Scottish Council Elections 2007 Results and Statistics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Scottish Council Elections 2007 Results and Statistics H M Bochel D T Denver University of Lincoln University of Lancaster 2007 Published by Policy Studies Research Centre University of Lincoln Brayford Pool Lincoln LN6 7TS All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers. ISBN: 978-1-874474-36-4 H M Bochel and D T Denver 2007 Contents Preface iii Commentary 1 Tabulated Council Results Aberdeen 11 Aberdeenshire 13 Angus 16 Argyll and Bute 17 Clackmannanshire 19 Dumfries and Galloway 20 Dundee 22 East Ayrshire 23 East Dunbartonshire 25 East Lothian 26 East Renfrewshire 27 Edinburgh 28 Falkirk 31 Fife 33 Glasgow 36 Highland 40 Inverclyde 44 Midlothian 45 Moray 46 Na h-Eileanan an Iar 47 North Ayrshire 48 North Lanarkshire 50 Orkney Islands 53 Perth and Kinross 54 Renfrewshire 55 Scottish Borders 57 Shetland Islands 59 South Ayrshire 60 South Lanarkshire 61 Stirling 64 West Dunbartonshire 65 West Lothian 66 Commentary Tables Table 1: Scottish Parliament voting intentions (constituency vote) 2006-7 1 Table 2: Number of candidates in council elections 1999-2007 2 Table 3: Percentage of women candidates and councillors 1999-2007 3 Table 4: Rejected ballots in council elections 1999-2007 4 Table 5: Turnout in council elections 1999-2007 5 Table 6: Share of votes in council elections 1999-2007 6 Table 7: Seats won in council elections 1999-2007 8 i Table 8: Party control of councils 1995-2007 8 Table 9: ‘Alphabetical’ voting in wards where parties had two 9 candidates Summary Tables Table 1: Electorates and turnout 68 Table 2: Rejected ballots 2003 and 2007 69 Table 3: Number of candidates by party 70 Table 4: Number of women candidates by party 71 Table 5: Number of women candidates elected by party 72 Table 6: Percentage of wards contested by each party 73 Table 7: First preference votes 74 Table 8: Share of first preference votes 75 Table 9: Number of council seats won 76 ii PREFACE The fourth round of elections for the unitary Scottish local councils took place on May 3rd 2007. As in the previous rounds in 1999 and 2003, these were held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections. This was despite the fact that in the interim the Arbuthnott Commission, set up to report on elections in Scotland, had firmly recommended the ‘decoupling’ of the two sets of elections (Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, 2006, pp. 48-51). As a result, in terms of media attention the local elections were once again largely overshadowed by the Scottish Parliament elections during the campaign. In the immediate aftermath of the elections, however, the decoupling issue came to the fore. This was because of the apparent confusion surrounding voting in the Scottish Parliament elections which resulted in a huge increase in the number of ballots that were rejected. The fact that voters had to cope with a new electoral system for local elections, which involved a new way of voting, certainly did not help matters. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system for council elections was introduced by the Local Governance (Scotland) Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2004. This was the ‘pound of flesh’ that the Liberal Democrats extracted as the price of their continuing the coalition arrangement with Labour in the Scottish Executive. Labour proceeded with the change even although the party was bound to lose seats under the new system. The introduction of STV had a number of important consequences (apart from producing different election outcomes). First, implementing the new system required a complete redrawing of ward boundaries to create new wards that would elect either three or four councillors. This was undertaken by the Scottish Local Government Boundary Commission and the final outcome was a reduction from 1,222 single member wards to 353 multi-member wards, 190 electing three councillors and 163 electing four, with the total number of councillors remaining at 1,222 (for details of the work of the Boundary Commission see http://www.lgbc-scotland.gov). Second, since counting votes and determining results under STV can be a lengthy and arduous process, it was decided to introduce electronic counting. Early trials of the technology involved were not entirely encouraging – in at least one demonstration the systems crashed. There was also much criticism of computerised counting on election night and immediately after. Scottish parliament counts were slower than they had been when conducted manually and several counts had to be abandoned as the technology filed to cope. In respect of the council elections however, counting went fairly smoothly and initial results were announced reasonably quickly after counting began. Finally, STV creates problems for commentators and analysts. How are the results to be reported? The Scottish press simply