There are also local city council elections across the U.K. and the devolved Welsh Assembly.

But it looks as if the election for the devolved Scottish Parliament is likely to be the most interesting.  Analysts have been predicting the Labour party to take a massive kicking at the hands of the Scottish National Party.  All the tabloid newspapers put aside their differences this morning to run front-page scaremongering editorials against the SNP, and that means they must be worried.

Here's how we stand in Scotland before today's election:

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I've heard a bit of talk about the nationalists pushing again for secession from the UK...the justification being not only independance, but the fact that the oil revenues would be sufficient to keep the economy ticking over.

What's the strength of this push herofix?  Is it being overplayed in the media, or are people seriously considering parting from the UK?

 My reading is that it is being overplayed, Cyba.  I'm maybe not the best person to ask since I've lived here only two years and I rarely leave the house, haha.  Some people would like to, but my best guess is that those people who would have the desire (and the necessary moxy) to vote for full independence hover around 30% or thereabouts.  The nationalists tried to play down this aspect and run on a plain old 'better government' ticket, but the newspapers and other parties made sure to keep the independence question constantly talked about, I think, because they knew that idea might be a touch too much for the average voter.

Anyway, here's your update:  Things have gotten really embarassing.  The counting of the votes, rather than the results has become the story.  Rejected ballots are going through the roof. In places where you might expect 100 spoiled or rejected ballots, there are 1,500 ballots being rejected, in many cases more than the margin of victory to the winning candidate.  This year marks the 1st year of electronic vote counting, and the company (DRS Solutions) has cocked it up spectacularly.  Loads of constituencies had to shut up shop for the night because 'the computer said no' and the votes couldn't be counted due to software problems, etc. 

However, it does look like the SNP are close to doing it ('it' being the largest party) but it is way too close to call still.  They may just drop a wee bit short.

In fairness, I should have mentioned what many people think is the cause of the rejected ballots  - not necessarily the counting machines, but that there were local council elections on the same day as Scottish Parliament elections and the voting works differently.  It's suggested that people ruined their ballots by putting an X where a number should have been or maybe vice versa.  So the problem may have been having two different types of elections (one where you rank in order of your preference, and one where you mark an X next to a constituent and a political party) on the same day.

Also of note, The Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament both elected their first ethnic minority member's yesterday/today and would you credit it, they are both from their country's respective nationalist parties, something I find to be....erm, great for lack of a more appropriate word.

The 1st leg of a treble post.  Sorry.

Double post.

As I said in another thread a few weeks ago, I didn't think this would happen, mainly due to the cultural problem known as the 'Caledonian Cringe'. I'm delighted, and attempting to engage my cat in a celebratory Highland Reel, but he doesn't seem to be up for dancing at the minute.

Fit noo? [Trans: 'what next?']
Well, there's little chance of the SNP achieving a coalition with either of 3rd and 4th placed parties. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist party could never hold hands with a party that wants Scottish independence without being laughed out of the country. (Mind you, Scottish Conservatives have had to learn how to be laughed at frequently and resoundingly over the last 2 decades.) The LibDems, who've propped up Labour since the beginning of the Scottish Parliament have said that they don't agree with the SNP manifesto to have an Independence referendum in 2010, so it would seem that unless they do a substantial U-turn, they won't do a deal with Alex Salmond. But will they join with Labour again? Hmmmm. The Scottish LibDem leader, Nicol Stephen, said last night that the party with the most seats, the party with the majority of the popular vote, 'has the moral mandate to govern'. Oops! Unless he's prepared to show himself up as a grubby wee immoral nyaff, with no integrity or principles whatsoever, he can hardly hop into bed with the party that has no moral mandate now.  I can't believe that the SNP will compromise on the Independence referendum issue just to please potential coalition partners... so I'd be betting on Alex Salmond as First Minister of a SNP minority government... :)

