MENU

HOMEPAGE

Animal Health/
Welfare/Zoonoses

Environment

Land Reform

Food

Science

Fishing

Tourism

Education

Cultybraggan
Farm

Trade

Book Reviews

Light Relief

Links

Glossary

Correspondence

Vacancies

Contact Us

Back to Social/Economic/Political Homepage

5 May 2003

Scottish Parliament Election Result

Dr James Irvine

Teviot Scientific Consultancy, Edinburgh
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire

(Filed 5 May 2003)
© www.land-care.org.uk

The elections for the second 4 year term of the Scottish Parliament were held on 1st May 2003. The make-up of this new Parliament is important for Scotland, which is partially devolved from Westminster. Not least it will be important as to how matters concerning agriculture and fishing are handled, and the very important subject of Land Reform (Scotland). The Scottish Outdoor Access Code is still to be finalised and submitted to the Scottish Parliament, which can either approve it or demand further drafting.

Election to the Scottish Parliament works on a combination of a first past the post system for the 73 constituencies (referred to as constituency MSPs) and a form of proportional representation across the range of parties based on 8 regions within Scotland. The MSPs are chosen for the second system from a priority list held by each party according to the proportion of the total votes cast for that party (referred to as Regional or List MSPs). There is a bar on the number of list MSPs any party can have if that party has achieved a high number of constituency MSPs. The purpose is to give smaller parties that have not been able to gain constituency MSPs representation in the Scottish Parliament broadly in relation to the total number of votes cast for that party. There were 129 seats up for grabs - 73 constituency and 56 regional (list).

Scottish voters have two votes in the election for the Scottish Parliament. The first vote is for the individual person they want to see as their constituency MSP. The second vote is for the political party they favour for the purpose of the election of list MSPs. The two votes are unrelated in so far as the voter can choose an individual of one party to represent them as a constituency MSP, and then either vote for the same or a different political party in the second vote. This gives considerable scope for tactical voting.

The overall result is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Scottish Parliament Election Results.
(Source: www.bbc.co.uk/votescotland).

In the first Scottish Parliament (1999-2003) the Labour party did not have an overall majority (56 seats out of the total of 129). They formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dem or LD) that were a small minority party (17 seats), but when linked with Labour provided a coalition (73 seats) that subsequently dominated most if not all parliamentary committees thereafter.

This was particularly relevant to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Clearly the Labour-LD coalition had agreed, in drawing up the terms of their coalition, that the ideology of community right to buy land and for the public to have almost unfettered access to all land for a wide range of recreational activities, no matter where, was to be achieved within that parliament. The trouble was of course that neither the Labour nor the LD MSPs had shown much evidence of having any knowledge or concern for the people who managed the land, being predominately urban based in their background and thinking. The urban-rural divide was set. The job of seeing through this policy was given to the small minority party, the LD.

The consequences of this arrangement have been manifest in that over the past 4 years the Labour-LD coalition has presided over the serious decline of Scottish agriculture (1) and the demise of the Scottish fishing Industry (2, 3).

Are things going to be any better this time round?

Horse-trading between Labour and LD has started - they could just reform a coalition with an overall majority. Their majority would be very narrow, so part of the bargain may be that each and every Labour-LD MSP will have to vote according to party with little or no scope for any individual to vote according to the wishes of his/her constituents. In other words we are likely to get more of the same. Except that it may be worse - the Greens have made substantial gains, achieving seven seats in the Scottish Parliament on the basis of the list system. The trouble here is that the Greens in Scotland simply mis-sell science and animal welfare and health - making claims that cannot be substantiated (4, 5) but which appeal to the public who are taken in by their mis-information.

The success of the Greens and of the Scottish Socialists is undoubtedly related to the absurd proportion of TV time in Scotland that was devoted to them, making the leaders of these parties into celebrities. The fact was that both were one-man bands with neither party having any constituency MSPs.

The new Scottish Parliament will consist of six parties (plus 4 independent MSPs). Five of these six parties are left of centre. This does not bode well for the management of the economy which is currently dire in Scotland (6; Table 2; Table 3). It bodes badly for anyone trying to manage land, and worse for anyone who carries financial responsibility for the management of that land.

Table 2: GDP Annual Growth.
(Source: Professor Derek Reid (2003). The Challenges ahead for Rural Scotland - Presentation given at Connecting Communities Conference, April 2003).

Table 3: Global Entrepreneurial League.
(Source: Professor Derek Reid (2003). The Challenges ahead for Rural Scotland - Presentation given at Connecting Communities Conference, April 2003).

