18/04/2016 Scotland 2016

That's what the parties are saying in this Holyrood election.

Voters are working out how to game-play

We'll power through the energy issues facing our future law-makers

has been speaking about her stalking nightmare.

as she campaigns for more awareness of this frightening crime.

My stalker would phone me in the middle of the night, silent phone

calls 56 times. And some of the best psychological thrillers start off

with a phone call. That it was not knowing what this person was going

to do next, or would he carry out his threats?

It's a bit more confusing than a Westminster election.

Even now, people are filling in their postal votes

and remembering that, of course,

you get two ballot papers in this election.

The main parties are keen that you back them in the constituency

But how might that work out in the ballot box?

here's Suzanne Allan with our Holyrood voter's manual.

When you go into the polling booths, you will have two votes. One for a

constituency seat and the other for what is known as the list, or

regional board. Our electoral system, a form of proportional

representation, was designed to make sure nobody could ever dominate the

parliament. So how does it work. There are 129 MSPs. 73 of those are

constituency seats. This is your first vote. The candidate with the

most wins. The second is for the regional list, of which there are 56

seats. It is a way of making sure the number of seats is proportionate

to the number of votes cast. What you are voting for is a party, not a

person. So is it wise to vote for the same party on board the

constituency and the list? Or to tactically vote differently with

your second vote? The system was designed to lead to a coalition

government but we want bold, in 2011, the SNP won an outright

majority. Since the independence referendum, the party has gained

even more ground. You just need to look at their landslide victory in

last's general election. In general, the better a party govern the

constituency vote, the less likely it is to pick up a regional vote. A

party needs just 6% of the board to get a seat on the list. Is the

message coming from the SMB and most of the other parties asking you to

back them twice a good idea or a wasted vote?

Joining me tonight for analysis are two political scientists -

Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University

and Dr Craig McAngus from Aberdeen University.

Good evening to both of you. That is joining me. That was our borders'

manual, there. -- falters manual. I will we are people of the voting

system for Holyrood? Very few people understand what is the system for

allocating regional list of feeds off the back of the last boat and

indeed it is often misnamed the second vote. That is exactly the

words that you used at the top of this programme. It is not a second

thought. It is the last board, which of the two is most likely to be the

more important. So far as determining the overall distribution

of thoughts and seats in the Holyrood Parliament. -- limit.

It is the second vote you cast but it is not the second preference.

Steve Mac that is correct. And certainly there is some evidence

from looking at the polling data from the opinion polls that when

they get called up by telephone or asked to fill in an Internet pal and

-- poll and they asked who they will vote for, and then they tell them

you have another ballot paper, even perhaps if they are told by the

pollster you can vote the same way if you want to do, some people it

looks as though get a second preference. And certainly, if you

look at the success or otherwise of the opinion polls on the 2011

election, the principal reason why we did not anticipate that the SNP

would get an overall majority given the polls was that the polls

underestimated SMB support on the last foot. They pretty much got the

constituency vote right but underestimated on the list. Almost

undoubtedly because of the work of any second preference. One of the

things I see is at the moment in the opinion polls is quite a lot of them

have quite a big difference between the SNP constituency vote and last

fought, even though in practice five years ago there was only one point

difference between them. -- last fought. So certainly there is reason

to be a little but more sceptical than ever about the list vote.

