections will see a shift, with British Indians now showing support for Conservative party (33%) and Labour falling behind at 31%.
Demographic split
The report (with fieldwork conducted in August 2020 and December 2020), which investigates and compares the relationship between the political party inclined to support and key demographics: age and location – found that the most sizeable change in voting preference is from those aged between 21 to 50, with 45.9% respondents moving away from Labour resulting in the Conservative party picking up the majority of these voters (48.8%).
However, the analysis found the narrowest gap by age group is 26-30, with just a 2% margin in the Conservative party’s favour. However, further analysis between August and December found a significant increase in those unlikely to vote in this week’s election.
Analysis by location found that in August 2020, British Indians were more likely to vote Labour across most regions, except Scotland, where the Conservative Party took the lead, highlighting that the manifesto of the SNP did not align with the political needs and wants of British Indians.
The regions with the narrowest difference in support between the Labour and Conservative Party are the East of England (4%), followed by Greater London (6%) and the South East (8%).
In December 2020, the majority of British Indians were inclined to vote for the Conservative Party. Although Labour retained support in the North West, South East, West Midlands, British Indians across Yorkshire and Humber are inclined to the Conservative and Labour Parties equally (35% respectively). In addition, in the South West, the Liberal Democrats emerged as the strongest party.
Political disconnect and priorities
When asked if British Indians feel accurately represented by policymakers, only 8% agreed. Many went on to state that historically, the British Indian Diaspora were not vocal about their needs and instead focused on settling into their communities. As a result, feel that current and future generations will continue to be overlooked.
The report highlights five key policy areas British Indians would like to see prioritised by the Government: education (54%), health (52%), environment and climate change (44%), domestic poverty (36%), and equalities and human rights (33%).
When asked why British Indians felt these five areas were important, respondents explained that these areas align with their cultural values of giving back to society, or “Seva”, along with the importance of taking care of the vulnerable.
In addition, 4 in 5 British Indians (84%) want the UK Government to prioritise tackling racism and colonialism.
British Indians stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement calling for resources and capital to promote equality and human rights across all ethnic minorities. Respondents described that they do not find “BAME” a useful concept as the generalisation incorrectly informs the distribution of resources and identity.
Kiran Kaur Manku, Co-Founder of the 1928 Institute and Researcher Fellow at the University of Oxford, said: “This report provides empirical evidence on has found clear patterns between the needs and wants of British Indians.
“Given that almost three in four British Indians do not feel accurately represented by policymakers at and the 1928 Institute, we would like to see the policy priorities and recommendations urgently be implemented.
“British Indians contribute significantly outlined move from conversation to action. The recently issued ‘race report’ whilst finding no institutional racism in the UK and are calling for rational actions to support society: the national curriculum to include Britain’s colonial legacy and impact, and ethnic minorities task-force the United Kingdom has synergies with embedded ethics our research.”
ALBA has returned to Ofcom with new evidence of BBC bias in the election campaign.
In a further complaint to the broadcasting regulator (below) ALBA detail the different criteria to debates and coverage being applied by BBC Wales where the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party were accorded full participation in the debates programme.
ALBA leader Alex Salmond said: “The BBC are an affront to Scottish democracy. There have now been no less than seven opinion polls in this campaign showing an ALBA parliamentary breakthrough.
“The new evidence from Wales leaves them without a leg to stand on in terms of their biased Scottish coverage. But BBC bosses continue to ban us from the debates.
“The BBC also continue to refuse fair coverage on the flimsiest of grounds.
“Yesterday (Sunday) for example in one of the most important statements of the campaign ALBA women candidates rallied outside the Parliament in the declaration in support of protected sex based rights.
“The BBC claimed they couldn’t send a camera a few hundred yards because it was a Bank holiday weekend! They then interviewed Willie Rennie in the same area up a hill on his puff saying precisely zilch.
“Of course BBC presenters continue to talk about ALBA, often in disparaging terms. They just don’t allow us on to answer back just as the BBC hierarchy have kept us out of the leaders debates.
“In the last few days of the election the ALBA street and community initiatives will gain further ground and the BBC attempt to silence ALBA will fail.
“However as our letter to Ofcom makes clear the regulator should step in right now and put the BBC house in order.”
LETTER TO OFCOM
Dear Ms. Rose,
Our clients have considered the terms of the Election Committee’s decision of 28 April. We write to invite the Committee to reconsider that decision and to review matters urgently.
Our clients consider that the evidence of a structural bias within the BBC against them grows stronger as the campaign progresses and reaches its conclusion and further examples have occurred since the Committee’s decision.
