The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


The narcissism of small differences

Posted on August 24, 2015 by

We’ve only ourselves to blame, we’d be the first to admit. When we titled yesterday’s piece “AMS for lazy people” it was pretty much an invitation for people to get us to do their research for them, and so it proved.

Even as we slumped exhausted over a red-hot calculator, several readers wasted no time demanding a breakdown of how the mechanisms of the electoral system had affected last year’s European elections, in which UKIP defied some expectations (and delighted the Unionist parties and media) by taking a seat in Scotland.

davidcoburn8

So we suppose we might as well.

The Euro elections use AMS-style PR, but with no First-Past-The-Post constituency seats all the parties start off on a level footing with no divisors affecting their vote. So to fill Scotland’s six MEP seats, the six rounds of voting panned out like this:

Round 1

SNP 389,503
Lab 348,219
Con 231,330
UKIP 140,534
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

SNP WIN

Round 2

Lab 348,219
Con 231,330
SNP 194,751 (389,503 divided by 2)
UKIP 140,534
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

LAB WIN

Round 3

Con 231,330
SNP 194,751
Lab 174,109 (348,219 divided by two)
UKIP 140,534
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

CON WIN

Round 4

SNP 194,751
Lab 174,109
UKIP 140,534
Con 115,665 (231,330 divided by two)
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

SNP WIN

Round 5

Lab 174,109
UKIP 140,534
SNP 129,834 (389,503 divided by three)
Con 115,665
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

LAB WIN

Round 6

UKIP 140,534
SNP 129,834
Lab 116,073 (348,219 divided by three)
Con 115,665
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319

UKIP WIN

UKIP’s last-gasp victory caused a certain degree of recrimination between SNP and Green supporters, with each accusing the other of splitting the anti-UKIP vote and letting the anti-EU party sneak into a seat.

That’s a rather debatable assessment whichever side it comes from (it’s more likely that people were just voting for their preferred party rather than tactically against UKIP), but both parties had explicitly campaigned on the theme that voting for the other would be a wasted vote that would let UKIP in, so it’s worth delving into how the system – or to be more accurate, the D’Hondt Method – operated in this case.

By the narrowest of margins, it was the SNP who turned out to have been best placed to defeat UKIP. They’d have needed an extra 32,103 votes to take the sixth seat, while the Greens would have needed an extra 32,230.

But curiously, the workings of D’Hondt meant that the Greens were much further from a seat than that tiny 127-vote gap suggests. (And we don’t just mean because that would have required a whopping 30% increase in their vote, whereas the SNP would have had to increase theirs by just 8% to get the same number of extra votes.)

To see why, we need to extend the count, as if Scotland had more MEP seats to fill.

Round 7

SNP 129,834
Lab 116,073
Con 115,665
Grn 108,305
Lib 95,319
UKIP 70,267 (140,534 divided by two)

SNP WIN

Round 8

Lab 116,073
Con 115,665
Grn 108,305
SNP 97,376 (389,503 divided by four)
Lib 95,319
UKIP 70,267

LAB WIN

Round 9

Con 115,665
Grn 108,305
SNP 97,376
Lib 95,319
Lab 87,055 (348,219 divided by four)
UKIP 70,267

CON WIN

Round 10

Grn 108,305
SNP 97,376
Lib 95,319
Lab 87,055
Con 77,110 (231,330 divided by three)
UKIP 70,267

GREEN WIN

Remarkably, while Scotland’s imaginary seventh Euro seat would have gone straight to the SNP, it would have taken another three rounds of counting after that for the Greens to secure one.

That’s because the more seats you win under the D’Hondt method of allocation, the less of a hit your vote takes in following rounds. The SNP’s first seat cost it 194,751 votes, but the (notional) third one just 32,458.

(This is done to prevent over-representation of small parties when there are only a few seats up for grabs, but to ensure that they do feature in a full-size Parliament.)

Because of this, the bigger parties’ vote decreases by less and less at each step, and if you extend the counting still further the Greens don’t pick up their second seat until Round 22 – by which point the SNP have seven, Labour six and the Tories four.

In other words, while it may have looked to a casual observer as if the SNP and Greens were more or less neck-and-neck by Round 6, in fact the odds were hugely stacked in favour of the Nats. In essence, the value of votes under AMS increases on a slightly upwards-curving scale – the more votes you get, the more each additional vote is progressively worth.

When the Greens pick up their first seat, they have 1/10th of the available seats and the SNP have 30%. By the time they get their second one, the Greens’ proportion has fallen to 1/11th and the SNP’s has snuck up to 31.4%.