Are the parties playing the second thought, the list vote in this

election? What is the strategy was to both boats is a phrase that is

coming up quite a lot. The SNP are trying to lock out s. That worked

very well for them in 2011. -- both vote boot. The list and a wispy

effort of a safety net for a party that does not do as well and some

constituencies as hoped, the last can top up some seats. Labour are

going to rely on the regional list vote to win representation. It is

the Greens are almost entirely standing on the list. Patrick Harvie

is one notable exception. So this election, because the SNP are doing

so well on the constituency polling, as we can see, and they will

probably win as it looks just now, most of the constituencies in

Scotland then the list is going to be very important for the other

parties in gaining representation. But why do you think when the SNP,

the suggestion is that they will do so well, why do you think that has

been such a focus for them go to the # of votes SMB? That might SNP. It

was the theme of the conference in Glasgow. Again, I think it is SNP

have been on a journey since 1999 in terms of using illegal system that

benefits them. If you look back at 1999, you see the won a handful of

constituency seats and then quite a lot of regional list seats and that

balances shifted. I think it is just a party that is on top that wants to

remain on top. And using a very simple, clear message to supporters

to make sure that you get as in government again and get a majority

government again. It is a very basic strategy but it is clearly seems to

be working. John, we will get onto the issue of a wasted vote in a

second but before that, do you think with the system was envisaged that

the people who designed it would ever envisage it being played out

this way? To suggest that the system was designed as opposed to

negotiated as a copyright between Labour and the Lib Dems would be a

mistake. This is a negotiated system. -- negotiated between Labour

and the Lib Dems. It was a compromise between the Labour Party

that wanted to minimise the degree of proportionality and the Lib Dems,

who wanted to maximise it. As a result, we ended up with a system

where everybody does do very well in the constituencies in a region, one

of the aid regions into which Scotland is divided, it is possible

that even if it gets a lot of last boat but it will not get any list

seats. This in a sense of the tactical dilemma that the system

potentially creates. The truth is that one crucial reason why the SNP

have gone for that # is that they are aware of the discussion in

Nationalist circles that is the SNP gets sexy men

-- if the SNP gets a lot of constituency seats, it might not be

entitled to any more or less to see the wider we not consider him for

another party that supports independence question mark at the

end of the day, they may not do as well as the poll suggesting

constituencies and maybe reliant on the majority list seats and

secondly, it is at risk of being a self of selling property. If people

do not vote for the last on the SNP that indeed they will not get any

more additional seats. -- self-fulfilling prophecy. But if

they bought on the list in as strong numbers they do in the

constituencies then they might get one or two MSPs in the region. That

is why the SNP do not want to do it but you can certainly the world has

been speculation about Hamon, maybe we want to consider doing something

else. -- speculation about Hamon. I'm willing and an Internet as an

proportionality and substance of the be thanking their lucky stars that

there is a proportionality in the system at the moment. If you look at

the proposals for the Scottish assembly back in the 1970s, the

referendum in 1979, that was a purely tourist pass the post system

-- first past the post. There was a copyright between Labour and the Lib

Dems for the creation of the Scottish Parliament. So yes, I would

imagine that Labour are, you know, venting their lucky stars, if you

like, that the list if they are because they are really doing very,

very badly in the constituency vote. And it is ironic in a way that

Labour are perhaps the party that has not adapted to the electoral

system most effectively, given that in 2011 many of their constituency

MPs were not backed up on the list, if you like, whereas the SNP of

consistency, -- have consistently done that, known as dual candle in

there. So those who were defeated in 2011 were not able to return on the

list. Labour have learned their lessons from that. -- dual

candidacy. Energy policy has long been

at the heart of political More recently, renewable sources

of power have been generating discussion at Holyrood -

hydro, wind, solar, wave and tidal. So what are the challenges

and opportunities facing us Our environment correspondent,

David Miller, reports. East Lothian, September 20 15. And

another coal-fired power station bites the dust. We are witnessing a

revolution. I see that the reaction is positive, no objections. The

Paris agreement is adopted. A revolution driven by the need to

cut greenhouse gas emissions. This woman is a global leader in the

fight against global warming. Thank you. And despite the Scottish

Government's repeated failure to hit it on climate change targets, she

argues Scotland is a leader as well. Because of the switch to low carbon,

renewable sources of energy. Once we have a target, and we focus and we

bring together private sector ingenuity, financing and policy, we

can actually meet and exceed targets... Although, forgive me, the

interim targets are being missed. How much of a concern is that? What

you have to look at here is what is in the direction of travel. And the

direction of travel is fundamentally very sound. And there is a huge

political commitment to continue this. So I am not so concerned

about, you know, the little ebbs and flows. What I look at is underneath,

what is the direction? Industry analysts agree real

progress has been made. Liberal figures released in March

that we are now considerably above the 50% target which the government

had set itself of electricity demands being made from renewable

sources. But he warned cuts in subsidies and

lamented by Westminster have cast a shadow on the sector has been quite

a chilling effect. A number of projects we were working on normal

to be instructed not been cancelled or will not go ahead in the current

form. Uncertainty for renewables, yes. But

the days when all was King are definitely over. Even the mighty

coal-fired power station in Fife is no more.

Speaker made things move on. We will have to move on. That is it. No

more, as they say. Somebody wrote a song about that.

Its closure means we are now more reliant on our wind farms than ever

before. And for some, that is a serious cause for concern.

Renewables cannot be taken as our base load. For example, in February,

and March, there were days when there was no renewable input of any

size to our electricity generation. So you're really relying on

importing electricity, probably nuclear, from France. It is

important that we both that myth. The cross-party committee on the

Scottish ballad, the energy committee, did that conclusively

last summer. The two dividends from whole range of stake holders,

industry and academia, that shall do is not a security of supply risk in

Scotland as a consequence of renewables but renewables have

played a hugely renewable, important role in keeping our lights on as

part of the GP grid. The controversial power

That is going to be a big challenge. -- eating houses.

