Was SR's editor

suffering from a bad case

of sour grapes?

 

From the many letters received, we publish a cross-section of responses to last week's SR editorials on the results of the Scottish election. The more vitriolic reactions appeared elsewhere on the internet.

With reference to Kenneth Roy's articles, quoting the low turn-out at the Scottish election, I have to ask just how surprising these figures actually are. At the referendum in 1997, I seem to recall that only 46% of the Scottish people actually voted for the resurrection of a Scottish parliament with tax-raising powers. Let's be quite clear, the creation of a Scottish parliament had absolutely nothing to do with redressing any 'democratic deficit' in the United Kingdom. It had everything to do with ensuring the perpetual domination of Scotland's politics by the Labour Party. Didn't George Robertson admit as much at the time? The devolution settlement was a cynically rigged game from the outset. The fact that those responsible for rigging it in the first place have been unable to retain control of it is absolutely delightful. I can only hope that this may be the start of genuine change in Scotland for the better.

Bob Low

 

Sad to see Kenneth Roy's negative articles on the Scottish election. He points out that votes for parties other than the SNP significantly outweighed the SNP vote. Well, fine, that's our parliamentary system in action, but it somehow produced a majority government for the first time ever. Did he point out that in 1997 votes for parties other than Blair's Labour significantly outweighed that for Labour's massive majority in Westminster? He goes on to lament the turnout – agreed, ideally it would have been higher – warns darkly of 'hubris', and rubbishes the notion that the result last Thursday united Scotland. Can I suggest that he doesn't lose touch with the prevailing positive mood of a significant part of the electorate – of all affiliations – who are delighted to see the dread grip of municipal Labour perhaps fatally weakened? 

Dr Alan Runcie

 

I support the Scottish Review because of its courage to speak out and to address clear injustices in the governance of Scotland. I also support SR since it is a non-party organ. But Ken, oh Ken, since the Holyrood election the editor has been emitting a series of sour grapes editorials directed against the party that won the election.  I am not a member of the SNP, or of any other party, but surely he could have been gracious enough to acknowledge the result, and to respect the democratic decision of the Scottish people. Instead he has behaved with all of the unpleasant resentment and biased interpretations we have come to expect from the unionist parties. My conclusion at first was that he had a strong loyalty to the old Labour Party – the real Labour Party of Keir Hardie and Tom Johnson, Attlee and Bevan. That would be wholly understandable.  However, as the sour grapes articles continued, he made me conclude that he has a deep fear or hostility towards Scotland progressing towards genuine statehood. Am I correct – or have I misunderstood him?

David Thomson
Aid worker in Cambodia

 

Tavish Scott stated quite openly, and frequently, presumably intended particularly for the ears of his Lib Dem acolytes, 'If you want independence, then vote SNP'. Well they did, so now you know the answer, and if you are a disappointed unionist, you also know who to blame. So let's have no more pontificating. This was a vote for the SNP, and a vote for independence.

Dougie Don

 

A simple way to overcome voter apathy is to adopt the Australian code of mandatory voting with penalties for no voting. The fine the last time I had to pay one was $200.00 and that was in the 1990s when I decided to protest against some of the Conservative policies. And while I'm on the case what is this nonsense about voting on a Thursday? I'm told that this was the traditional day that farmers came into town for the markets. Change to a Saturday.

Drew Grozier

 

Kenneth Roy quotes, with great precision 'only 22.6% of the electorate voted SNP in last week's election'. Now, whilst I appreciate that his main point is a comparison with the figure for those who voted for other parties, I assume that when he refers to 'the electorate' he means those who are listed on the electoral register, the inaccuracy of which makes something of a farce of any decimal point precision for anything other than comparing party votes. I vividly recall that in the 1979 referendum my late mother voted twice, once for devolution (a conscious, deliberate vote) and once against devolution (an involuntary vote, because, being the owner of a holiday cottage, she was, against her will and despite her strong protestations and attempts to have her name removed, included on the register at a second address). A legitimate turnout of 100% of those on the electoral register is impossible: deaths alone would preclude that.

John Macleod

 

I am a nationalist and a Christian and I don't get much inspiration from David Hume. However, while what Kenneth Roy wrote in his SR editorials about poor election turnouts was not comfortable for anyone drunk in euphoria over an admittedly extraordinary election result, it had to be said, because it was true. Alex Salmond, faced with deep-seated problems in our economy and society, is fully aware of the danger of premature exultation. Of course, nobody likes a party-pooper and – yes – we excel in putting people in their place in this sceptical isle. However, what Kenneth Roy did was simply to offer to the rest of us a dip in the salutary cold bath in which Alex Salmond himself appeared to have bathed before giving his statesmanlike and subdued victory speech. One election does not UDI make. There is a need to talk rationally to each other, to which the first minister elect soberly referred. Without dialogue between all political colours, there is no nation, and we must not forget it.

Bruce Gardner

 

When I was wee boy at Giffnock Primary we did mental arithmetic first thing in the morning. So if the SNP received 45% of the votes why do they have a majority of nine over all other parties given that the voting system was selected so that the share of seats each party receives broadly reflects its level of support among voters?
     • The SNP with 45% of the constituency vote won 73% of the constituency seats, a notional majority of 33.
     • The list vote (where again the SNP again got about 45% of the votes) the correction reduced the SNP share to 53% of the total seats, giving the majority of nine.
     • If the number of seats matched the percentage of votes cast for the SNP (45%), the SNP would be in a minority by about 12 seats.
     What a difference that would have made – it's a conundrum! The current voting system, at this election, appears to send very wrong signals on the views of the Scottish electorate and its support for the SNP. This cannot be healthy for democracy, and the voting system should be reviewed. I cannot imagine that El Presidente will draw attention to this failing. Let's hope that he looks at Scotland's finances in more detail, and ensures that mental arithmetic is fully funded.

Dr John M Hunter

 

Kenneth Roy lifts a stone from under which scuttle some of the less endearing aspects of current Scottish politics. While always up for robust discussion in our democracy, I  do get wearied at the inevitable flurry of green-ink brigadistas which follows any non-nationalist who has the temerity to voice an opinion other than that currently preached by 'Scotland's Party'. Sadly, I suspect we can expect much more of the same nonsense in the coming months as the referendum looms. The tone of this is dictated from the top. Our first minister has never been one for the measured approach to politics – while I have never followed the basis for the allegedly widespread opinion of his competence, I do recognise that in Alec Salmond we have a political bruiser, not a statesman, as Holyrood's senior politico. Large sections of the Scottish commentariat have had the experience of incurring Eck's wrath. Sadly, the response of most has been to roll over. So more power to Kenneth Roy's typing elbow when speaking Truth unto Power. Meantime, might other Scots patriots be of more solid stuff? As yet, it is green spleen we are getting from time to time. We know other compatriots presently find mail opening more anxious. I defer neither to Alex Salmond nor any other nat in my pride in my country's history; my hopes for her future and my love of my homeland. I choose to be a Scottish patriot while detesting nationalism in all its many forms – get over it.

Brian Fitzpatrick

 

Kindly reassure Kenneth Roy that far from being a traitor, he is, as always, shining his light upon the murk and misleading assertions of many within Scottish politics. Such illumination is, well, illuminating. I suspect many people share my appreciation of his perspicacity.

Chris Attkins