There are serious concerns as to the agenda that has operated (and is likely to continue to operate) between the coalition in the Scottish Parliament, its agency called Scottish Natural Heritage (7, 8, 9, 10), and the way funds are directed through the Scottish Executive for academic work related to the use of land and the rural economy. The Scottish Executive, taking instruction from the Scottish Parliament, call the shots as to what type of research they want to see done - a cut of 25% for farming in preference to projects relating to human health and the “environment”. Within farming, preference was given to the promotion of organic over conventional, although the benefits of organic remain unproven.

Scottish Enterprise, another government agency, has been deemed a failure (11, 12) with the axe belatedly falling on its misguided and extravagant activities (13). For all the hype, Scotland’s economic performance has been abysmal compared to that of England and other EU countries (Table 2) and the spirit of the entrepreneur, so essential for innovation, seems to have been broken amongst those who stay in Scotland (Table 3).

In the recent election the Minister for Enterprise in the previous coalition lost his constituency seat for Pentlands, Edinburgh to the chairman of the Scottish Conservatives. The Conservatives have been calling for tighter control over the economy and abhor the escalating expenditure approaching £400 million on the mismanaged and seriously delayed new parliament building. This while the level of poverty in Scotland is awesome.

Professor Donald MacRae in the TSB Agricultural Survey for 2003 (1) reports on how those involved in farming said they intended to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections that have now just been. The farmers were also asked whether devolution had benefited agriculture in Scotland. The findings are shown in Figure 1. Sadly the party the farmers intended to support is again in the minority, while the party they emphatically did not want is in the majority.

Figure 1: How farmers said they intended to vote in the 2003 Scottish
Parliament Elections. (Reproduced from Reference 1).

If a parliament decides to promote its pet policies it has to see to it that the money is generated to enable these policies to be pursued without ruining the economy. Emotive but irrational ideologies are not known for putting food on the table or putting clothes on the bairns, far less providing them with a good education.

Jack McConnell, the previous first Minister (the one before that had to resign on account of nefarious financial dealings regarding his parliamentary expenses) admitted that the Labour party had suffered by the election, and promised to learn from its mistakes. What they have to learn is how to restore public trust. As Professor Derek Reid emphasised in his recent keynote address to the Conference in Edinburgh entitled “Connecting Communities” (6) the strength of the Scottish people depends on three inherent Scottish values: honesty, integrity and inventiveness. If the coalition in power in the Scottish Parliament does not display honesty and integrity and stifles inventiveness, Scotland will be much the poorer.

The next four years could be grim for the Scottish farming and fishing industries. As much of Scotland’s image depends on these activities, the general forecast for Scotland is likewise not good.

© www.land-care.org.uk

References

1. MacRae, Donald (2003). Lloyds TSB Scotland Scottish Agricultural Survey 2003.
(Filed 22 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

2. Davidson, John (2003). The Fall and Fall of the Scottish Fishing Industry.
(Filed 29 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

3. Fife Fish Producers Organisation (2003). The Situation of, and in, our Fishing Communities
(Filed 28 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

4. “Organic Farmers will have to get real” says Professor McKellar.
(Filed 23 December 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

5. Land-Care Editorial (2002). Food Standards Agency does not Provide Support for Organic Farming.
(Filed 14 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

6. Reid, Derek (2003). The Challenges ahead for Rural Scotland. Connecting Communities Conference, April 2003. (Click here to download speech [PDF - 121 KB]).

7. Mitchell, Ian (2003). Drastic change in Land Management. The Herald, Letters, 25 April 2003.
(Filed 25 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

8. Irvine, James (2003). Conservation and the Misuse of Science.
(Filed 15 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

9. Irvine, James (2001) Scottish Natural Heritage’s policy on Access: Is it being mis-sold in relation to enclosed farmland next urban communities? LandCare Scotland, 1: 19.
(Filed 15 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

10. Irvine, James (2001). SNH Conference September 2000: Enjoyment and understanding of the natural heritage: Finding the new balance between rights and responsibilities. A report of the proceedings. LandCare Scotland, 1: 25.
(Filed 22 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

11. Jamieson, Bill. (2003) Why Scottish enterprise is just not working. Scotsman, 7 March 2003. (Click here to view).

12. Scott, David (2003). Watchdog urged to examine Enterprise. Scotsman, 4 March 2003. (Click here to view).

13. Ward, Sharon (2003). Scottish Enterprise axe falls on Glasgow. Scotsman, 21 March 2003. (Click here to view).