The power of Scotland, it matters to all of us.

The power of Scotland, it matters to point out to the police. Through

time, living with that uncertainty, the not knowing what was going to

happen, when, impacted on my mental health. Anxiety, hypervigilance,

stressed, and then ultimately that started to impact on my physical

health. My hair started to fall out, sleepless nights, but then my

stalker would follow me in the middle of the night, silent phone

calls five, six times. Some of the best psychological thrillers start

off with a phone call. It was not knowing what this person was going

to do next, or, would he carry out his threats? That's not snowing,

uncertainty. And so, in the end, I was suffering from nervous

exhaustion, as well. Mental and physical health are interlinked, you

can't give presidents of one of the other. Such a difficult time. You

had a difficult time with the justice system. There was no such a

crime of stalking at that time. They didn't recognise those nonmaterial

behaviours as part of a criminal offence. The system at that time

mandated a physical attack before anything could be done. It is

recognising that is what is objective, observable, and what is

tangible. How would you define stalking? When does some type of

behaviour start to become unacceptable and become frightening?

Stalking is a wide range of behaviours. A lot of stalking

behaviours are some of the normal social activities that we engage in

everyday. Texting, phoning, letters. Noncriminal behaviour is out with in

a normal context, but placed within a stalking context, they started to

take on a different meaning. Stalking is two or more behaviours

to form what is known as a course of conduct. If these behaviours give

rise to fear or alarm in the victim, then that defines a crime. Stalking

is a victim defined crime. We have had legislation in Scotland against

stalking. How does that compare to legislation they have in England? It

is practically the same. In Scotland, we made a specific

stand-alone offence. We wanted to take it out of harassment because

stalking is not harassment. It shares many of the same behaviours,

but it has a different mode, motive, perspective. We has to clear up some

of the conceptual confusion that surrounds these two concepts.

England and Wales, on the other hand, they introduced an amendment

of stalking into the existing 1997 harassment act. In Scotland, we have

harassment as a subspecies of stalking. As a lower test case. In

England and Wales, they have stalking as a subspecies of

harassment. You had to go through some special measures of justice and

that has informed that legislation. It was my experience that did inform

the legislation. I walked the path, experienced the system. I

experienced the response by the police, I could understand the

impact, I could understand the subtle nuances of stalking. What was

very different did leg difficult for me at the time was in was no one I

could appeal to for help. -- what was difficult for me. It was not

recognised as a criminal offence. The police at that time did not seem

to recognise the victim impact. The fear that I was experiencing, my

reaction to these behaviours, didn't raise concern either because, from

the outside eye, they could not see there was a big problem. How do you

think future legislation might help victims of stalking, and how do you

think the police can be educated to help victims of stalking? When the

Scottish offence of stalking went through the Scottish parliament,

that was a day of celebration, and that was my ultimate goal, to have

stalking defined as a specific criminal offence within Scottish law

and to have victims recognised within the criminal justice process.

These were the two objectives, and that piece of legislation achieved

those two objectives, but then there was the realisation that a piece of

legislation alone doesn't mean anything. It's a piece of paper

ball. What was needed -- it's a piece of paper. What was needed for

that legislation required a lot of training. Not just for the forces,

but also public education. Because a lot of people don't understand

stalking. The general public don't understand it. The police didn't

understand it. We had to a line that with education, awareness, to allow

them to implement the law. In fairness to the police, they do a

very good job and they really do need training on this. It is unfair

asking any officer to attend any call-out of a stalking case if they

don't have that understanding and knowledge. It's understandable why

the they are maybe not recognising it as this course of conduct. Thank

you very much for joining us. Now with me this evening to discuss

some of the other big stories around today is the Scotland on Sunday's

columnist Dani Garavelli and the Political Editor

of the Daily Record, Good evening to you both. Thank you

for joining me. Let's get to our first story.

Judges at the Court of Appeal have lifted an injunction which bans

media organisations from revealing the identity of a married celebrity,

But they also ruled the man should not be named until he's had

The case has raised questions about how privacy injunctions can be

Here's the BBC's media correspondent - David Silito -

reporting from outside the Court of Appeal earlier.

In essence, what has changed is the information has got out in places

where the injunction has no force. Scotland, America, the internets.

The judges said, this means the legal landscape has changed. Many

say if it is finally lifted because of this, we have a recipe that would

undermine any celebrity injunction. A major shift in the law of privacy.

