Could a new independence party reshape Scottish politics? - BBC News | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Could a new independence party reshape Scottish politics? – BBC News

Published

 on


A series of SNP and pro-independence campaigners have suggested setting up a new party ahead of the Holyrood elections in 2021. Why are they doing this, and are they more likely to split the nationalist vote or secure a mandate for a new referendum?

What is this all about?

The SNP continues to enjoy a dominant position in Scottish politics, with polls suggesting the party will continue its electoral winning streak in 2021.

So it might seem odd to many outside the political bubble that supporters of the party – including one of its own MPs – are advocating voting for someone else at that election.

The answer lies in the Holyrood electoral system, which makes it hard for one party to win an outright majority of seats.

The “additional member system” features 73 constituency seats, elected on a traditional first past the post (FPTP) basis, and 56 “list” seats scattered across seven regions.

The system itself is complex, but in short the more constituency seats you win, the harder it is to win list seats.

To take 2016’s election as a case study, half a million people voted for Labour in constituency contests, but thanks to the all-or-nothing nature of FPTP this yielded only three MSPs. So 22% of the vote won 4% of the seats.

However, the party’s 435,000 votes on the list ballot saw them pick up a further 21 seats – meaning that overall, they got roughly a fifth of the votes in the country, and roughly a fifth of the seats at Holyrood.

At the other end of the spectrum, in the constituency contest the SNP won 46.5% of the vote, and 80% of the seats (59 of them). This meant that on the list, almost a million votes only produced four regional MSPs.

The additional member system balanced things out as it is designed to do – with just under half of the vote, the SNP got just under half the seats on offer overall.

To come to the point, some supporters of independence conclude that it would be much easier to win a Holyrood majority if there was a list-only party which could sweep up the regional seats which the SNP may struggle to reach.

What is the proposal?

The argument is that if the million people who voted SNP on the list in 2016 had backed another party, in theory they could have returned dozens of pro-independence MSPs instead of four.

If this party were to stand only on the list, they would not have any constituency seats to hold them back as far as the formulas are concerned.

The SNP could take the constituency vote, the new party would clean up on the list and the two would add up to an overwhelming mandate for indyref2 – or so the theory goes.

But what is this “new party”? A number of different vehicles have been suggested, from the “Independence for Scotland Party” to one led by Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell – who has in turn suggested former SNP leader Alex Salmond could set up his own group.

The latest is the “Alliance for Independence” proposed by former SNP MSP Dave Thompson, which he envisions as an umbrella group uniting smaller pro-independence campaigns.

Proponents believe this would be more productive than the “both votes SNP” approach of previous years, which Mr Thompson – a 55-year veteran of the party – says “will achieve nothing”.

This approach has been endorsed by figures including sitting SNP MP Kenny Macaskill, who said: “With success on the constituency basis resulting in limited progress on the list, ‘both votes SNP’ just doesn’t work.”

What is the SNP’s position?

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a political party, the SNP is loathe to urge people to vote for anyone else.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney said he “can’t understand the logic” of a list-only party, citing the precedent of the SNP majority in 2011 successfully triggering a referendum.

The last thing the party’s leaders want to be is complacent. They cannot simply assume they will walk away with the lion’s share of constituency contests – indeed, taking elections for granted is a very good way to lose them.

So if the party were to lose a constituency seat, say in Glasgow, they would want to give themselves the best chance possible of picking it up again on the regional ballot by stacking up as many list votes as possible.

They will be decidedly wary about splitting the vote. One advantage the SNP have long had over their unionist opponents is that in a country divided pretty evenly down the middle on the constitutional question, they have a near monopoly over one half of the vote – while the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems have to scrap over the other half.

Another issue for them is messaging. “Vote SNP” is an easy slogan to paint on the side of a bus. “Vote SNP on one bit of paper and a pro-independence alternative of your choosing on the other” is slightly less pithy.

Is this a new idea?

The Scottish Greens would point out that they are quite a prominent pro-independence party that chiefly does well on the regional list.

But other smaller outfits have also come forward at previous elections – and failed to make any impact at all.

In 2016, RISE contested the regional lists, with a former SNP MSP on their ticket, but ultimately polled fewer votes than the Scottish Christian Party.

Solidarity – Tommy Sheridan’s breakaway from the Scottish Socialist Party – did a little better, but still only managed 0.6% of the vote and zero seats.

There is an argument that a figurehead like Alex Salmond (who, to be clear, has said nothing at all on the subject) and a platform focused solely on independence could see a new party make a bigger impact – but if the SNP actively oppose the idea, that impact could be in splitting the vote.

The pro-independence side are not alone in debating whether they should try to game the list system, incidentally – George Galloway is attempting to set up an “Alliance for Unity” that sounds a lot like a unionist version of Mr Thompson’s umbrella project.

Would it work?

This is the million-dollar question, and the hardest one to answer.

The majority of 2011 will be much cited in this debate, but it is actually something of an outlier. In that election, the SNP broke the system – they took 53% of the seats at Holyrood despite “only” winning 45.4% of the constituency vote and 44% of the regional one. This is what the system was specifically designed to prevent.

