Isobel Lindsay asks what the impact and the implications of the new political parties emerging in Scotland might be?

What should be the response of the left to the emergence of single-issue candidates, new parties and independents who have signalled their intention of standing in the May elections? Some may drop out but the fact that this is seen as a route to change has to be addressed seriously.

Who are likely to be the new names on the ballot papers? We are not referring to the established small parties, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Greens. They have a track record, a clear identity and a position on a full range of policies. From recent announcements we can expect to have the Scottish Senior Citizens’ Unity Party, the Pensioners’ Party, the Fishing Party, probably the Prolife Alliance who have stood previously and the right-wing New Party. It is likely that there will be one or more antihospital closure candidates. There may be fire-fighter candidates and possible anti-school closure candidates at local elections. In addition Margo Macdonald will join Dennis Canavan as high profile independents and there may still be others. These are not equivalents of the Monster Raving Looney or Natural Law parties. They are people with a serious case to make.

The Scottish Senior Citizens’ Unity Party (SSCUP) hopes to put up candidates on four regional lists and also contest one constituency, Motherwell and Wishaw. They have reached an agreement with the Pensioners’ Party who will contest the other regional lists on an East/West split. Both recognise that their principal demands involve powers reserved to Westminster but want to see these powers devolved to Holyrood. The Fishing Party has emerged as a reaction to the EU’s recent restrictions on catches to conserve cod stocks. It was initially suggested that their intention was to stand in three constituencies – Banff and Buchan, Shetland and Aberdeen North. However at their formal launch, they announced that they would contest only the North East list. The ‘New Party’ is still something of a mystery and it may end up still-born. This is intended to be a UK party but a spokesman declared that they planned to contest the Scottish elections. It is antiEU, anti-taxation and one of the reputed main financial backers is a Lanark-based businessman.

The proposed closure of Glasgow hospitals is very likely to produce a candidate in Strathkelvin and Bearsden and possibly Glasgow Cathcart. There are several firefighters in the Strathclyde service who have indicated their intention to stand in the seats of councillors on the Joint Fire Board. Also at local government level anti-school closure candidates may stand in Hamilton and East Kilbride and there may be others.

Before considering whether these are positive developments in the political system and what impact they may have on the outcome, there is the question of why we are seeing these initiatives. Part of the reason may be that the regional lists appear to hold out better prospects for success for new groups or well-known individuals. With around seven per cent of the regional vote, it is possible to get an MSP elected. So more proportionate voting is part of the answer. But some of those standing are doing so at constituency level or in local government seats and overall this may be more accurately interpreted as further evidence of the decline in trust in the mainstream party system. Groups with a grievance do not appear to have confidence in the larger parties to respond to their concerns. This is not a matter of expecting parties to endorse every pressure group but there is often a perception, with justification, of the system as increasingly highly centralised and intolerant of any deviance from the leadership line. In most local authorities there is a culture of control that ensures that decisions are made by majority group leader and a few close colleagues. Backbench members and other conveners have to accept the line or face disciplinary action. Even on issues like individual planning decisions where there is not supposed to be a whip, in practice there is. The powers of patronage to dispense Special Responsibility Allowances and other advantages are stronger than ever and there is increased control through central vetting of candidates. This has restricted the potential responsiveness of councillors to local concerns and although in the past this characterised most of the larger councils, there are now many fewer councils and the tight central control has spread. This pattern has been replicated at the Scottish Parliament level. The hope was that giving backbench MSPs a more important role than in the House of Commons would increase their confidence to act with greater independence from leadership control. But the rank and file conformity has been greater than at Westminster. If you are a group with a cause that does not have the approval of party leaders, don’t hold your breath waiting for sympathetic noises to be turned into hard votes.

So we should not be surprised when people find the prospect of having a dedicated voice, understanding and promoting their views, an appealing one. But are they likely to have any success even with a more proportionate system? The experience of 1999 was mixed. The Highland Alliance candidates and the Pro-life Alliance candidates made no impact. However a well-known independent Dennis Canavan, showed it was possible to win and he would have won on the list even if he had failed in the constituency contest. The SSP had only been recently established in 1999 but demonstrated that they could gain a seat although with a well-known candidate.

Of the new contestants, the ones that may have some serious potential are the two ‘grey power’ parties. They have an identity that is grounded in a large and increasing section of the electorate. They have an organisational network that is quite extensive in the elderly forums although separate from them. They have a good range of able people, including some who have previous experience in trade unions, tenants associations, etc. The two things that may handicap them are that they have left it rather late to launch and, to date, they have not projected leaders who might help to give their parties a credible face. The fact that most of their key policy areas are reserved powers should be a disadvantage but may not register clearly with the voters.

The Fishing Party has a theoretical potential in its regional base but it has the problem of having a mainstream party, the SNP, that has given vociferous support to the fishing industry. It is difficult to find any policy differences between them on fishing. So a central factor that should drive a single-issue party – that they do not have an informed and enthusiastic voice to speak for them – is missing in this case. The only rationale that one could identify would be to provide a vehicle for people in the industry who did not want to vote SNP because they were unionist or further right politically. ? As we have seen in England at the Westminster elections, it is possible for a strong anti hospital closure candidate to win at constituency level. We have also seen that providing an individual is very well known, it is possible to win as an independent. Margo Macdonald should have a chance, but the question will be whether the support comes from Labour voters using their second vote or SNP voters.

How should the left respond to these single-issue or new parties or independents? There is not a simple answer since we can look at them from different perspectives. There is a general plus factor in having more people engage actively with the political system. Even if you don’t agree with them, they set a precedent, a mood of democratic activism that is likely to encourage others. The message is that you do not have to be limited in choice to the longestablished parties. If you feel strongly about an issue, you can express it and mobilise support. There might be an outside chance of winning but even if you don’t win, you may have succeeded in putting pressure on the system. This has to be a better scene than fatalism or apathy. It has the potential of developing a dynamic that makes Scottish politics less predictable and more accessible.

From another perspective, however, there is a risk that a number of single-issue or independent candidates could fragment the forces for change. Instead of producing an outcome that could deliver reform, it might simply redistribute votes among the challengers to the benefit of the status-quo. This is always a dilemma. Who will vote for a better deal for the elderly, against hospital closures, to support the fire-fighters and for a ‘stirrer’ of an independent? Will it be the same people who would otherwise have voted for the Greens, the SSP or for left SNP or Labour candidates? We don’t know but it may be that it will be more likely to be voters who have a less clear ideological position or who want to make a protest against their traditional party without voting for a rival mainstream party.

There is yet another problem with single-issue or independent candidates. Do we know what their positions will be on the full range of policy areas? If elected, will they be good on justice for the elderly but less than supportive on penal reform? Will they support the health service but be unconcerned about the arts? This probably does not matter when we are talking about two or three candidates with a chance of success. On the plus side, having some MSPs uncommitted on issues in advance can open up debate, make it less predictable. Letting a thousand flowers bloom is rather an exotic metaphor for the current Scottish political scene but it is on balance preferable to rigid two flower borders.

Isobel Lindsay is a lecturer in Sociology at Strathclyde University