This is a monumental change in the Scottish political climate. The SNP ran a very positive campaign, unlike the fear-mongering prehistoric style in which Labour conducted themselves. (The worst I've ever seen, and that's including the old days of Thatcher, gawd help us!). The Tories historically have always played this way too when it comes to the Nationalists, and although they were less hysterically anti-SNP than I've seen them, they still trotted out the usual cliches. And typically, the press does its bit too in trying to engender fear of independence in the Scottish electorate. Yesterday's newspaper front pages were positively appalling and my heart sank when I saw the display in the local shop, feeling sure that the Caledonian Cringe would set in at the last possible moment. But no. I'm celebrating the result not merely because Labour got the historic kicking they deserved (and I speak as an former Old Labour supporter who, pre-Tony Blair, would never have considered voting for any othe party)  but because I think it shows a new optimism, hope and assertiveness in the dour Scottish character, which is centuries overdue.

Having made my prediction two paragraphs ago, Alex Salmond is just being interviewed on the BBC as I type, saying his preference would be to have some goodwill and coalition. Let the dialogue and horse-trading commence!

O aye, and sorry for the double post, but in my excitement I forgot to post the link which is gratifying me immensely at the moment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2007/maps/scot_constituencies/html/scot_constituencies_map.stm

I'm very pleased and proud to see such a large geographical area resplendent in shades of yellow (and I suppose I'll tolerate the gold as the best of the available alternatives!) The North of Scotland's always been more independent and astute.
It reminds me of the 1992 UK General Election when Scotland banished the last tiny spots of blue from the country completely. (Of course 15 years ago I never imagined I'd be celebrating the removal of so much red from our nation.)
If my father was still here I'd have him striding up and down outside the house playing 'Scotland the Brave' on his pipes. I feel at last Scotland's starting to get to the point where we can legitimately sing that song again.

Well Raymond, this Weasel will do her best to answer, but please bear in mind that she's only had about 3 hours sleep in the last two days. :)

At the moment the only thing that can really be said is that it's the first time that the Scottish National Party has won the most votes. Most seats in the Scottish Parliament  and a substantial % swing away from Labour - which has been the main Scottish political party for 50 years. If the SNP can somehow get a viable coalition to form a majority government in Scottish Parliament, then as per their manifesto pledge they will have a referendum for independence in 2010. BUT... coalition is unlikely unless the SNP are prepared to back-track on the referendum issue. The other main parties have stated that they refuse to allow a vote on independence, claiming that the Scottish people don't want independence. (Of course, I have to question the logic there... if they're so certain that the electorate wouldn't vote for independence, then they've no need to shy away from actually doing the proper democratic thing and putting the question to the people in the form of a referendum). Coalition with the SNP has been 'ruled out' by both 3rd and 4th parties - Conservatives and LibDems. (However, stranger things have happened. It's not exactly unknown for politicians to change their minds if it gives them a chance of getting their snouts in the trough of power).

So really, on current evidence, even a best-case scenario for the SNP would mean a 3 year wait before getting to the initial stage of allowing the people of Scotland to get to vote on independence. And there are a helluva lot of hurdles to get over before then - the next week will be crucial to see if the SNP leader Alex Salmond will even succeed in becoming First Minister. He has 47 seats. An overall majority requires 65.  Labour on 46 can't form a majority either without getting the support of the LibDems (16), the Greens (2) and the Independent MSP Margo MacDonald (who was formerly SNP - in a much more 'fundamental' sense than the current SNP leadership, and I would guess would find it difficult to choose Labour over her old party).

So in answer to your question Raymond, the cynical Weasel says , theoretically yes, Scotland is closer to independence than ever before, but in reality it's going to be a long time in coming. And I personally doubt if it'll come in my lifetime. The SNP could try to run Scotland with a minority government, and get Alex Salmond as First Minister, but even assuming that it worked successfully on all other issues, they would be defeated by the rest of the parliament on the referendum issue in 2010.

