Can Alex Salmond’s plan to ‘game’ Holyrood’s voting system work?

Alex Salmond’s reemergence on the Scottish political scene as leader of the Alba party had a pantomimic quality – some cheers, some boos, and a lively mix of interest and anxiety about where the plot would now go with the principal boy back centre stage. But working out how the appearance of Salmond’s new party affects what happens is a considerable challenge, thanks to Scotland’s infernally complex voting system.

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston’s reference to the Schleswig-Holstein question, it may be that only around three people truly understand the D’Hondt voting system employed in Scottish parliamentary elections, though there are probably more, who like the fabled German professor, have gone mad trying to figure it out.

Salmond clearly believes that he understands it though, and that it can be exploited in favour of independence. He has been open about the strategy of his new party, which is to win enough seats to hold the balance of power in a ‘super majority’ (SNP + Alba + Greens?) for separation. The Alba party is standing only list candidates in May’s election, which means their vote tally will not be divided by the number of constituencies they win. They could pick up 25 seats, or even more, if the majority of pro-independence supporters vote for them.

The hope is that this newly-created power block will pressurise the UK government into granting a Section 30 order authorising a second referendum: or, failing that, provide the parliamentary muscle, and media prominence, to pursue an alternative route to independence through the courts. This latter strategy would, apparently, be bolstered by ‘peaceful street demonstrations’.

It is worth dwelling on this plan B and considering what it means in terms of democracy. The Scottish Nationalists, though far and away the most popular and powerful party in Scotland, have never won 50 per cent of the popular vote in any Scottish parliamentary or Westminster election, and, of course, fell well short of their target in the 2014 referendum. Even in opinion polls, despite their claims to the contrary, the SNP have on only a handful of occasions registered true majority support, if the ‘don’t knows’, who by a huge majority voted to remain in the UK in the 2014 referendum, are included in the calculation.

Salmond defends the legitimacy of his initiative by claiming that due to the complexities of D’Hondt nearly a million pro-independence votes were wasted in 2016. But this is pure sophistry. What really happened is that SNP list votes did not translate into additional Holyrood seats because those voters’ primary vote had already been amply rewarded. The purpose of D’Hondt is to provide representation for smaller parties whose support is significant but scattered. It was not designed to allow already powerful parties to add to their total with bonus seats resulting from a 'both votes for one party' strategy.

Alba gets round this problem, with what is effectively is a ‘buy one, get one free’ offer. Claims that there will be significant differences between Alba and the SNP manifestos are risible. The ease with which disillusioned SNP figures are transferring to Alba give the lie to the idea that the two are distinct parties in terms of policy. In truth, the SNP and Alba are pro-independence pressure groups, of the modern sort, with a menu of crowd pleasing social justice aspirations tacked on to their primary goal to persuade those emotionally drawn to independence that they are progressives rather than nationalists. They are, as the effiedeans blog describes them perfectly: SNP 1 and SNP 2.

Salmond’s strategy then is to exploit the flaws within the D’Hondt system to win around 75 per cent of Holyrood seats, on what will likely be around 45 per cent or less of the popular vote. This, it will be argued, represents the settled will of the Scottish people in favour of independence. Such a super majority based on seats, not votes, would allow Holyrood and its tentacles of power to relentlessly promote the independence cause and frustrate Westminster at every turn.

The threat of court action if demands to Westminster are persistently rebuffed could be a powerful weapon, as could the colourful, theatrical, street protests, which will sustain the fevered pitch of second wave nationalism, and ensure the emotion and devotion of the faithful captures the spotlight and dominates media coverage.

All the while, what is still likely to be the majority of Scots, who oppose independence, and voted for unionist parties in the Scottish parliamentary elections, will look on in horror. From the wings.