IT has been nearly four months since the Holyrood election, and in that time reporters at The National have been hitting up against a brick wall trying to get any information from the Electoral Commission about the fall out from its decision to allow a far-right “spoiler party” to stand.
Independent Green Voice (IGV) – founded by former Ukip Scottish organiser and Holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie – likely blocked the Greens from winning an additional regional seat in May, which instead went to the Scottish Conservatives.
The National spoke to voters who told us that they felt “disappointed” in themselves and the system after realising they had voted for McConnachie’s group, which does not campaign or take part in hustings, rather than voting for the Scottish Greens.
IGV, which ran in all of the eight regions in Scotland this time round, sits higher up the ballot paper than the Greens, and there have been previous concerns raised about its logo, even by a former commission boss himself, and how it may confuse voters.
It is not the first time that this issue has reared its head.
After the 2021 Holyrood election we revealed that the Electoral Commission had plenty of complaints from voters on the topic.
But five years later, the Commission has put up the barricades when we have tried to get information about IGV, Scottish Greens and voter confusion through Freedom of Information (FOI).
First, we asked for correspondence about IGV and the Scottish Greens in the immediate aftermath of polling day on May 8.
We were told “some” of the information we had requested was held, but we were denied it due to cost grounds. The Electoral Commission sets a limit of £450, they say this is the equivalent to 18 hours of staff time, calculated at £25 per hour.
“The information potentially in scope is not held centrally in a single case file or location. To identify information within scope, we would need to carry out searches across multiple records and mailboxes, including records held by staff in different teams,” the response read.
“This would require a manual search and review process to determine which records fall within the scope of your request.
“To estimate the likely work required, we asked one member of staff in a relevant team to carry out a sample search. That search identified more than 290 emails.”
They argued that our request would take over 24 hours of work, so it was refused.
So we decided to refine our request.
We lodged a second FOI for correspondence on the same topic, but asked only for correspondence from senior staff.
This request was lodged on Monday, June 29, but the Electoral Commission extended it, with the response finally dropping today, August 24.
Despite taking double the amount of time to consider our request – the Electoral Commission blocked any release on public interest grounds.
“We hold information that you have requested but consider it exempt from disclosure,” the response reads.
The Electoral Commission cited Section 36 which can allow information to be withheld if it would “inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation”.
“The information contains deliberations about the requirements relating to political party registration, and includes internal debates between Commission officers as they consider the proper application of those requirements,” the response says.
“Commission officers need to be able to deliberate without fear that discussions will be taken out of context and reported.
“ Release of the information would compromise the ability of Commission officers to engage in free and frank deliberations on party registration matters.”
“Following due consideration of the above, the qualified person is of the opinion that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for deliberation,” the response added.
“We therefore judge the public interest in withholding the information to outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.”
A separate request for complaints received by the Electoral Commission relating to the logo or name of IGV was also refused. They claimed they had not received any.
In 2021, when IGV stood in fewer regions, they provided 67 written complaints received between polling day and May 11.
Initially, they had said there had been 283 complaints regarding IGV. The EC then changed position and said they considered those "queries".
We asked the Electoral Commission about its refusal to engage on the issue and the change in approach to FOIs compared to 2021.
A spokesperson said: "As a public body, we recognise the importance of transparency and take seriously our duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
"It is important that Commission staff can deliberate regulatory matters without fear that discussions will be taken out of context. In this case, we extended our response time, in line with FOI requirements, in order to consider the impact on how staff make decisions about complex regulatory matters.
"We wrote to the Scottish Green Party in May to explain the law and our position on this matter. Prior to this, we had offered to meet with the Scottish Green Party on a number of occasions to discuss its concerns about Independent Green Voice’s name and emblem, most recently in April this year. Those offers were not taken up. We remain open to a discussion."
The Electoral Commission knows there is an issue here; it has been raised time and time again and yet they continue to stonewall journalists who are trying to hold them to account.
IGV have made no secret about their intentions. They have a website with a bizarre manifesto, don’t attend debates, don’t publish any election materials or receive any donations – even the accounts on the Electoral Commission’s own website shows that McConnachie paid a £25 registration fee and there was no other income.
This repeated denial and obfuscation is egregious, there are questions that need to be answered by the Electoral Commission which is fully aware of the concerns about IGV.
But it appears that they are content to stick their head in the sand and allow a man, who was filmed with far-right agitators throwing Nazi salutes in the city centre of Glasgow in recent weeks, continue to disrupt democracy and confuse voters at the ballot box.
Not only that, but their repeated refusal to release any information is shrouding them from scrutiny.
One thing is for sure; we will be appealing that latest FOI response and taking it to the Information Commissioner if we have to.
