Is it democratic to exclude Reform from Scottish political talks?

[Thankyounextnext]

FWIW I voted SNP. But I don't understand how John Swinney can be allowed to exclude a party from talks just because he doesn't agree with their politics?

As shown by the results, a not insignificant number of Scots voted Reform - how is it democratic to exclude them but not Labour, who gained the same number of seats? In my opinion this will make Reform voters feel further alienated. I never thought I'd agree with anything Farage said but honestly what is the point in having a vote then excluding a large proportion of voters from having a voice?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddpevvv97jo

Im a tory voter sympathetic to the cause of reform - i think thats disgraceful. Swinney says he wants to United Scotland but is ostracising a chunk of the electorate who have elected more MSP's than many of the parties he will be engaging. Its beyond arrogant.

This going to be interesting. The Gov are free to work with whoever they want to but they must govern for the whole people of Scotland.

Scottish people, and the wider world, have continually been told what Scotland “Is” and what Scotland “believes” and the narrative has been pedalled that Scotland is somehow different.
It simply isn’t true and Thursdays result just proves it!
Im gutted Reform got such a proportion of the vote and got a hold but not surprised. You continually shout down people and this is what happens, there’s a growing sizeable minority that someone else listens to.
The cornerstone of a democracy is recognising and respecting other people’s rights to hold different opinions, not continually shouting down any dissent

Totally agree @ScoStud - well said.

The more the left in England & Wales, and the SNP are like this, the stronger the support for reform will grow. So I think Nigel will be happy enough with this. They want as much distance between themselves and the others as possible.

It’s hardly unprecedented, it’s very common in Germany for factions to stick together for instance. Even in the UK, in 2010, the Tories didn’t invite Labour in to discuss forming a coalition at Westminster. In 2017(?), the only party they spoke to was the DWP, who most of the country hadn’t even had the opportunity to vote for and then handed them £6 billion, which wasn’t on any manifesto.

Why would Swinney consider forming a coalition with a party that disagrees with him on just about every issue? They aren’t going to reach common ground.

It is also not misrepresenting anyone. People who voted reform will still be represented and their representatives will vote as they see fit but a greater majority (~75%) voted centre-left and it makes sense Swinney would talk to these parties that hold similar values to understand what can actually be achieved in this Parliament.

Nobody would have expected the Tories to go into talks with Labour in the 2010 hung parliament result in England, even though Labour got many more seats than the Lib Dems. That's not how it works.

The party with the biggest share gets to talk to whoever they want about a coalition.

I'm in England op but completely agree with you. I watched John Swinney and Steven Flynn on Sky news being interviewed they both sounded like dictators rather than trying to be there for all despite who people voted for. The new Wales guy can't remember his name gave a good speech which I though was inclusive rather than divisive. John Swinney has made it crystal clear time and again exactly what he thinks of both Reform and its voters.

I don't understand the objection?

I can't stand the SNP, but why would anyone expect any political party to be willing to form a coalition with a party where the values are completely misaligned?

Is it really antidemocratic not to want to work in partnership with people who you consider to be morally bankrupt?

John Swinney is welcome to think what he likes about Reform, but he ignores them at his peril - the vote share for Reform rose significantly pretty much everywhere.

Reform got only slightly less than 50% of the votes that the SNP did 1,503,026 v 745,419). By that reckoning they should have around 24 seats. They got nearly double the votes that the Greens did, and have only got 2 seats more. More than a million people more didn't vote for the SNP that did. It shows very clearly that the majority of people in Scotland do not support them.

Swinnwy needs to get his head out of his arse and start dealing with the issues his party have caused, not excluding large swathes of voters. He needs to govern the whole of Scotland, otherwise the Reform vote share runs the risk of increasing yet further.

That is how coalition works. You have to find common ground and a working relationship with another party. It is about compromise and generally brings about a more moderate path forward than single party control. Best to find a party that you can work with than one you can’t.
It is also a feature of FPTP when there are multiple parties. Most people will not have voted for the elected party. They don't get heard.

The talks are nothing to do with forming a coalition - did you read the article?

From what I have read about the state of Scotland, if you vote SNP you deserve all you get.

What do you think the talks are about?

Yeah, this is why proportional representation isn't really very proportional or representative at all. As a system, it gives fringe parties far more power than is justified by the votes they have won.

Either you get a situation where a minority party in the middle ground hold the balance of power and can decide to coalition with either the left or the right regardless of which of those more voters preferred, or you get a situation (like in Scotland) where polititians of one flavour form coalition with some parties while ignoring others completely and there is no real transparency to the electorate on the deals that are being struck behind closed doors. That last point is the real sticking point for me in Scotland. For example, Sturgeon's deal with the Greens on gender was one of the things which scuppered her in the end, and it was something the vast majority of voters didn't support, but it was a price the SNP were prepared to pay for power and never mind democracy.

The point of coalition politics is to build consensus.

John Swinney, as leader of by far and away the largest party, has the right to seek that consensus with anyone he so chooses.