If we keep going until Round 56 (it’s summer, we were bored), we get this:

SNP 17
Lab 15
Con 10
UKIP 6
Green 4
Lib 4

By which point the Green share of seats has fallen from 1/10th to exactly 1/14th.

It’s in these low numbers that we find the explanation for the fairly minimal effect of tactical voting under the Additional Member System, as revealed in yesterday’s piece. Basically it’s relatively easy for small parties to get a seat or two in an AMS/D’Hondt parliament, but increasingly difficult to build up their cohort with list seats alone.

You really need to contest constituencies to put together a meaningful presence with AMS, and parties which don’t will always struggle to exert an influence, because the range of outcomes under which they can hope to hold the balance of power is very narrow. Hard as it may be for smaller parties to swallow, them’s the breaks.

Print Friendly

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 24 08 15 15:43

    The narcissism of small differences | Speymouth

  2. 24 08 15 21:46

    The narcissism of small differences | Politics ...

  3. 26 08 15 14:46

    The Rebel Alliance | A Wilderness of Peace

193 to “The narcissism of small differences”

  1. Wullsg says:

    so another 30,000 votes for the SNP would have kept the embarrassment that is UKIP out of Scotland.
    That has to be the worst protest vote in history.

  2. Morag says:

    You know, my baroque flute teacher has a method she calls “music practice for busy people”. Maybe that form of words is safer?

  3. desimond says:

    Thinking best of a terrible result back then, least it reminds everyone that complacency is the true enemy and also reminds us that not all Scots are reasonably minded folk ( let alone socially-just, caring, thoughtful or considerate of all)

  4. wee_monsieur says:

    and there was me thinking you had gone for a long walk…

  5. Rory Steel says:

    “It’s in these numbers that we find the explanation for the fairly minimal effect of tactical voting under the Additional Member System as revealed in yesterday’s piece.”

    AMS is different from the Party List system. Larger parties aren’t penalised so much under the Party List because constituency seats aren’t included in the divisor for the list seats. They are not entirely comparable.

  6. Iona Brand says:

    Now can you explain how the Labour leadership elections works!?
    I think it’s a Single Transferable Vote system where the two candidates who come last alphabetically are excluded and their votes are split between the other two.

  7. John lyons says:

    The 56th result is essentially the same as the first, greens get 1/4 of SNP votes they get 1/4 of SNP seats. Go on, try up to 1000 SNP seats, bet the Greens get 250….

  8. Morag says:

    I had an extremely frustrating exchange with Alan Bissett a couple of months ago, which involved the Euro elections. He started lambasting the SNP for selfishness in not “standing aside” to let the Greens have a clear run at the last seat. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I asked him how the SNP was expected to do this, in practical terms. He replied, “there’s no law that says a party has to put forward a full slate of candidates.”

    He stopped posting shortly after that so he never elaborated and I don’t know if he finally figured out just how much mince he was talking, but it’s a shocker. I mean, was he expecting a light to come on in the polling stations once the (uncounted, secret) votes for the SNP were enough to win two seats, to let people know they’d filled their quota and to vote for another party instead?

    Or was he expecting the returning officer to go up to Alex Salmond at the count and say, “well Mr. Salmond, you’ve got all these votes left over after electing your two MEPs, which party do you want to nominate for them to be transferred to?”

    What was so disturbing to me was that this came in the middle of an exchange where Alan was urging a “tactical” non-SNP list vote on SNP supporters, telling them blatant falsehoods about the d’Hondt electoral system and then bad-mouthing them (and the SNP) when they appeared disinclined to go along with his little scheme.

    If the people who are putting themselves forward to argue these harebrained schemes don’t themselves understand how the voting system works, to the extent where they think the SNP could in some way have gifted the last Euro seat to the Greens, it’s a bit worrying.

  9. Albaman says:

    Stew,
    I may have missed it, but who, or what body worked out this AMS system?.

  10. ahundredthidiot says:

    So…..the greens let Ukip in…….????

  11. Elliot Bulmer says:

    You are not describing AMS here, but the D’Hondt system.

    AMS is the specific mixture of FPTP seats with a compensatory list (as in Scottish Parliament elections, but not in European elections). The D’Hondt system is the particular way of calculating the allocation of list seats.

    Sorry to be pedantic, but if I expect first year undergraduates to get it right (and I taught this stuff to undergrad politics students for six years), I had to point it out.

    Nevertheless, kudos for providing the best, simplest explanation of how D’Hondt works. I’m sure future students will thank you for it.

  12. Iain More says:

    The SNP for whatever reason failed to get its vote out. The Brit Nat Press and Media had a free run at promoting UKIP as well. The Brit Nat Press and Media reverted to type for the Brit GE election though with the exception of the Daily Express which was always going to give UKIP unchallenged space with interest.

