Party Democracy, Devolution Scotland

Ann Henderson

With the 2003 May elections in Scotland, we saw a shift in the composition of the Scottish Parliament, and a number of changes in local authorities across Scotland. Six Labour MSPs lost their seats, and there was a sizeable increase in the Scottish Socialist Party and Green representation. The Tories picked up votes, notably taking Edinburgh Pentlands from Labour's Iain Gray. The SNP vote fell quite dramatically in some seats. In Dundee East, however, the SNP narrowly took the seat from Labour's John McAllion.

Whilst there has been much analysis of these results, there is certainly agreement that opposition to the war in Iraq played a significant part in Labour's declining vote. Although the Liberal Democrats did well in some seats - very similar pattern of voting and conclusions as could be drawn from the Brent East by election result - the big winners were the smaller parties. The electoral system we have for the Scottish Parliament provides for 129 members - 73 elected by First Past the Post, and 56 elected by the Additional Member system. The UK government had recommended this system for the election of regional members for the English Regional Assemblies.

Since the May 2003 election results, it is interesting to note that in Scotland there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst a number of Labour MSPs over the AMS system - it is felt that there is no clear member/area representative link, and that the workload of constituency MSPs (in Labour's case, a majority) is perceived to be much greater than the workload of the AMS list members. The Labour Party would be better to have a discussion about how to maximise the contributions that all elected members can make. It is more likely that the dissatisfaction has emerged because the SSP and Green Parties now have whole teams of elected Members and research staff working in the Scottish Parliament, qualitatively affecting their input.

To change the Scottish Parliament voting system from AMS requires an amendment at Westminster, to the Scotland Act, and nothing has come forward to date. The Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster indicates that the current number of 129 MSPs will remain, rather than be reduced in line with the number of revised Westminster constituency boundaries.

129 MSPs

One of the consequences of the Scotland Act, and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, was that the Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland would be reduced from 72 to 56, reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. In December 2002, under pressure from Labour MSPs not to tinker with the newly established Scottish Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Scotland Helen Liddell, ran a consultation exercise and then published a response, concluding that the Scottish Parliament should be kept at its present size.
Whilst there undoubtedly is (and was) a strong argument for retaining the total number of 129 in the Scottish Parliament, the consequences of the decision are being felt by the Scottish Labour Party and by Party activists. The Scottish Labour Party is bound by the terms of the UK Labour Party Rule Book - namely that the organisation of local Constituency Labour Parties will be based on boundaries concurrent with the Westminster seat boundaries.

Accountability of Labour MSPs

This presents an immediate challenge in Scotland, where CLPs are currently in a state of limbo, not being allowed to hold their AGMs (some are not meeting at all) until the Boundary Commission reports on all its conclusions. When CLPs are reorganised on the boundaries of the 56 new Westminster constituencies, there will be no clear line of local accountability with the current Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Labour Party NEC has proposed the establishment of Scottish Parliamentary Forums, which will be open to all individual members of the Party, will meet quarterly, and can question their elected representative. These will be based on the current constituency boundaries. This is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, not least because without a delegate structure, there is no role for unions and affiliates in building up a relationship with the local Labour MSP, nor is there any facility for motions, policy discussion, and real accountability.

Some unions and CLPs have been responding to the Scottish Labour Party accordingly, arguing for more frequent meetings with a delegate base.

Scottish MPs at Westminster - the battle for seats!

The other issue in Scotland around the boundary changes is of course the consequent reduction in numbers of Scottish MPs. The power struggles are ongoing, and the expulsion of George Galloway from the Party should also be understood in the context of the reduction in Glasgow parliamentary constituencies, and the expected infighting between sitting Labour Members.

Whilst the UK Labour Party NEC made a welcome announcement last summer about promoting women's representation, including using women only shortlists in some constituencies, it is notable that the Scottish Party Executive, with the agreement of the UK Labour Party NEC, has endorsed some sort of exemption in Scotland, not wishing to displace any more of the sitting MPs who already face reduced opportunities. The Scottish Labour Women's Caucus has been campaigning on this and will continue to press for a decision that ensures an increased number of Labour women will be returned from Scotland to Westminster. The Scottish Labour Party had been congratulated in January 2003 on its stance on favouring women candidates in Labour's lists for the Scottish Parliament Additional Member System - we are looking for some positive action on Westminster too. Proportional Representation - changing local government in Scotland
Proportional representation for local government is clearly on the agenda in Scotland. The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill is now in legislative process. One of the central planks of the Partnership Agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in May was the commitment to PR for local government. Some on Labour's left have repeatedly argued that minority government would be a preferred option, and move forward a more radical Labour programme.

The proposed form of PR will be Single Transferable Vote system based on multi member wards, with three or four representatives. A consultation with the Scottish Labour Party earlier in the year, including in a limited way at Party Conference in March, showed that Party members and affiliates in their majority were totally opposed to PR for local government. Labour members want to retain a first past the post system, with a clear ward/member link. The Liberal Democrats of course had made it a fundamental condition of signing up to the Partnership Agreement, and Jack McConnell wasted no time in conceding that point. With strong opposition amongst many of Labour's councillors, and divisions too in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the progress of the Bill through Parliament will not be smooth.

Four different voting systems

So over the next few years we will have four different voting systems in Scotland: First Past the Post for Westminster and for the Scottish Parliament (but with different constituency boundaries); Additional Member System top-up for the Scottish Parliament based on seven regions in Scotland; PR Single Transferable Vote with multi member wards for Local authorities across Scotland; and the European elections, based on larger regions (three for Scotland) a single transferable voting system. This poses all sorts of questions for Labour. How do we best campaign? Who decides on the policies? How do we build our vote and how do we organise ourselves? The discussions are continuing in CLPs and with affiliates in Scotland and will be reflected in preparations for the 2004 Scottish Labour Party Conference in Inverness.

Party members and affiliates want to have access to the policy discussions and decisions for all these areas of responsibility. Last year the trade unions played a key role in overturning the Conference Arrangements Committee report, insisting that Iraq should be on the agenda. However, Scottish Conference was then told that as it was a reserved matter, a Policy Forum format would be necessary, as Scottish conference did not discuss international issues. Whilst the victory was in the vote that made clear that the Party in Scotland would discuss the war, there is an unresolved issue there about what can be discussed at Scottish Conference.

This has to be tackled - Scottish Labour supports and returns Labour MPs to Westminster and MEPs to the European Parliament. The Scottish Labour Party must have a role in discussing and determining policies as in the past. Otherwise the Westminster Scottish MPs are distanced from the policy discussions - and are left unwatched and unaccountable. The UK Labour Party Rule Book determines how the constituencies in Scotland are organised - which may or may not be the best way to do it - there is an urgent need to re-examine the relationship between the Scottish and the UK Parties, and the policy making processes. There will be an opportunity to do some of this in the relaunched 21st century Party consultation, but we need to be at the forefront of that.

This article was originally drafted for the CLPD AGM Bulletin 2004