John Swinney leads the SNP, a party which has long advocated for an Independent Scotland. Malcom Offord leads the Scottish contingent of ReformUK, a private company whose head has made noises about doing away with devolved governance altogether. Considering this, and the fact that Reform voters are highly, highly unlikely to ever shift their opinion in the event that SNP/Reform interaction proved fruitful, there is absolutely nothing to be gained for either the SNP or Scotland in entertaining Reform, so I'm afraid their voters will just have to accept their irrelevance in the meantime.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about this. If you do not have anywhere near the popular support to get elected in sufficient numbers to govern, then it isn't everyone else's fault when the people who beat you treat you as a loser.

@Starbright102 is right. Swinney talked about 'talking' to all parties.He's looking to find areas for agreement for future working so he can pass bills and budgets but he's been clear he will lead a minority government and doesn't want a coalition.

I am absolutely no fan of Reform but clearly a lot of people in Scotland voted for them so I think it's undemocratic to ignore them. And runs the risk of pushing people further to extremes and Farage's journey to No10 almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They way the SNP are talking about them you'd think they were the antichrist.

Edited to correct typo

Scottish people, and the wider world, have continually been told what Scotland “Is” and what Scotland “believes” and the narrative has been pedalled that Scotland is somehow different.
It simply isn’t true and Thursdays result just proves it!

What does Thursday's vote "prove" about Scotland precisely?

The outcome of Thursday is that there are two fewer right-wing MSP's in the chamber than there were previously, as the upsurge in Reform vote is clearly largely derived from the significant drop in Tory vote. We've simply replaced representation from one right-wing party with another, only with the net result is that there are fewer in total this time around.

Reform also totalled 16% of the vote, so no, they aren't tallying in Scotland anything like they are south of the border or in Wales, where they recorded 26% and 29.3% vote share respectively.

Ok. So not an actual coalition but more of a supply and confidence type arrangement?

I think the same principles apply tbh. There is no obligation for them to talk to Reform, and arguably, many of the people who voted for SNP might be very opposed to them working with Reform, so how would that respect their democratic views?

We don't usually see governments which are elected with clear majorities feeling under pressure to implement a proportion of the opposition parties' policies on line with the share of the vote that each party won. Do you feel that it would be undemocratic for a Tory government in Westminster not to implement some Labour policies to reflect the views of Labour voters? Or vice versa?

The SNP are free to work with whoever they like to get their bills through the Scottish parliament. They don't need to talk to Reform if they don't need Reform support to govern.

For example, Sturgeon's deal with the Greens on gender was one of the things which scuppered her in the end, and it was something the vast majority of voters didn't support

This is a bold claim considering -

1. GRC reform was an SNP manifesto pledge through two Scottish Elections, both of which the SNP won in dominant fashion.
2. The Bill itself had almost universal approval across the chamber, including from the elected representatives of the Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and even a couple of Tory members, all of whom are subject to the litmus test of election.

Considering this, I'd say it's clear that either the "vast majority of voters" either approved, hence why they voted for these parties while GRC reform was an ongoing matter, or more likely, the vast majority of voters simply do not consider it an electoral issue and it has little to no impact on how the electorate votes.

The SNP are free to work with whoever they like to get their bills through the Scottish parliament. They don't need to talk to Reform if they don't need Reform support to govern

Indeed.

It's also quite telling to see people who were no doubt up in arms about the SNP working with the Greens now claiming it's "undemocratic" to ignore Reform.

For a start, if there is anything to take from the breakdown of the SNP/Green relationship, it's that presiding government should probably show a little more discretion in choosing who they get into bed with. Given that hardly any of Reform's new MSP's have served as politicians before, that Reform's vetting has proven to be somewhere between shambolic and non-existent, several new Reform MSP's will undoubtedly have an array of yet to emerge skeletons in their closets (Senga Beresford's SM history is interesting), and we've had a couple of years of elected Reform officials either tapping out days, weeks, or months into the job when they realise it means working, or causing total and complete chaos due to incompetence, it's prudent to let Reform prove they are a serious presence before anyone affords them respect or treats them seriously.

No. He needs a coalition he believes in. There's no point inviting someone for an interview when you know their not getting the job. Waste of everyone's time.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack

We don't usually see governments which are elected with clear majorities feeling under pressure to implement a proportion of the opposition parties' policies on line with the share of the vote that each party won. Do you feel that it would be undemocratic for a Tory government in Westminster not to implement some Labour policies to reflect the views of Labour voters? Or vice versa?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Scotland completely different to Westminster? Wasn't it set up by Blair and Brown so there couldn't be a majority party in Scotland? So it would always be two parties working together so as the SNP wouldn't get full power and therefore lessing the risk of Scottish Independence.

Finding this thread really informative and interesting.

Yes, it's different. But that still doesn't mean that the SNP need to talk to any particular party.

No we don't see governments that are elected with clear majorities implement other parties' policies. But the SNP do not have a majority so they have to work with other parties to get anything done.

So while I agree it's unlikely that the SNP and Reform will have common ground I still think the way they are speaking about them is not in line with 'serving all of the people of Scotland'.

No it’s not undemocratic at all. You don’t expect a winning party to partner with parties that are anathema to their voters.

Labour won many more seats than the LibDems in 2010 but no-one thought it odd that the Tories didn’t consider them as partners for coalition.