    The Press and Media though blew all its cards during the Referendum and it seems that the Project Fear mark 2 had little or no outcome on the result at least in Scotland.

    I will stick my neck out and say that UKIP will win zero seats at Holyrood next year, because the BBC in particular and Brit Labours other allies in the Brit Nat Press and Media in Scotland will not want to fragment the Brit Nat vote. I also think it might have dawned don them that UKIP ate into labours vote at the Brit GE as the bigoted anti EU protester Tory voters returned to the Tory Party.

    I also felt that the SNP were somewhat complacent during the EU Election, I felt they were complacent during the last Local Council Elections and failed to get their vote out in them as well with the result that far too many Councils are now under the control of Brit Nat coalitions to the detriment of those Council Areas and Scotland as a whole. Oh and that means far too many hostile Councils that have control over Electoral Registers.

    P.S I myself had to stick a peg over my nose when it comes to EU elections. I voted SNP top keep the neo fascist UKIP out but to no avail.

    P.S 2 The EU vote is now history and the Greens have been seen for what they are. I wont be using my list vote to vote Green after Caroline Lucas voted with the Brit Nat Tories to scupper SNP Amendments to the already inadequate Scotland Bill and thus watered it down further. That will not be forgiven.

  13. handclapping says:

    The third on the SNP list, Ahmed-Sheik, did not inspire confidence and the SNP were busy with something else. They need to get their other candidates into Brussels as “researchers” so that we know they are competent and in 2019 there wont be any distractions.

  14. schrodingers cat says:

    to get the other indy parties to win lists seats in large numbers at holyrood would require the snp to support them in large numbers, this would have required a concerted campaign in social media. there is a risk to the snp, as you pointed out yesterday, if the snp dont take all the expected constiyuency seats in a region etc
    the real reason it is unlikely to happen is because most people dont think the ssp or the greens are worth the risk
    that is their fault, not the snp supporters

  15. galamcennalath says:

    Excellent analysis. Moral … Again … If party politics matters to you, vote for the party whose policies most closely match yours. However, you should bear in mind that unless that party is popular enough, it will be no seats. More importantly, if Scotland breaking free from this dreadful UK debacle and starting afresh with so many things including politics and parties, then for heavens sake vote SNP!

    After independence I don’t know who I will vote for. I will wait and read the manifestos.

    Until we get independence I must vote SNP.

    There’s a really scary aspect to the EU results – how did 140k of our fellow Scots come to the conclusion UKIP would best represent them in Europe. FFS.

  16. Doug Daniel says:

    This is a really good point, for the North-East list in particular.

    The SNP managed to win a list seat despite our list vote being divided by ELEVEN, after winning all the constituencies. However, we were far closer to getting a second or third MSP elected than the Greens were to having even ONE elected, since by the time your vote is divided by 11, dividing it by 12 and 13 makes bugger all difference.

    (I think if you extrapolate the 2011 North East result, by the time the Greens have won one MSP, the SNP has three. I could be wrong, but I’ve done that in the past, and I think that’s what the result was.)

    As you say in the article, the D’Hondt formula used in the Scottish elections favours larger parties. And any Green member who disagrees with that is telling porkies, because that’s the reason they would prefer we used the “Sainte-Laguë” method, which favours smaller parties.

    (And of course, it’s precisely why D’Hondt was chosen, since Labour assumed they would always be a “larger party”…)

  17. DerekM says:

    gawd you must of been bored Rev lol

    The Scottish EU elections are a joke anyway.

    And you are right any party looking to gain a foothold through the list frankly are not credible imo the whole sorry mess of AMS or PR or whatever they want to call it is also a joke,all it does is allow non entities to get a position,the same non entities if it were FPTP would not even get a look in.

    I personally prefer FPTP it at least punishes political parties who cannot connect with the electorate and that is how it should be,PR breeds complacency imo.

    Now FPTP is not perfect either but we all agreed to AMS so we will just have to live with it for the time being until we can have a real debate about it in an independent Scotland.

  18. Dr Jim says:

    You see, you could explain this to me all day long and I’m sorry, like simultaneous equations in school I just don’t get it, I never got it then and I don’t get it now

    I am yours

    Ashamed (Wee face thingy)

  19. HandandShrimp says:

    As someone who likes numbers it is pleasing to see a calculator get laldy.

    Taking of which there will be a few calculators on fire in London and the Dow Jones right now.

  20. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “You are not describing AMS here, but the D’Hondt system.”

    DAMN PEDANTS.

