Many hours before the Returning Officer in Inverness returned his abacus to the cupboard, politicians and commentators were anticipating a pro-independence majority and warning of a ‘democratic deficit’ if Westminster did not permit a second independence referendum.
The detail of the voting figures does not support that position.
While the two parties advocating secession, the SNP and the Scottish Greens, have secured 73 seats out of 129 in the election, they did so on a combined total of almost 42% of the votes cast across both constituency and regional ballots.
Two observations may be made about the figures.
First, it is noticeable that 251,128 voters who supported the SNP in the constituency vote did not vote SNP in the regional vote.
These voters may well have constituted a substantial proportion of the 374,492 votes cast in the regional vote for the Greens.
While the precise extent of such tactical voting is open to debate, a system which awards 57% of the seats to parties who achieved 42% of the vote can no more be said to proportionately reflect public opinion than the ‘first past the post’ system used in Westminster elections.
Secondly, that 42% share of the vote represents little more than one-fifth of registered electors.
This does not amount to the ‘sustained majority support’ for independence which SNP leaders themselves have previously argued would justify another referendum.
For more than fifteen years the constitutional divide has dominated political debate in Scotland and hindered effective cross-party co-operation on many of the country’s most pressing challenges.
The low turnout in this election and the protest votes that have resulted in the election of MSPs from parties at both extremes of the political spectrum together point to an electorate that is increasingly disillusioned.
Many voters appear disenchanted not only by never ending constitutional grievance and division, but also by the failure of government to make a discernible improvement to people’s lives and to Scottish society as a whole.
The priority now should not be another dispiriting campaign for a referendum, but the rebuilding of consensus across the political centre to address the economic and social challenges facing Scotland.
George Rennie, Inverness.
More letters...
Letters: SNP or not, we reserve the right to fight for indy
Re-introducing the wolf in the Highlands would help to alleviate the deer menace
Referendum threshold should be raised
Independence? Bin it
JOHN Swinney's much vaunted hopes for a majority for independence has not come to fruition.
The SNP has failed to cross that line. In keeping with the idea that trust in politicians has to be earned, then can Scots assume that independence really is off the agenda for the next five years? If not, why not?
This really is a test of the SNP's mettle.
The majority of the public did not vote for it, quite the opposite, so independence really must be consigned to the dustbin.
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
A tale of two Keirs
The illustrious name of Sir Keir Hardie stands out as the founder of the Scottish Labour Party in 1888.
That party grew out of the noble ambition to give working class people a say in their governance, instead of being ruled over by the richer elite.
Nationalisation of public utilities monopolies was seen as a commitment that could no longer be ignored.
Clause IV enshrined this commitment, which was translated into effect.
At least, that is, until privatisation captured the imagination of the electorate. This was endorsed by the Tony Blair government, until the full impact of that policy registered with the electorate.
The privatisation revolution meant it was virtually impossible for any Labour government to reverse the trend. This was due to the excessive costs resulting from a nation hampered by its efforts to produce consistent economic growth.
There was an onslaught against the power of the trade unions. These organisations, upon which the Labour party depended for monetary contributions, lost traction and relevance, through the decline in the numbers of unions and trade unionists.
The final nail in the coffin was the dilution of Clause IV.
This was Tony Blair's brainwave, alongside his acceptance of the privatisation programme.
Socialism became a dirty word, while profit and deregulation took hold of the UK psyche, to embed the values of predatory capitalism therein.
The outlier, fighting for the importance of community cohesion, has been the SNP, and for a considerable period of time it has longed to break free from the apron strings of Westminster.
At the outset, it seemed as though the Starmer government might be on the right track, with its emphasis on consistent economic growth, alongside community cohesion. However, it transpired that Sir Keir had a tin ear, and no political bones in his body.
Meanwhile, the electorate was intent upon instant gratification, and was in the grip of the prejudices created by social media bubbles.
Sir Keir’s good intentions were swallowed up in his futile fight against those pressures swamping his policy programme. This took place alongside his avoidable clunky errors, which led to him being portrayed as a latter day King Cnut, trying to hold back the waves of predatory capitalism.
Now he is on the verge of watching as the Labour party is eclipsed, while the values his party once held dear are consigned to the dustbin of history.
How ironic that the man who shares a name with the founder of the Labour Party, could well be about to bring about its extinction.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
Voting: A warning
What have we learned from the latest election? Everyone who can vote should vote, and be very, very careful who you vote for.
W. MacIntyre, East Kilbride.
Going postal
May I suggest that at the next election, Scotland’s councils employ the same staff to count ballots as they use to post me my council tax increase notices - those are never delayed.
Christopher McLaughlin, Thornliebank, East Renfrewshire.
The winner of UK elections? Putin
According to the votes cast, three countries within the UK will now be governed by individuals who favour leaving the Union.
At Westminster the left wing of a weakened Labour Party are campaigning to remove the Prime Minister; an honest man who realises that, in order for democracy to survive here, and across Europe, Ukraine must fight off President Putin’s Russia.
In Scotland, the system of proportional representation has assisted both the Greens and Reform to gain significant influence.
The former gaining influence on important issues such as energy supply and the UK nuclear deterrent, under cover of attracting younger voters who, quite rightly, are concerned about climate change, which is a genuinely green issue.
If Mr Farage, leader of Reform UK, cared about Scotland, he would acknowledge the damage which Brexit has caused.
By meddling in this Scottish election all his party has achieved, here, is a weakening of the Conservative position.
As a result, the nationalist position is strengthened, and the risk to everyone’s freedom increases. I do not believe that Mr Farage is a patriot. In my opinion he is an opportunist whose motives remain opaque.
In defence terms, our allies once regarded the UK as Europe’s unsinkable aircraft carrier. It seems to me that this ship is now holed below the waterline.
President Putin will be considering his options.
Ian H.C. Stein, Dunblane.
Share