Messrs Shelby, Kerr and Mothersson are each right in their own way (Letters, October 25) on the Gould report. While it may be true that some electors chose not to vote in the constituency section for whatever reason, the fact that they then voted twice in the list section on the same ballot paper disenfranchised them all.
My own experience as an agent at the Cunninghame North count would lead me to conclude that voter confusion, rather than voter deliberation, produced this result.
This confusion adversely affected the smaller parties' vote on the list and undoubtedly, in my opinion, the Labour Party vote in the constituencies. My own, admittedly partial, scan of the electronically-discarded votes, showed a clear majority for Labour and the Senior Citizens' Party or one of the socialist parties on the list.
The problem is that no-one knows because Gould chose not to exercise the powers specifically conferred upon him by the UK parliament manually to inspect the rejected ballot papers. This was an interesting decision given the closeness of the result and the fact that the formation of the minority government now in power was only possible by virtue of the SNP's 48-vote victory in Cunninghame North - a constituency with more than 1000 spoiled papers.
Alex Salmond was quick to promise a judicial inquiry in the immediate aftermath of the election but has gone surprisingly quiet since - perhaps because he has since appreciated his new castle has foundations of sand - or maybe it's because of his own complicity in engendering the voter confusion with his "Alex Salmond for First Minister" billing on the ballot paper.
Now he seems more interested in running the next ballot himself, not an enticing prospect given his past record in this regard. Either way, he should now put up or shut up and hold the judicial inquiry he originally promised when he first stepped out of his helicopter to address an expectant nation on May 4.
Pat McGlynn, 79 Manse Street, Saltcoats, Ayrshire.
Hugh Kerr suggests that the Greens were happy with the design of the combined Holyrood ballot paper, or that we were - shock, horror - too busy doing our jobs in parliament to notice the political interference.
We most certainly were not happy with it. While we knew that a political majority was being built by the larger parties for the change, our submission predicted voter confusion unless serious design problems were addressed.
We described the proposed layout as "perverse", and raised repeated objections to it. Those concerns weren't addressed, and we have all seen the result.
But, to be fair, political parties large and small will always find it difficult to take a strictly neutral line in these matters. For example, the criticism by Gould over using personal slogans instead of party names must apply to "Convener Tommy Sheridan" just as it does to "Alex Salmond for First Minister". We must all take a little responsibility here; a candidate should only appear on the ballot paper if they are standing for election in that constituency or region.
The rules made by ministers, however, must be neutral rather than designed for party interest. For that reason, the proposal to bring control of Scottish elections to Scotland is necessary but not sufficient. In itself, it will not prevent the exercise of political motivation at ministerial level. That's why I urged the First Minister on Wednesday to accept the principle of increased independent scrutiny of these matters in future, to ensure that people who are outside of party politics will have an ongoing role to ensure fairness to all candidates, but, more importantly, to provide the voters' perspective which no group of partisan politicians can claim true authority to do.
Patrick Harvie MSP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
The inevitable thirst for a scapegoat after the Holyrood voting debacle seems to be focusing exclusively on Douglas Alexander, rather than David Cairns. I have no time for New Labour and all its right-wing ways, but Douglas Alexander is a decent man and, in a Scotland sadly short of the type, of robust cerebral quality.
His problem is that, ipso facto, he offers the bigger prize to his political enemies - smaller men - many of them in New Labour itself.
But what wider public purpose or benefit would be served by sacking him? David Cairns is of a different stamp entirely. He is the Minister of State at the Scottish Office. Previously a government bagman, he was a willing and vocal media advocate of the illegal occupation of Iraq, his casus belli for the invasion never based on anything more than that Saddam was a "bad man" who owned WMD. At least Mr Alexander can plead in mitigation that he had other preoccupations (Transport). No such caveat can be entered for Mr Cairns. Now he has shown himself to be in error (again) and surely unfit to hold public office.
On election night, my last sighting of him was his (premature) scuttling out of a TV studio, the weight of spoiled papers too heavy for him to carry, far less explain. Pursuant to Gould, ministerial responsibility should mean precisely that.
Chris Walker, 21/23 Main Street, West Kilbride.
I fail to see why the inclusion of "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on the list ballot paper in May should have caused any problems to voters.
Alex Salmond is probably Scotland's best-known politician and everyone knows which party he leads. The voting paper also included the SNP logo, which is a nationally-known emblem. As a first-time voter, I had no problem in marking my cross so I cannot see why more experienced voters could be confused.
Sophie L Anderson, 2/3 45 Marchmont Road, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article