In the Herald today, from Tom Gordon:
‘NICOLA Sturgeon’s claim to have a renewed mandate for an independence referendum is based on a “warped” result for the SNP in the general election, according to a new study. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) said Scotland produced the “most disproportionate” result of any part of the UK because the SNP’s share of MPs so far outweighed its share of the vote.’
Readers won’t be surprised to know that this study from the ERS, which only has a wee bit on Scotland in it, uses the phrase ‘most disproportionate’, reserves ‘warped’ for Westminster and ‘Northern Ireland’, does not use ‘starkly’ anywhere and reserves the only reference to ‘stark’ for Westminster again:
More important, however, is Gordon’s warping of the First Minister’s words and of the wider justification for Indyref2. Here’s what she said:
‘As this document [Scotland’s Right to Choose: Putting Scotland’s Future in Scotland’s Hands] lays out, the Scottish Government has a clear democratic mandate to offer people a choice on that future in an independence referendum, and the UK Government has a democratic duty to recognise that. Last week’s general election has only strengthened that mandate.’
We all know, as does Gordon, that the mandate derives from a much more extensive rationale based on support across the Scottish Parliament, the clear betrayal of Scotland after 2014’s promises, opinion polls suggesting at least 50% of Scots actually want independence and, notably,given the ERS preference for a more representative, proportional system, SNP support in both the FPTP and PR elements of the Scottish system.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I’ve just read Richard Murphy’s article on this ERS review – it is interesting, the FPTP system is about the most unfair system going if you want any kind of reasonable representation, and I think the conclusion that it really switches people off from politics is correct. That’s what the main parties want though isn’t it? They don’t want people actually engaged and interested in what they are doing.
The SNP share of seats to Westminster is disproportionate, there is no denying that. But it’s not like we or the SNP can do anything about that – it’s the Westminster system, and we are tied to it. The vote share was, what? 45% or something? And that was for a relatively pointless UK GE, and that was a majority. It’s the Holyrood vote that counts – though we are better having MPs that actually have an interest in representing us in Westminster for sure. Also, in Scotland, we have more MPs per head of population (because of constant depopulation caused by being part of this Union) which emphasises the disproportionate effect.
If I thought the SNP was actually going to use any of these millions of mandates we’ve given them, I might have got more worked up about Tom Gordon’s report (wholly misrepresentative as it is).
Richard’s post (effectively the ERS report without graphs):
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/03/02/there-are-better-forms-of-democracy-for-the-uk/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Using the ERS calculation of number of MPs under different electoral systems (Table 20 in the report) Mr Gordon could easily have written about a much more impactful ‘warped’ mandate. This is the one that the FPTP system has given to the Tories to enact their preferred ‘hard Brexit’ without recourse to a ‘Peoples’ Vote’ .
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2019-general-election-voters-left-voiceless/#sub-section-42
The ERS data reveal scenarios under other, proportional electoral systems in which (let’s call it) a pro-Peoples Vote Block of MPs would probably have had a majority in the Commons.
A ‘warped’ mandate to enact a hard Brexit and avoid a democratic event (a Peoples’ Vote) seems much more of a issue to be concerned about than a mandate to actually have a democratic event (an Indyref2) – especially when the latter mandate is already re-inforced by other electoral victories under a proportional system!
LikeLiked by 2 people