The treatment by the BBC of other parties is simply inconsistent with its treatment of our clients. On Thursday of last week, the day after the Committee’s decision, the BBC broadcast the equivalent Leaders Debate as part of its coverage of the elections to the Welsh Senedd. Representatives of the Labour, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrats and Abolish the Welsh Assembly parties participated in the first hour of that programme and those of Reform UK, the Green Party and UKIP in the second, half-hour part (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56915347).
The Liberals currently have one seat in the Senedd and are averaging around 4% in current polling. The Greens have no seats and are averaging around the same. UKIP support in Wales is so low that it has not even registered on the last two polls. The AWAP is currently predicted to take two seats in the Senedd. Reform UK is averaging 1% in the polls and is predicted to take no seats
(for all of which see https://senedd.wales/find-a-member-of-the-senedd and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Senedd_election). The two most recent opinion polls in Scotland show our clients on target to take 4% of the regional list vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Scottish_Parliament_election#Poll_results_2) and two or three seats at Holyrood (https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/05/sensation-as-new-panelbase-poll-shows.html and https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/05/drama-as-alba-storm-to-their-best.html).
We set out an extract from the BBC’s 2021 Guidelines, applicable to Wales, in the undernote below, highlighting sections relating to “larger” and “smaller” parties. We would submit that our clients’ polling performance, and the developing political context in Scotland, is such that it would be simply perverse to exclude them from the upcoming BBC Leaders Debate.
A decision to do so would be simply illogical, entirely inconsistent with the treatment afforded to other parties elsewhere across the BBC’s output and simply inexplicable other than by animus towards our clients. What other possible explanation can be proffered for such an entirely inconsistent approach? No single example of that animus is going to be conclusive and any single example can be explained away but we would submit that that does not mean that each example can simply be ignored.
Some regard must be had to the pattern provided by the totality of each single example. An emblematic example of the BBC’s attitude towards our clients occurred yesterday. A number of our clients’ women candidates met outside the Holyrood Parliament building to publicise our clients’ policies on women’s rights. Our clients spoke in advance to the BBC about coverage of that event. The BBC explained that it would not be able to cover it as it did not have a camera in the area yet it managed, our clients later noted, to give coverage, in the same location, of the Liberals’ Willie Rennie.
We would submit that the behaviour of the BBC shows quite clearly that it is ignoring, and suggests that without intervention it will continue to ignore, the very clear exhortation in the Committee’s decision that it (the BBC) must, in short, keep matters under review to ensure that in determining the level and nature of the coverage which it gives our clients it gives proper weight and consideration to the developing political context in Scotland.
In addition to the matters outlined above, however, our clients are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the decision itself. They have obtained the opinion of Counsel on matters.
Our clients (and we) were surprised that the BBC, having decided not to take up the Committee’s invitation to be present at the substantive hearing, and to make oral representations at the same time and in the same forum as our clients, were nevertheless provided with details of Mr. Salmond’s extemporaneous submission and given a chance to comment, extensively, on it and to submit further material to the Committee.
Over and above that, Counsel’s advice is that the Committee’s decision is in error and susceptible to judicial review. His view is that the terms of paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21 are clearly erroneous and that the terms of the latter are self-contradictory. The 2017 changes expressly abandoned not just the list of larger parties but the whole concept of larger parties and the whole concept of having a list of them. The BBC in its own submissions supported that abandonment of these concepts. None of that makes any sense if the point was, as the second sentence of paragraph 3.21 asserts, simply to allow broadcasters to come up with their own definitions of “larger parties” and make their own lists of them.
If that had been the intention or purpose, there would have been no mention of concept, rather than the constant repetition of it which in fact features as part of the 2017 document. All that would have been needed was a simple statement that Ofcom would no longer be deciding who the “larger parties” were or providing a list of them and that it would be up to individual broadcasters to do so if they wanted to continue to use the concept.
It may be true, as asserted at paragraph 3.21, that the BBC using concepts which have been specifically discontinued by Ofcom (supported by the BBC) does not in itself contradict the Code, although in Counsel’s view even that is arguable.
What is undoubtedly true, in his opinion, is that in the specific case of the Alba Party the use of those discontinued and disapproved concepts by the BBC has caused a view to be taken of the appropriate coverage to be given which would not have been taken had those disapproved concepts not been applied.
Counsel does not accept that the approach taken by the BBC can be separated from what is required directly by the Code as easily as the Committee decision asserts. In fact, in his view, it cannot be separated at all. His view is that this flawed approach taints the whole Committee process and makes the outcome of it unfair.
Counsel also believes that Ofcom should not have gone back to the BBC after Mr. Salmond’s oral submission as the BBC had already indicated that their participation in the process was concluded.