David, Festival, a changing landscape and David picking up on

the situation in Scotland. A Scottish Sunday newspaper named the

celebrities involved. It did because of the legal situation here. More

importantly, it is all of the Internet. We are in the ridiculous

situation at the moment where everybody watching the programme

knows who we are talking about, but we cannot say their names. A lawyer

involved said to the courts that we were in danger of making it a law of

the press. That is not the case. It is the law of the Internet, the

Internet makes these injunctions unenforceable because they are

everywhere. Unless you are going to try to regulate the Internet, which

is something that no one has an appetite for and most people think

is impossible, the idea that these injunctions can have any effect on

media organisations is absurd. Danny, we have been uniform. In

2011, the Ryan Giggs case. The case of Jack Straw's Sun was named in

Scotland but not in England in 1999. Yes, I realise this is setting some

legal precedent, but there have been many cases in which injunctions have

been shown to be more or less futile either because the injunction has

been overturned because they have just ended up attracting more

publicity to the people involved than they had in the first place.

Or, I think in one case, there was the reuse of parliamentary privilege

to expose the case. I think we have known for along time that it would

this direction and the internets, as David says, makes it impossible to

enforce them. David, the courts must be worried. Lord Justice Jackson had

said the courts should not make orders which are ineffective. It is

becoming ineffective. It is if it is only going to be news outlets you

are dealing with. People are publishing all the time online

themselves. Takes you 30 seconds to Google who we are discussing just

now. In that case, it is clearly ineffective. It is not ineffective

because of anything newspapers and brokers media are doing, it is the

nature of the world we live in. It's kind is -- it's kind of makes us

need to re-evaluate what we want as a privacy law and how we will

enforce one if we want to have one. Another big story today was the

European Union will stop the Chancellor was giving some detail

about how much Brexit could cost. Britain will be poor by ?4300 per

household. That is ?4300 worth of every year. This company is giving,

at the moment, ?20 billion every year to the EU. ?350 million per

week, which we would get back and be able to spend that solid hard cash.

?4300 worse off per year. Does this bring back the referendum of 2014 to

mind? It seems familiar. It does, and they are pursuing almost

identical tactics, it seems. They seem to be focusing on the possible

negative consequences instead of trying to find some kind of division

-- vision of Europe that might inspire people. That is difficult to

produce excitement over what is basically the status quo. It allows

the other side to accuse them of scaremongering and not providing

something positive. David, perhaps there isn't that positive vision.

They are looking at the bare facts and figures. The UK Government may

be not going for the kind of case about the European Union. The thing

I found offensive is during the independence referendum, or I think

there was a legitimate case about risks and the potential dangers of a

vote for Scottish independence and the impact on the economy, the fact

they have decided they will come up with some bizarre calculation to put

a pound p figure on it every year, which is on those just by looking at

it is clearly nonsense, I think it undermines the case in other ways.

The other, and while this is very familiar to anyone who lived through

the independence referendum here, I think one of the differences here, I

remember sitting in a press conference in May 2014 when Danny

Alexander, long since departed, said it was going to cost ?1400 if there

was a vote for Scottish independence. The difference then

was it was his opponents who are calling him a liar whenever you read

the story the next day. His Tory colleagues are calling David Cameron

and George Osborne Alaia tomorrow, saying they are making these norms.

They have got some difficulty. The other problem they have is that all

the media down south, the London papers, tomorrow, will splash on the

fact that the calculation relies on 3 million net migration by 2030 and

they don't want to get into it. An interesting figure. At the beginning

of the programme, we spoke about the list of vote. Perhaps this theme of

wasted votes. What did you make of that? I think that is, first of all,

there are still many people out there who don't understand. I think

the fact we are having a debate is very positive because the

explanation will allow people to think about what they are doing with

their vote but carefully. I think from listening to everything, it

would be difficult to tactically voted with the list, but I'm not

sure that is the only reason that people would split their boat. I

think there really are people who care about diversity in Scottish

Parliament. It might just give their list vote to a smaller party because

they want them to be represented. They want other voices in Parliament

and a more pluralistic vision. David, do you think people have got

how to use the vote? No, unless you are a political geek. It is

difficult to explain simply and the implications of it are pretty much

impossible to predict without knowing how the constituency votes

will go. Trying to game the system is a no-go. It is interesting that

this argument has been developed over the last few days in regards to

the pro-independence movements and whether they should just vote for

the SNP or the other parties because I remember hearing a lot during the

referendum campaign that the yes movement was wider than the SNP. The

SNP don't seem to think that is the case. Thank you for joining me.

Shelley's back here tomorrow with that special debate on energy.

Personalise it by selecting "edit menus"

and get the news that matters to you.