Now I'm compelled to muse tediously on my own reactions to the Scottish result. Sorry folks, but by now no one will be looking at this thread anyway, I'm sure. :) I will however avoid commenting on the debacle (or 'sotter' as we'd call it here in Aberdeenshire) of the actual counting of the ballot, the ludicrous amount of spoiled papers, and apparent literacy shortcomings demonstrated by the Scottish electorate. :)

Why are the other parties so resistant to an independence referendum? Well, for Labour it's very straightforward. Without their strong majority support in Scotland, Labour will really struggle in any future UK elections. They really need their Scottish MPs at Westminster to  have any hope of defeating the Conservative support in the South. Labour simply can't afford to let Scotland become independent, because without the Scottish Labour seats, they'll never get back in power in England. They'll do their utmost to prevent the SNP taking power in Scottish Parliament now, as they know it'd mean the first steps towards political redundancy for Labour.
As for the LibDems, well, I'm at a loss to understand why a party that campaigned tirelessly for proportional representation on the grounds that it was fairer and more democratic, seem now to 'know best' what the electorate want without actually going to the trouble of asking them... they don't seem to recognise that real fairness and democracy would be best served by giving the people of Scotland the chance to cast their vote on the issue. So, there must be something in it for the LibDems if they're so hell-bent on not entertaining a break-up of the UK.... probably something along the lines of the Labour reasoning. LibDems rely on picking up the disaffected vote in all parts of the UK. And some areas tend to be more disaffected than others, benefitting the LibDems as the 'third' party. For many traditional Labour supporters, when their party is in power but lets them down, the only way of registering their disapproval is by turning to LibDem. Turning Conservative would just be going too far! And it works in exactly the same way when the Conservatives are in government and their traditional voters become disgruntled. So maybe the LibDems have accepted that they're fated to be caught in the middle in perpetuity, and will content themselves with the scraps the other parties will throw at them as reward for bolstering support when their popularity starts to fade.
The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party (to give them their Sunday name) clearly will have no truck with anything that threatens the Union. And give them their due, they at least have some element of integrity and principles, when a break up of the UK would benefit English Conservatives so immensely  by the geographical lopping off of vast tracts of the country where they have minimal support.

I personally find the idea of minority governments and hung parliaments pretty attractive. I'd like, as an experiment, to see if people can actually co-operate and work together, for the common good. But I have serious misgivings about human nature, so feel we're condemned to a political scene of constant confrontation and dissent, smugness and complacency. And, given the evidence of the last ten years, I really believe that most politicians like it that way. Co-operation for the common good is nothing to a politician if he can get power, status and a level of control and authority over a large group of people. And if pesky little things like promises, pledges or principles might get in the way of gaining that power, then it seems they find it all too easy to ditch them.

Maybe today's Scottish result showed that I'm not the only one in the country who believes that? We didn't give any of them a proper mandate; maybe we're trying to tell them we want a new-style government that is looking for ways to find consensus not conflict? Aye indeed, we cynics really are failed idealists. Don't worry, I'll revert back to my usual despairing angry self in a day or two; just for now let me have a little bit of optimism for once for the future. By Monday, the horse-trading will be in full swing, and the wisdom of returning to my usual cynical stance will be thoroughly vindicated, I'm sure. 

The end of the United Kingdom?

It will be a bit sad but then maybe its time.

I don't blame the Scots (or Welsh) for thinking they can do a better job of running their country than anyone else... lets just hope they do a better job than they've done with Westminster.

BTW, does that mean that half the Labour government. will be out of jobs? Gordon Brown etc. Maybe its not so bad after all. 

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Aye Ray, although I’m assuming that your tongue is firmly in your cheek while posing the question, a substantial number of the Labour government would be out.  (Blimey, one’s resigning already – if ever a man made me ashamed to be Scots it’s John Reid… o aye, and there’s Brian Wilson as well…. And... och tae hell, shut up Weasel!)

Hence the reason Labour will always do their utmost to prevent Scottish independence. Scotland sends 59 MPs to Westminster, and at the 2005 election (despite losing 5), 41 of those were Labour. That's a significant number when you consider that the 2005 Labour majority was 66.