listed the winning candidates in each ward. That is clearly inadequate for analysis or for anyone with a serious interest in local elections. On the other hand, it is clearly impossible, without producing a massive tome, to present the full voting details, including vote transfers, for every ward. We have obtained details of electorates, first preference votes for each candidate, rejected ballots and candidates elected, directly from council officials and these are the details we present here for each ward, showing in addition the share of first preferences obtained by each party. In addition, ward turnout is indicated. Identifying women candidates has been made more difficult by the relaxation of the rule requiring candidates to give their full names on nomination papers. As a consequence it is difficult to know, for example, whether ‘Pat’ is an abbreviation for Patricia or Patrick. Nonetheless, we have identified candidates who we believe are women by the prefix 'Ms'. Retiring incumbent councillors are indicated by the symbol ‘=’. The iii number of rejected ballots is not shown, but a summary of these is given in the Appendix, Table 2, and rejected ballots are included in the calculations of turnout. Councils are listed in alphabetical order – including the prefixes ‘East’, ‘West’, and so on – since this now appears to be accepted practice. Since 2003 the council formerly known as Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has changed its name to the equally incomprehensible, for most, Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Within authorities, wards are listed by number. The abbreviations used to identify the party affiliations of candidates are as follows: BNP British National Party BP Borders Party Con Scottish Conservative and Unionist CPA Christian People’s Alliance EKA East Kilbride Alliance Green Scottish Green Party HEP Had Enough Party Ind Independent Lab Scottish Labour Party LHA Local Hospital Action LHC Local Health Concern LibDem Scottish Liberal Democrats NPCG Nine Per Cent Growth Party ScotUn Scottish Unionist, Proudly Scottish, Proudly British SCP Scottish Christian Party SNP Scottish National Party Solid Solidarity SSCUP Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party SSP Scottish Socialist Party SVC A Strong Voice for Clydebank UKIP United Kingdom Independence Party (Scotland) We have classified candidates as ‘Independent’ if they described themselves as such on nomination, or if they offered no description at all. In addition, candidates standing for the Cumbernauld Independent Councillors’ Alliance in North Lanarkshire and the East Dunbartonshire Independent Alliance are treated as Independents. We are grateful to the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth for printing this collection. Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy it is inevitable that errors will remain. These, we hope, are few and inconsequential but we apologise for them in advance. Hugh Bochel David Denver June 2007 Reference Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems (2006) Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland, Edinburgh, Stationery Office. iv COMMENTARY ON THE RESULTS Introduction As noted in the Preface, the Scottish local elections of 2007 were especially noteworthy for the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method of election. Inevitably, therefore, much of our discussion and analysis of the results focuses on the impact of the electoral system. At the same time, however, local elections continue to be interpreted as good indicators of the standing of the parties and of the health of local democracy and we also refer to these issues in what follows. In our commentary on the 2003 results we suggested that in terms of council seats won Labour would be the main loser under the new system and the SNP the main gainer. Other research concurred in this judgement (see Curtice and Herbert, 2005). If that alone made the outlook gloomy for Labour in 2007, then the picture was worsened by a decline in support for the party in Scotland and an increase in support for the SNP towards the end of 2006 which continued into 2007, as measured by voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament election. Although individual polls gave rather different figures, the overall trend is unmistakeable. Table 1 shows that Labour slipped from 34% of voting intentions in the autumn of 2006 to 30% in April 2007 (having had 34.6% of the constituency vote in 2003) Meanwhile, the SNP overtook Labour and reached 37% in April 2007 (having had 23.9% of the constituency vote in 2003). Table 1: Scottish Parliament Voting Intentions (Constituency Vote) 2006-7 Con Lab LDem SNP % % % % Aug/Sep 06 13 34 16 29 Oct 06 12 33 15 32 Nov 06 13 31 16 34 Jan 07 13 30 16 34 Feb 07 18 29 16 34 March 07 13 30 14 35 April 07 13 30 15 37 Note: Figures shown are means derived from all polls undertaken in the months specified.