It happened essentially by fluke – the stars aligned for the party in just the right way, with the placing of the 53 constituencies won around the country somehow still allowing the party to pick up 16 list MSPs.

There isn’t really a way to strategise for that to happen again in the same way. The only way to be sure of a majority at Holyrood is to literally win a majority of the votes cast in Scotland.

That is a tall order for one party alone. The SNP’s landslide in the 2015 Westminster election saw them hit 50% of the vote, but in December they were back at 45% – a familiar figure to any Yes voter.

The paradox is that, if it had the open support of the SNP, a list-only party could provide a theoretical route to producing a larger cohort of pro-independence MSPs. But at the same time, it is difficult for the SNP to support it without risking their own position.

It would be a move fraught with complexity and danger, and Nicola Sturgeon is not exactly known as a gambler.

And when it came to the campaign, would any new party really exist harmoniously alongside the SNP, which has become an electoral juggernaut partly by dint of its unity of purpose?

Imagine Mr Salmond did end up fronting a new party – would a Salmond vs Sturgeon debate really be beneficial to the cause both politicians champion, or would it exacerbate tensions about the current first minister’s cautious approach to indyref2?

There are also wider questions over whether a pro-independence majority spread across several parties has the same impact as it does when a single party wins a thumping mandate.

After all there is currently a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, with the Greens backing the SNP – which has conspicuously failed to produce a referendum, despite MSPs voting in favour of one several times.

The debate underlines one thing – despite coronavirus continuing to dominate the agenda, Scotland is less than a year away from an election. More and more, party politics is coming out of lockdown.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Harris, Beyoncé team up for a Texas rally on abortion rights and hope battleground states hear them

Published

 on

 

HOUSTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris will team up with Beyoncé on Friday for a rally in solidly Republican Texas aimed at highlighting the medical fallout from the state’s strict abortion ban and putting the blame squarely on Donald Trump.

It’s a message intended to register far beyond Texas in the political battleground states, where Harris is hoping that the aftereffects from the fall of Roe v. Wade will spur voters to turn out to support her quest for the presidency.

Harris will also be joined at the rally by women who have nearly died from sepsis and other pregnancy complications because they were unable to get proper medical care, including women who never intended to end their pregnancies.

Some of them have already been out campaigning for Harris and others have told their harrowing tales in campaign ads that seek to show how the issue has ballooned into something far bigger than the right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Since abortion was restricted in Texas, the state’s infant death rate has increased, more babies have died of birth defects and maternal mortality has risen.

With the presidential election in a dead heat, the Democratic nominee is banking on abortion rights as a major driver for voters — including for Republican women, particularly since Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn the constitutional right. He has been inconsistent about how he would approach the issue if voters return him to the White House.

Harris’ campaign has taken on Beyonce’s 2016 track “Freedom” as its anthem, and the message dovetails with the vice president’s emphasis on reproductive freedom. The singer’s planned appearance Friday adds a high level of star power to Harris’ visit to the state. She will be the latest celebrity to appear with or on behalf of Harris, including Lizzo, James Taylor, Spike Lee, Tyler Perry, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Springsteen and Eminem. While in Texas, Harris also will tape a podcast with host Brené Brown.

Trump is also headed to Texas Friday where he’ll talk immigration, and tape a podcast with host Joe Rogan.

There is some evidence to suggest that abortion rights may drive women to the polls as it did during the 2022 midterm elections. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

“Living in Texas, it feels incredibly important to protect women’s health and safety,” said Colette Clark, an Austin voter. She said voting for Harris is the best way to prevent further abortion restrictions from happening across the country.

Another Austin resident, Daniel Kardish, didn’t know anyone who has been personally affected by the restrictions, but nonetheless views it as a key issue this election.

“I feel strongly about women having bodily autonomy,” he said.

Harris said this week she thought the issue was compelling enough to motivate even Republican women, adding, “for so many of us, our daughter is going to have fewer rights than their grandmother.”

“When the issue of the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body is on the ballot, the American people vote for freedom regardless of the party with which they’re registered to vote,” Harris said.

Harris isn’t likely to win Texas, but that isn’t the point of her presence Friday.

“Of all the states in the nation, Texas has been ground zero for harrowing stories of women, including women who have been denied care, who had to leave the state, mothers who have had to leave the state,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a legal group behind many lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions. “It’s one of the major places where this reality has been so, so devastatingly felt.”

Democrats warn that a winnowing of rights and freedoms will only continue if Trump is elected. Republican lawmakers in states across the U.S. have been rejecting Democrats’ efforts to protect or expand access to birth control, for example.

Democrats also hope Harris’ visit will give a boost to Rep. Colin Allred, who is making a longshot bid to unseat Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Allred will appear at the rally with Harris.

When Roe was first overturned, Democrats initially focused on the new limitations on access to abortion to end unwanted pregnancies. But the same medical procedures used for abortions are used to treat miscarriages.

