As the dust settles, some thoughts arise on the shambles that was the Scottish election. First, it was a mistake to use three different voting systems for two levels of government on one day. The two Holyrood votes should not have been on one ballot paper.
The regional lists were a mess. In Mid-Scotland and Fife there were 16 options, eight starting with the word "Scottish". Perhaps we need to ask parties wishing to stand on the list to produce 50 nominations.
The regional list waters were muddied even more by the use of descriptions such as "Alex Salmond for First Minister". A stunningly successful tactic by the SNP, but it smacks of trickery. What next: Aardvarks for Aaron?
Given the number of invalid papers, any close result has to be treated as unreliable. In most circumstances that might not matter too much, but with 47 SNP MSPs and 46 Labour, and one seat where the SNP beat Labour by only 48 votes, clearly it's vital. All I can suggest is that any Holyrood result where the majority is less than 20% or 30% of the number of invalid papers should be re-run. That may be only a couple of seats.
Many council results must be at best dubious. In Perth and Kinross I saw numerous ballot papers with three SNP candidates' names and one cross against each. All were rejected, possibly affecting the re-distribution of votes under STV and the final result.
It was simply daft to start the count at 10pm, immediately the polls closed. We ended up with exhausted people making important decisions, a recipe for error. This election was an embarrassment for Scotland.
Doug Maughan, 52 Menteith View, Dunblane.
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