Hobson's choice at the Scottish polls

For a minority government, the scale of the vote in favour of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Bill on its final reading on 27 January last year was impressive (108 members voted in favour and 15 against). A similar landslide vote brought in the smoking ban itself on 30 June 2005 (97 in favour, 17 against). In both cases the Scottish Conservatives provided the only opposition. 

It's no secret that the Westminster Conservatives have been disappointing on the issue of the smoking ban (and related issues) since gaining power with the Liberal Democrats in Westminster last year. It is hard to imagine the Scottish Conservatives having the upper hand in any coalition emerging from the Scottish elections (not that being the stronger partner at Westminster has helped any!) 

Scotland's elected representatives are voted using the party list system (additional member system). This means that each person votes for a constituency MSP and for a regional MSP. Although meant to favour minority parties, the plan here shows that Holyrood is as dominated by major parties as Westminster. Since the Scottish media views the election as a two-horse race, major parties naturally respond by urging their supporters to vote for them on both lists. The result is dismally predictable. 

Further: I have never been sure what the list members are meant to represent. Constituency MSPs represent their constituents – in theory anyway. Are you meant to vote for the policies that they represent, rather than for their personal effectiveness as political representatives? Do they feel any sense of responsibility for their voters, or does most of their loyalty go to whatever party selected them to fight regional seats on its behalf?

Both Labour and the SNP want further powers for the Scottish Parliament. One wants Scotland to be its own country and the other doesn't. Personally I feel that Scotland has too many people trying to run it in too many different places (Edinburgh, London and Strasbourg) and that matters should be made simpler by chopping the devolved assemblies and allowing their function to be filled by regional Westminster MPs, who would meet in the regions (including London of course: no more West Lothian question!). (For reserved issues they could all meet together at Westminster. Much less travelling would be needed.) It would bring legislators closer to the voters on certain issues, whether in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont. 

What of smoking issues in the election manifestos of the two front horses? Well, here is what the Scottish National Party had to offer in 2009 (current manifesto not yet released), under the heading 'Creating a smoke free Europe':

Preventing smoking in public places is an important step to creating a smoke free, healthier Scotland and the SNP is working in partnership with our European neighbours in the fight against tobacco. In addition to the Scottish Government’s smoking prevention action plan, a number of initiatives have been taken at a European-wide level and the SNP will continue to work with the EU to make sure that future initiatives are powerful tools in creating a smoke free Europe.

At least it's clear. Labour's message isn't quite so blunt, but the direction of travel is similar.

Scottish Labour led the UK in banning smoking in enclosed public spaces. We remain determined to do even more to tackle Scotland’s high smoking rates. We will introduce a revised Tobacco Control Strategy that will tighten up the loopholes in legislation to prevent tobacco advertising on merchandise. We will consult on the desirability of a ban on smoking in cars that are carrying child-passengers.

That's your choice.

Scottish blogging: Political Innovation event

I missed this event at the weekend, but found some interesting accounts.

This one, which gave me the impression that blogging in Scotland was all about nationalism, and providing an outlet for nationalist views that are not accommodated by the mainstream Scottish media.

And this one, less nationalistic in outlook, but while acknowledging the anti-nationalist bias in the media, maintained a broader outlook. 'It's not the only issue on which the Scottish media gets it wrong', says writer Peter McColl, listing other Scottish issues neglected by Scottish media (a new Forth road bridge being one example). To such issues I would of course add tobacco control and smoking ban-related issues. 'There’s more to politics than the national question, and the case for more powers would be stronger if it were less one dimensionally put by nationalist bloggers.'

I've never been nationalist in outlook and particularly dislike the indignation expressed about unionists who disagree with issues such as minimum pricing. Having a different view about whether a policy will be effective is not the same as wanting to condemn Scotland's poorest to a life of drink. Taking the moral high ground and claiming a monopoly on caring about Scotland's health does not serve the issues but just turns people into political pawns. It will also not help nationalists to be taken more seriously by Scotland's media, if they claim to be the only ones with a passion for their country and people, and surely not what our supposedly non-adversarial politics with a circular chamber was meant to bring to Scotland.

Having said that, the realisation that Scottish nationalists know that there is something deeply disconnected about Scotland's mainstream media should be common ground.

Peter McColl's gripe was with the quality of political discussion over the last two decades and, more recently, with the failure of participants on Saturday to take hope from the size of the student demonstration in London last week. I also enjoyed his conclusion:

While I’d seen the events in London as evidence that young people are anything but apathetic, the conversation worked from an assumed position that young people are more apathetic. For an event that was meant to be about political innovation this was deeply disappointing. If you think innovation in politics is taking a marketing approach, or making it more like “The X-Factor” then we’re faced with a pretty dire future. The poverty of analysis was matched only by the lack of ambition. The problem with politics is precisely that it is bedevilled by a marketing approach and failed attempts to be like “The X-Factor.” The managerial politics of the last 20 years, marked by an ever more presidential style, has gone a long way to killing politics. If you never discuss anything interesting you make politics boring.

The event itself attracted over 80 participants, and is an ongoing project. Here is one of the organisers' accounts, with links to Twitter and Facebook for those who want to follow developments.