You can take this point with a pinch of salt as I am, I'm sure you're aware, an avowed unionist. However, one flaw I see in this plan is that tying election outcomes to future referendums would recharge the constitutional polarisation of Scottish politics. The SNP have, for too long, been able to coast to easy victories at Holyrood without having to actually govern well at all, because they just hoover up all the pro-indy votes anyway and for those voters governance is a concerningly secondary issue (or if the SNP has misruled it's somehow Westminster's fault). It is only in the last year or two that some of the heat has come out of the debate and the SNP have started to pay the price that every party in a normal democracy eventually pays as the government runs out of steam and voters seek pastures new. And that is because independence has moved down the pecking order of voters' issues.
Introducing a scheme like this would doubtless send it rocketing back up the pile of voter concerns again. This would be good for the SNP, but it would be very much an issue for Scottish democracy if the party could continue to win elections regardless of how badly it governs. Northern Ireland essentially already has such a system pushed to its extreme, and you see the result - a hugely dysfunctional politics with regular government shutdowns which is only tolerated because the alternative could be a literal civil war. I'm sure you'd agree with me that the DUP are not a "normal" party but their MLAs keep getting reelected anyway because their voters are so driven to maintain the union that the bigotry and corruption of the DUP gets a free pass.
It's something of a bind. Anything which ties votes to the constitutional question corrodes democracy, because it shifts voter motivations away from their usual purpose of holding the government to account. But if you never let people vote on the most pivotal question deciding the future of their country, that's not democratic either. And I don't know a way of squaring this circle.
> The SNP have, for too long, been able to coast to easy victories at Holyrood without having to actually govern well at all, because they just hoover up all the pro-indy votes anyway
There's certainly an element of truth in that.
> I'm sure you'd agree with me that the DUP are not a "normal" party but their MLAs keep getting reelected anyway because their voters are so driven to maintain the union that the bigotry and corruption of the DUP gets a free pass.
In both Scotland and NI the constitutional question is a big one, and as you say, it pushes other questions to the background.
But what if the constitutional question wasn't there? Well, something else would've been the biggest issue, and that would've pushed other issues to the background.
In the NI assembly, 7 parties were elected at the last election (and 2 independents). And in the Scottish Parliament, 5 parties were elected.
The more parties that's capable of getting elected, the more choice voters have. I'd like to see a fully proportional voting system, e.g. STV with top-ups, so for every 1% of the vote, a party get 1% of the seats. That maximises the number of points of view that can be represented giving voters more choice.
Then in Scotland there might by 4-5 pro-indy parties elected, and about the same number who're against indy. Then the SNP wouldn't be able to use the issue of indy to get a majority; they'd have to govern well.
You can take this point with a pinch of salt as I am, I'm sure you're aware, an avowed unionist. However, one flaw I see in this plan is that tying election outcomes to future referendums would recharge the constitutional polarisation of Scottish politics. The SNP have, for too long, been able to coast to easy victories at Holyrood without having to actually govern well at all, because they just hoover up all the pro-indy votes anyway and for those voters governance is a concerningly secondary issue (or if the SNP has misruled it's somehow Westminster's fault). It is only in the last year or two that some of the heat has come out of the debate and the SNP have started to pay the price that every party in a normal democracy eventually pays as the government runs out of steam and voters seek pastures new. And that is because independence has moved down the pecking order of voters' issues.
Introducing a scheme like this would doubtless send it rocketing back up the pile of voter concerns again. This would be good for the SNP, but it would be very much an issue for Scottish democracy if the party could continue to win elections regardless of how badly it governs. Northern Ireland essentially already has such a system pushed to its extreme, and you see the result - a hugely dysfunctional politics with regular government shutdowns which is only tolerated because the alternative could be a literal civil war. I'm sure you'd agree with me that the DUP are not a "normal" party but their MLAs keep getting reelected anyway because their voters are so driven to maintain the union that the bigotry and corruption of the DUP gets a free pass.
It's something of a bind. Anything which ties votes to the constitutional question corrodes democracy, because it shifts voter motivations away from their usual purpose of holding the government to account. But if you never let people vote on the most pivotal question deciding the future of their country, that's not democratic either. And I don't know a way of squaring this circle.
> The SNP have, for too long, been able to coast to easy victories at Holyrood without having to actually govern well at all, because they just hoover up all the pro-indy votes anyway
There's certainly an element of truth in that.
> I'm sure you'd agree with me that the DUP are not a "normal" party but their MLAs keep getting reelected anyway because their voters are so driven to maintain the union that the bigotry and corruption of the DUP gets a free pass.
In both Scotland and NI the constitutional question is a big one, and as you say, it pushes other questions to the background.
But what if the constitutional question wasn't there? Well, something else would've been the biggest issue, and that would've pushed other issues to the background.
In the NI assembly, 7 parties were elected at the last election (and 2 independents). And in the Scottish Parliament, 5 parties were elected.
The more parties that's capable of getting elected, the more choice voters have. I'd like to see a fully proportional voting system, e.g. STV with top-ups, so for every 1% of the vote, a party get 1% of the seats. That maximises the number of points of view that can be represented giving voters more choice.
Then in Scotland there might by 4-5 pro-indy parties elected, and about the same number who're against indy. Then the SNP wouldn't be able to use the issue of indy to get a majority; they'd have to govern well.