And increasingly, in 14 states with strict abortion bans, women cannot get medical care until their condition has become life-threatening. In some states, doctors can face criminal charges if they provide medical care.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Trump has been inconsistent in his message to voters on abortion and reproductive rights. He has repeatedly shifted his stance and offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election.

Texas encapsulates the post-Roe landscape. Its strict abortion ban prohibits physicians from performing abortions once cardiac activity is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks or before.

As a result, women, including those who didn’t intend to end a pregnancy, are increasingly suffering worse medical care. That’s in part because doctors cannot intervene unless a woman is facing a life-threatening condition, or to prevent “substantial impairment of major bodily function.”

The state also has become a battleground for litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the side of the state’s ban just two weeks ago.

Complaints of pregnant women in medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms in Texas and elsewhere have spiked as hospitals grapple with whether standard care could violate strict state laws against abortion.

Several Texas women have lodged complaints against hospitals for not terminating their failing and dangerous pregnancies because of the state’s ban. In some cases, women lost reproductive organs.

Of late, Republicans have increasingly tried to place the blame on doctors, alleging that physicians are intentionally denying services in an effort to undercut the bans and make a political point.

Perryman said that was gaslighting.

“Doctors are being placed in a position where they are having to face the prospect of criminal liability, of personal liability, threat to their medical license and their ability to care for people — they’re faced with an untenable position,” she said.

___

Long reported from Washington and Lathan from Austin, Texas.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Nova Scotia premier appoints new finance minister after cabinet resignation

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston has announced a cabinet shuffle today, appointing Tim Halman as finance minister and deputy premier.

Halman will retain his portfolio as environment minister as he replaces Allan MacMaster who resigned as finance minister and deputy premier on Thursday.

In a statement on Facebook, MacMaster says he wants to seek the federal Conservative nomination in the riding of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish.

MacMaster says he will stay on as the member of the provincial legislature for Inverness, but will resign his seat if he wins the federal nomination.

In a short statement, the premier’s office says Halman’s swearing-in ceremony took place on Thursday.

The cabinet change comes as speculation mounts about a snap provincial election call as early as this weekend.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Beyoncé, whose ‘Freedom’ is Harris’ campaign anthem, is expected at Democrat’s Texas rally on Friday

Published

 on

 

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Beyoncé is expected to appear Friday in her hometown of Houston at a rally for Vice President Kamala Harris, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Harris’ presidential campaign has taken on Beyonce’s 2016 track “Freedom” as its anthem, and the singer’s planned appearance brings a high-level of star power to what has become a key theme of the Democratic nominee’s bid: freedom.

Harris will head to the reliably Republican state just 10 days before Election Day in an effort to refocus her campaign against former President Donald Trump on reproductive care, which Democrats see as a make-or-break issue this year.

The three people were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Harris campaign did not immediately comment.

Beyoncé‘s appearance was expected to draw even more attention to the event — and to Harris’ closing message.

Harris’ Houston trip is set to feature women who have been affected by Texas’ restrictive abortion laws, which took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. She has campaigned in other states with restrictive abortion laws, including Georgia, among the seven most closely contested states.

Harris has centered her campaign around the idea that Trump is a threat to American freedoms, from reproductive and LGBTQ rights to the freedom to be safe from gun violence.

Beyonce gave Harris permission early in her campaign to use “Freedom,” a soulful track from her 2016 landmark album “Lemonade,” in her debut ad. Harris has used its thumping chorus as a walk-out song at rallies ever since.

Beyoncé’s alignment with Harris isn’t the first time that the Grammy winner has aligned with a Democratic politician. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, danced as Beyoncé performed at a presidential inaugural ball in 2009.

In 2013, she sang the national anthem at Obama’s second inauguration. Three years later, she and her husband Jay-Z performed at a pre-election concert for Democrat Hillary Clinton in Cleveland.

“Look how far we’ve come from having no voice to being on the brink of history — again,” Beyoncé said at the time. “But we have to vote.”

A January poll by Ipsos for the anti-polarization nonprofit With Honor found that 64% of Democrats had a favorable view of Beyonce compared with just 32% of Republicans. Overall, Americans were more likely to have a favorable opinion than an unfavorable one, 48% to 33%.

Speculation over whether the superstar would appear at this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago reached a fever pitch on the gathering’s final night, with online rumors swirling after celebrity news site TMZ posted a story that said: “Beyoncé is in Chicago, and getting ready to pop out for Kamala Harris on the final night of the Democratic convention.” The site attributed it to “multiple sources in the know,” none of them named.

About an hour after Harris ended her speech, TMZ updated its story to say, “To quote the great Beyoncé: We gotta lay our cards down, down, down … we got this one wrong.” In the end, Harris took the stage to star’s song, but that was its only appearance.

Last year, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, attended Beyoncé’s Renaissance World Tour in Maryland after getting tickets from Beyonce herself. “Thanks for a fun date night, @Beyonce,” Harris wrote on Instagram.

___

Long and Kinnard reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report. Kinnard can be reached at

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version