He also points out that Ofcom selected a day at random and then based little or nothing in its decision on what actually happened on that day. The selection of a random day was a method of approaching things proposed by Ofcom and yet the results produced were then ignored or explained away as unrepresentative.
This is completely illogical. To ignore the fact that our clients did not feature at all on this random day in effect breaches the process which the Committee itself prescribed, negates its whole point and fails to recognise that the coverage on this random day in fact wholly vindicates our clients’ basic argument that they are unfairly treated by use of the disapproved concepts of “larger” and “smaller” parties rather direct application of the present Ofcom Code.
Counsel feels that the BBC’s admission of the AWAP, a party which he feels is comparable by analogy to our clients, into the equivalent debate in Wales is significant. Appendix 3 of the BBC guidance says in terms that AWAP can be given coverage “proportionate” to the four “larger parties” in Wales under certain circumstances but the BBC has failed to take a similar view of Alba. As a result, Counsel feels that even in terms of their own flawed guidance the BBC has acted inconsistently.
As we say, in light of all this, our clients are dissatisfied at the BBC’s continuing decision to exclude them from the upcoming Leaders Debate and we would ask that the Committee urgently reconsiders matters in light of the new material which we present and of the submissions made in this letter. Failing that, we will require to take our clients’ urgent instructions o the options for judicial review which Counsel advises are open to them.
Yours sincerely,
David Halliday
Partner
Halliday Campbell
On 6 May voters across Scotland will be called to elect 129 members of the devolved Scottish Parliament for the sixth time in its history (writes Electoral Reform Society’s FEDERICO SCHOLARI).
The Scottish Parliament passes laws on crucial areas of local government, including health, education and transport- as well as some influence on tax and welfare benefits.
Anyone with a Scottish address, registered to vote and aged 16 and over is eligible to vote.
In 2015, Scotland championed the votes at 16 campaign by lowering the voting age to 16 to extend the franchise, allowing more than 100,000 young people to have their say in both parliamentary and local council elections.
Elections for the Scottish Parliament employ the Additional Member System (AMS), which uses a mix of First Past the Post (FPTP) and Party List proportional representation.
73 constituency MSPs are elected from the Westminster-style FPTP ballot paper. The candidate with most votes is elected for each constituency, irrespective of vote share.
56 ‘list’ MSPs (the so-called additional members) are then added from a second ballot paper that includes a list of parties. Additional members are added based on the number of seats a party has won in the first ballot versus their overall vote share, in order to make parliament more proportional and match how voters preferences.
The second ballot paper ensures greater representation, which compensates for the ailments of FPTP. The proportional element is intended to override any disproportionality created by the majoritarian nature of the constituency seats, providing a more proportional parliament while also keeping a single local MSP.
Our 2019 report on General Elections shone a light on those voters left voiceless due to disproportionate voting systems- with Scotland delivering some of the most disproportionate results across the UK for Westminster elections.
Under pure FPTP, the Scottish National Party performance was highly disproportionate, with a 22 percentage point increase in seats for an eight-point increase in votes. Some precarious victories occurred, with slim majorities in seats where more than two parties had substantial support.
Contrarily, the 2016 parliamentary elections saw the most proportional results to date under the AMS, which is a substantial improvement over pure FPTP. If the Scottish Parliament elections were conducted under FPTP we’d see one-party domination across Scotland with supporters of the other parties losing out.
The most recent polls show the SNP -currently in power- boasting a considerable lead over both Conservatives and Labour. The only notable change from the 2016 elections results sees the Greens gaining some ground over Lib Dems.
Differing areas of political debate include the potential for a new referendum for Scottish independence, post-pandemic economic recovery, climate change policies and more.
There has been much talk of the launch of Alex Salmond’s pro-independence party, seen by many as an attempt to ‘game’ the AMS system to secure a disproportionate result in favour of pro-independence parties.
Alba, which is only contesting list seats, is pitching itself to pro-independence SNP voters who, due to the SNP’s dominance in the constituency seats, might see their list vote wasted.
But if Alba succeeded in this it’s not because they gamed the system but because enough voters supported them. if a party is popular enough to pick up a decent level of support on the List vote and gain seats, like the Greens did in 2016 and look like doing again, then it isn’t really ‘gaming the system’. The system is designed to provide fair representation for supporters of parties who would not be properly represented under FPTP.
Polls show that it is far from certain that Alba will receive enough support to pick up List seats but ultimately that is a matter for the voters of Scotland to determine, one way or the other.
As Scottish voters prepare to go to the polls in May they can do so knowing that their vote will count and the parliament elected will be representative – a luxury most voters in England don’t have at this election.
And now, after 20 years of PR in Scotland surely it’s time Westminster caught up and ensured that voters in England could vote with the same peace of mind.
