It’s rare to have an election-free year these days but 2015 is set – for the moment – to be a voters’ bonanza in Scotland and Wales. Fixed, four-year terms at Holyrood will coincide with the end of the first fixed five year term at Westminster, meaning two national elections in the devolved nations. Unless Scotland and Wales decide otherwise.
On Thursday, the government wrote to the Presiding Officers and party leaders in Scotland and Wales, offering them the chance to move the date of their respective Parliament and Assembly elections. This follows a period of consultation between the two sides. For 2015, MSPs and AMs can, by a two thirds majority vote, bring their elections forward, or push them back, by up to twelve months either way. Alternatively, they can leave them as they are. For their own specific reasons, Northern Ireland’s politicians have chosen not to consider moving their election date. The important point here is that the government’s solution reflects our party’s principles – we believe in devolution, in giving power and responsibility to those who are effected by it. Westminster is not telling Holyrood or Cardiff what to do. We are giving them the choice.
Certainly, there are valid arguments in favour of moving the date. For example, two election campaigns being fought at the same time would mean two separates media debates on devolved issues. The BBC’s 6 o’clock news could feature a piece on health care in England, followed by Reporting Scotland at 6:30 focusing on the future of the NHS in Scotland which, since devolution, has become increasingly different from its sister service south of the border. This is not a problem per se, but it could lead to a degree of confusion. Similarly, two campaigns may stretch political parties’ resources – and constantly having to explain the differences between the parties’ Scottish and UK priorities might very well test voters’ patience, too.
However, a decision to change the date is not without complications. Bringing it forward by a year would result in a parliamentary term that might be too short for some. Pushing it back by a year would land it on the same day as local government elections in Scotland, which, after 2007’s experience, the Parliament sought to avoid.
It is, of course, important that in this May’s elections, voters in Scotland and Wales know how long they will be represented by those that they elect. That is why MSPs and AMs are being asked to make their decision by the time of dissolution in March.
The fixed term election cycle raises broader issues too. One is whether it would be better to move Scottish and Welsh elections on to fixed five year terms, in line with European and Westminster elections. This would help avoid predictable election clashes in future (if the devolved nations hold elections in 2016, they will clash again with likely Westminster elections in 2020), and ease – just slightly – the increasing regularity of elections. That is why we have committed, after these elections, to look at whether there is value in conducting a public consultation on moving to fixed five year terms for these polls too.
But it is important to remember that the problem we are addressing is not actually caused by five year fixed terms at Westminster: in fact, the problem already exists. Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond – though in favour of using the new power – has complained that the Scottish Parliament election is being “crowded in…by the coalition’s plan for a five year term”. In fact, had this Parliament run to five years – as the last one did – the 2015 clash would have taken place anyway. What we are doing is sensible and pragmatic. We are letting Scotland and Wales take the decision that works for them. That is what devolution is all about.
Michael Moore MP is Secretary of State for Scotland
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Daniel Walker
Andrew Tampion
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
10 Comments
So no consideration of whether five-year terms are best for UK general elections? There’s a good argument that four years is more reasonable. Rather than change the Scottish etc. elections to five years, changing Westminster elections to four years would keep them out of phase too.
That’s the ‘Respect agenda’ out the window yet again, they steamroller a 5 year fixed term, a pathetic AV referendum all without thinking that in 2020 they would clash again if we are still in this disunited kingdom.
The problem with a fixed 4 year term is that it would always clash wih (and inevitably distort) the results of the same set of local electons. A better solution would have been to have held the Westminster elections at a different time of year – say October to avoid clashes with either the devolved or local elections.
“public consultation on moving to fixed five year terms”
Perhaps if this consideration had been given to the Westminster term then the problem could have been avoided. Westminster could have gone for 4 years the same as the existing pattern in Scotland and Wales. Instead the coalition stamrollered 5 years through and then worried about the consequences…..
I’m sure most of you will remember how, when he was Leader of the Opposition, Cameron kept demanding a general election, well before the last five-year term was over. Within a couple of days of becoming Prime Minister, he announced that this would be a five-year parliament.
Unfortunately Mr Moore is mis-informed about the dates for Local Authority elections in Scotland.
They should have been taking place this year alongside those for Holyrood but they’re being put back to next year 2011 with Councillors being elected for a 5 year term rather than 4. The following LA elections would be in 2017 (not 2016) then revert back to 4 year terms. The reasoning was to hold the LA elections in the mid-term of the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament moved to 5 year terms exactly when would the Scottish Local Authority elections take place in future?
I agree with Malcolm. This Westminster government should have had a 4.5 year term, with the next General Election in October 2014, to avoid it steamrollering the 2015 local elections, as it did in 2010. Then repeat at fixed 4 or 5 year intervals. But that’s not going to happen now, too late for them to change their minds even if they wanted to – and the Cons majority no doubt realise a May GE helps their council candidates by swamping the smaller parties.
As the European Election is already on a fixed five year cycle and that would involve changing all of Europe then surely it’s best for it to be Scotland and Wales making the change, rather than the UK Parliament. I know EP elections are in June but I don’t like having another major election just one month after the others (which is why it’s been moved to the same day as the locals the last two occasions).
Rather than having an election in the October, which would create a period of about 18 months when we’d always be just 5-6 months before an election, we instead just have a different one each year which also means parties do still have to keep campaigning, e.g.
2015 General Election
2016 year off? (or perhaps police commissioners or anything I’ve forgotten about)
2017 Devolved Parliaments, GLA/London Mayor and English County Councils
2018 Scottish, Welsh and English Locals (all moving to all-outs where not the case now) and parish/community councils
2019 European Parliament
So much for Cameron’s “respect for Scotland”, nowhere to be seen just like our Fossil Fuel Fund. A simple & respectful solution should have been to have the English GE in the Autumn. Like the AV referendum no thought has gone into it.
Well I hope Cameron & co are prepared for the respect the Scots are about to show them in return at the Scottish GE in May.
PS: Mr Moore, just imagine how many jobs the Fossil Fuel Fund would create??
Stuart – you’re right about the Scottish local elections dates.
However, the actual positioning of the election date is already within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, so it’s not in Mike’s remit to propose a change.