Frankly, my dear reader, I don't give a damn

The Herald newspaper has kicked off another bout of political introspection by launching a debate that is of precisely no relevance whatever to the vast majority of their readership or, indeed, to people beyond Scotland’s borders.

And it’s all Australia’s fault. Every time some bright spark from a think tank or Left-wing publication makes the case for compulsory voting, they inevitably point to Australia as an example of a developed country which hasn’t fallen apart because adults are being forced, on pain of a fine, to cast a vote on polling day.

I have no doubt that such a policy, were it adopted for either Holyrood or Westminster, would result in higher turnouts. Being unworkable is not the core of my strong objection to such a change. No, my objections are that in a democracy, we all have a God-given right not to give a toss who governs us. It’s a stupid position to take, for sure, and I would always recommend everyone uses their vote. But if they don’t want to – and, crucially, even if they can’t be bothered, if they have other things they consider to be more important than voting, like watching a daytime soap or having a snooze on the sofa – then that is up to them. Not you, not me and not the government; them.

Every fan of The West Wing recalls a speech by President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) in the season one finale, “What Kind Of Day Has It Been?”, in which he tells an audience of enthusiastic young people: “Decisions are made by those who turn up.”

Damn right they are. And if you don’t vote, you don’t have a say. That seems to me to be a perfectly equitable and fair civic arrangement. I also reject the quaint notion that “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain afterwards.” This is also bullshit. Of course everyone has the right to complain about the government or anything else they feel like, irrespective of their voting record. Who decided that non-voters couldn’t complain? Where is that written? If they’re residents or citizens of this country, they have the right to express themselves about anything they like. It’s just that you and I then have the equal right to ignore them. Isn’t democracy wonderful?

But the dinner party circuit wants to change all this. The same people who bleat on about proportional representation (not a specific form of it, of course, just PR in general, as if that means something) and electing the Lords reckon that turnout at elections could be improved if people were forced to leave their homes on polling day and head down to the local primary school to place an “X” in a box or – and this is always their “solution” to those who claim it’s undemocratic to force people who don’t want to vote for any specific candidate – to place it under the box marked “None of the above”. How very clever of them!

But voting for “None of the above” solves nothing if your reason for not voting is apathy. if you don’t care who wins an election and you’re not interested in the outcome, that’s your valid choice. Just because a bunch of do-gooders will feel better about life if turnout for Holyrood elections goes over 70 per cent should not impact on anyone else’s freedom to do whatever they like. Or not do it, as in this case.

Better that those demanding compulsory engagement in the democratic process ask themselves why barely half of Scots voted in last May’s Holyrood elections and start addressing some of the possible reasons why it has become an exercise in apathy every five years. First, how about reducing the term back down to four years, like we were promised in the White Paper on which the decision to endorse a devolved parliament in the 1997 referendum was taken?

And isn’t it just possible that a low turnouts at Holyrood elections is caused in part by the evident low quality of candidates being presented for our delectation? We’re a long way away from when the parties stood candidates of the calibre of Donald Dewar, Alex Salmond, Jack McConnell, Sam Galbraith and Margo MacDonald. Maybe if the parties took the contest more seriously, the voters might follow suit.

Enthusiasm among Scots for Holyrood elections, as evidenced by turnout figures, has been consistently lower than for UK general elections, which has been a perpetual cause of indignation and even outrage among the devocracy in Scotland. Maybe that’s because Scots still consider Westminster to be a more important forum than Holyrood? Just a suggestion.

The tendency of the chattering classes in Scotland and across the UK to blame ordinary voters for their lack of engagement is the very epitome of arrogance. How about challenging our political classes, our rulers, to up their game and start saying things that actually appeal and inspire? Or how about recognising that there will always be those who just have no interest in voting and that taking money off them as punishment for how they feel is hardly likely to make them feel more engaged? They have their own reasons, and to be honest, if they don’t want to share them with the rest of us, that’s up to them.

A final thought: from a certain point of view, turnout in May was not 51 per cent. That was the figure representing the proportion of registered voters who actually exercised their franchise. If you want to know the proportion of voters who voted, it was probably around the 85-90 per cent mark. Being listed on the electoral register doesn’t make you a “voter” any more than possessing a driving licence makes you a driver. You’re only a voter if you actually go out and vote, at least occasionally. It seems odd to describe someone who has never voted and has no intention of doing so in the future as a voter. Turnout of actual voters was pretty high and healthy. So stop worrying about it and stop trying to control every damn thing everyone does.