As to your implication that a Scots politician is less capable than an English one, well, I’d say that there are plenty inept politicians of all nationalities and parties (see above), and I’m not convinced that the Scottishness of the politician is a defining factor in his/her degree of inadequacy. Thinking back to when I campaigned furiously for Labour in the old days, I was happy when the leader was English (Foot), Welsh (Kinnock), or Scots (John Smith). I still remember the day of Smith’s death in May 1994, when I came out of a Romantic Narrative seminar at King’s in Aberdeen and cried, not just because a great man had died, but because I was chilled to imagine what future Labour would have. And sure enough, in a couple of months my worst fears were realised when Blair became leader. But I’m damned sure it’s not his Englishness that makes me despise Blair. 

We’re in the territory of the West Lothian question now I suspect, and of course if Scotland ever gains independence, my English friends across the border will no longer be troubled by that. So I think Scotland’s independence is best for everyone because, as we currently stand in the UK, the West Lothian question seems to be unanswerable otherwise and while the issue still rumbles on, only fosters ill-will and xenophobia towards we Sweaty Socks. (But of course, England then would have to be comfortable with the prospect of perpetual Conservative rule, and that might be unpalatable especially for those outside the southern realms of the country.)

But.
A 2010 independence referendum simply won’t happen for the following reasons:

(1)  The SNP can’t form a majority government with 47 seats, and just about everyone else in the Scottish parliament will block a straightforward Yes/No vote on independence.

(2) Even if SNP compromise and plump for an alternative referendum with a range of questions (which might be acceptable to LibDems and thus scrape through), it would still have to be approved by Westminster, who will be distinctly uncomfortable with extending any of Scotland’s powers. Gordon might agree to give us a teensy bit more authority to decide on minor things, just as a sop, but the bread and butter stuff will be closely guarded at Westminster.

(3) unless something fundamental happens by 2010, Labour will no longer have a majority government in the UK. If they’re managing to hold on to any power through some sort of coalition deal, they’re not going to risk doing anything risky with the UK constitution. (The 1979 devolution referendum debacle is, after all, what brought down the Callaghan government and let Thatcher in. 52% in Scotland had voted Yes, but were denied, because those who didn’t use their vote were added to the total, bringing the Yes vote down to 32.9%. Labour had squeezed in a late amendment to demand 40% of electorate vote Yes.)

(4) If the Tories are in government by 2010, no matter how much Cameron might be delighted to ditch a country which struggles to produce more than one Tory MP, he simply can’t as the Union is a fundamental principle in Conservative ideology. But since Cameron is already following the Blair model of ‘How to Become Electable’, (i.e. ditch all principles and move into the centre as rapidly as possible like a drunk driver on the motorway) perhaps such fundamentals will have been jettisoned by then… no, I jest - not the Union, never the Union! It’s the only Empire England has left, after all.)

(5) Even if all the above reasons somehow became irrelevant, and the Yes/No vote was permitted to be put to the Scottish electorate, undoubtedly there would be a epic campaign of hysterical fear-mongering across the country, by the politicians and the unionist media that the electorate would be brow-beaten and threatened enough to say No. (And some of us would be so disgusted at the whole circus, that we’d hire a wee rowing boat and head out into the haar-shrouded North Sea to embrace a watery doom.)

Told you it’d only be a couple of days before the old pessimistic Weasel was back.

There seems no reasonable, democratic objection to referedums aside from the cost involved if the topic is frivolous.

However when you're talking independence, it's the biggest of all issues, and it really, really annoys me (as an Aussie Republican) that the Scottish don't look likely to be given the vote.

My thought is that independence is a matter of when, not if.

Just an item I found:

LONDON (AFP) - The Scottish National Party, fresh from its slim victory in Scottish parliamentary elections, struggled Monday to woo a key partner into forming a coalition because of its push for independence.

