Letters to The Herald

Specifically aimed against smaller parties

ROBERT Brown attacks the SSP and the Green Party for protesting at Labour's kite-flying over changing the voting system to elect the Scottish Parliament (Letters, September 1). I think he is deliberately misrepresenting our concern. The Labour kite mentions an STV system based on a three- or four-member constituency. This is the same model being proposed for local government in Scotland by his Labour-LibDem coalition. This is specifically designed to minimise the impact of the smaller parties and retain the cosy coalition of the four main parties. The SSP is in favour of STV for local government; for two years I have represented the SSP on Fairshare, the lobby for STV in local government which the LibDems are also on.

But we are committed to getting wards large enough to reflect minority opinion on local government and we will be putting forward amendments to this effect at committee level. Can we expect Robert Brown's support?

We would have had STV for local government by now if only the LibDems had not let Labour off the hook in their first coalition deal. Let's hope they don't sell the pass again for "party advantage". Finally, could I remind Robert Brown that he was elected by the list system that he complains about and, by my calculations, he would be unlikely to be elected in Glasgow with a three- or four-member constituency, whereas Tommy Sheridan certainly would be.

Hugh Kerr, SSP press officer, The Scottish Parliament.


ROBERT Brown, MSP, is wrong to claim that the media have exaggerated the support of the SSP. The number of SSP MSPs in the Scottish Parliament is fewer than the SSP would have got in an exactly proportional system, based on their percentage of the vote. He is also wrong to say that the SSP (or, indeed, the Greens) have reneged on their commitment to STV voting. What both Mr Harper and the SSP spokesperson actually said was that they feared that a new system of voting would be introduced in such a way as to make it more difficult for smaller parties by effectively reducing the constituency size from seven representatives, under the current regional lists, to three or four.

Mr Brown also seems confused over the purpose of the second vote, which he believes is a "second-choice vote". Although many of the electorate in Scotland used their two votes to vote for different parties, the majority did not. They understood, even if Mr Brown does not, that the vote in the regional list section does not have to be different from the constituency preference. What the second vote does give the voter is the opportunity in every region to vote for the party of their choice (at least among six) and stand a realistic chance of that party benefiting from the vote. If anything, the second vote is arguably a truer representation of party support than the constituency vote, as it is less influenced by local, personal, and "wasted vote" considerations.

Frank Hotchkiss, 27/2 Freelands Crescent, Old Kilpatrick.