The Liberal Democrats, who had been a junior coalition partner with Britain's ruling Labour Party until Thursday's elections, are spurning offers from the SNP so long as it pushes for a referendum on independence.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070507/tpl-britain-politics-vote-5b839a9.html

Aye well, as I said on Friday, it would've taken an extremely early (even for them!) ditching of their manifesto pledge to oppose a Referendum for the LibDems to go into coalition with SNP, and I couldn't imagine Alex Salmond being held to ransom by them on that fundamental SNP principle. The LibDems announced the refusal Sunday night, but by then had already categorically ruled out a coalition with Labour. (A Labour coalition would've been no use to the LibDems as it still wouldn't have given them enough to form a majority, and as their leader had already blurted out - they wouldn't have the 'moral mandate'. Didn't stop me worrying a bit about it though, what with my natural pessimism and my judgement that Nicol Stephen the LibDem leader would sell his granny if he thought it'd give him some reward).
The SNP have been in talks withe Greens, which have gone positively (Greens don't have any issues with allowing a referendum), but is unlikely to result in formal coalition. It's in no ones interests anyway, since the addition of 2 Green MSPs is negligible in terms of forming a majority government.

Minority government ahead for SNP then, as Alex Salmond should manage to glean enough support to be First Minister (given the earlier 'moral mandate' comments from certain other parties). There'll be considerable grumbling of course, but I think Alex can rise above it. The other post that needs to be quickly sorted out is the Presiding Officer role. It's a job no one really wants, as whichever MSP takes on the role will no longer be able to vote in the Parliament. No party wants to lose a voting MSP in the scenario of hung parliament. I'd like to see Margo Macdonald as Presiding Officer - she's the Independent. She's hugely popular with both old traditional Nationalists (those who never wanted compromise or gradualist approaches to Scottish independence) and old traditional left-wing Labour. She's apparently considering it. She'd make a good Presiding Officer in my humble opinion; she certainly has two essential characteristics for it - (a) not taking any shite off anyone, and (b) a cutting sense of humour.

They have to start moving towards decisions on these things now though. According to the Scotland Act, the First Minister needs to be elected within 28 days of the election, so they only have until the end of the month.

I'm now wondering if it's worth having a bet on how long it will take the LibDems to make some concessions... maybe even within 12 months we'll see some movement on this 'alleged sticking point' of the referendum. They've really no option but to keep a low profile for a while and see how the hung parliament is doing... and also keep an eye on Westminster incase Gordon decides to call an early UK general election. But I wouldn't rule out a coalition at some later date with the SNP, once Nicol thinks it's in his interests, of course.

If 'it' is coalition, then it might happen after a year or so.

If 'it' is a Yes/No referendum on independence in 2010, then it won't happen because that would be voted down by all the other parties in the parliament. (Any LibDem coalition would reserve some right to demand a different style of referendum, i.e. a multi-option one including choices short of full independence such as more powers for the Parliament. A multiple choice exam paper type of thing.)

If 'it' is Scottish independence within 5-10 years, then no, not a snowball's chance in hell.

Alex Salmond has now been elected First Minister; a historic moment in Scottish politics.

The new parliament at Holyrood behaved graciously today - all parties. Long may it continue. Salmond will be trying to run a minority government, and will have to seek support policy by policy. That seems to be giving all concerned some food for thought... and maybe will keep much of the bitterness and wrangling at bay, while they believe the electorate is watching closely how they conduct themselves. I hope that none of the parties let Scotland down.

From Salmond's speech:

"The nature and composition of this third Scottish Parliament makes it imperative that this government will rely on the strength of its argument in parliament and not the argument of parliamentary strength.

Despite all the challenges we will face together, I welcome that as a chance to develop a new and fundamentally more reflective model of democracy.

The days since the 3rd of May have been understandably dominated by questions over the structure of government - will there be a coalition or will we have minority government?

Let me say to parliament that what matters more to the people we all represent is less the structure of government and more what we, all of us, achieve on the people's behalf."

That sounds like the right way forward to me, and I hope they all keep that in mind.
BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor (who I rate very highly) on his blog today called it A Good Day for Politics. I agree, and long may it continue.