    (Have amended.)

  21. heedtracker says:

    “last year’s European elections, in which UKIP defied some expectations (and delighted the Unionist parties and media) by taking a seat in Scotland.”

    Got that right too. I listened to BBC r4 election night coverage with Jim Naughtie and co, who all sounded like over excited little boys at their birthday party, as UKIP Scottish win dribbled along. But to be fair, Jim and his chums had all worked incredibly hard to get old Jaba the Hut elected.

  22. Brian Bethune says:

    The people that voted UKIP gave UKIP a seat, the people that voted for them whether done seriously, ironically or in protest.

  23. Desimond says:

    Iain More

    SNP didn’t get vote out?
    Are you sure?
    Have you checked percentages given the total disinterest people actually have in European and Council elections?

    It is quite interesting the number of SNP-BAD style rhetoric that get used within WoS comments, doesn’t seem limited to media.

  24. Fergus Green says:

    Good analysis Stuart, as usual. I think though that a lot of potential SNP (not to mention blue red and yellow Tory) voters took their eye off the ball during the Euro elections while UKIP got their vote out. If I recall correctly, turnout overall was around 25%. If voter turnout could be increased, it may be that the number of votes for SNP and the Panda parties would all increase proportionally, while the UKIP vote would probably only rise marginally.

    Remember, this is what UKIP stand for, protesting against the EU and immigrants in general, so they are unlikely to miss the opportunity to vote in Euro elections.

    Please everyone, please turn out and vote the next time round and let the shame of having an elected UKIP member in Scotland be consigned to history.

  25. @galamcennalath

    `There’s a really scary aspect to the EU results – how did 140k of our fellow Scots come to the conclusion UKIP would best represent them in Europe. FFS.`

    There are 500,000 English immigrants/settlers in Scotland ,most of them in the Red Tory stronghold of Morningside and The Grange.

  26. Morag says:

    to get the other indy parties to win lists seats in large numbers at holyrood would require the snp to support them in large numbers, this would have required a concerted campaign in social media.

    That was never going to happen except in the fevered imaginations of a very small group of people.

  27. Morag says:

    The SNP managed to win a list seat despite our list vote being divided by ELEVEN, after winning all the constituencies. However, we were far closer to getting a second or third MSP elected than the Greens were to having even ONE elected, since by the time your vote is divided by 11, dividing it by 12 and 13 makes bugger all difference.

    That may be why our branch convener was making noises about the SNP potentially getting two list seats in a region even if it won all the constituencies, if the list vote was high enough. I was vaguely aware of the point you make, but I’ve never really taken the possibility that the list vote could approach 60% particularly seriously.

    Still, I didn’t think we’d get 56 seats in May either, so what do I know?

  28. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “You see, you could explain this to me all day long and I’m sorry, like simultaneous equations in school I just don’t get it, I never got it then and I don’t get it now”

    It really isn’t complicated at all. At each round, all that happens is that you give a seat to the top party on the table, reduce its vote according to the formula and slot it back into the table at its new position. Repeat until you run out of seats.

  29. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I think though that a lot of potential SNP (not to mention blue red and yellow Tory) voters took their eye off the ball during the Euro elections while UKIP got their vote out.”

    I think more to the point is that people don’t really give a shit who their MEPs are. Nobody knows what they actually do, and when there are only six Scottish ones for the whole of the European Parliament it’s pretty obvious that they’re not going to be able to achieve much whatever party they’re from.

  30. Luigi says:

    I think the take home message is that the Greens were/are still far too weak to benefit from tactical voting, even if by luck the bones did fall favourably.

    Better stick with your party for the list next year, SNP voters!

  31. Robert Whyte says:

    So in theory this system can be used for tactical voting. Hear me out! If everyone votes snp then no other party gets a seat. Its that simple.

  32. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The 56th result is essentially the same as the first, greens get 1/4 of SNP votes they get 1/4 of SNP seats.”

    Indeed. Whatever criticisms people have of D’Hondt, it certainly does achieve roughly proportional representation.

  33. GallusEffie says:

    Please say it’s not just me that, when they read “D’Hondt”, thinks of the line from “Bambi” in the Young Ones – Monk D’Wally de Honk?

    😀

  34. Tony Little says:

    @DerekM

    I personally prefer FPTP it at least punishes political parties who cannot connect with the electorate

    So you think the Conservative party “connects” with the electorate? In GE15 the Tories only received the positive support of 24.4% of the total electorate. Do you think that is a fair and democratic result which reflects the electorates’ wishes?

    @Morag

    I have played around with the Scottish (Holyrood) electoral calculators, and if (OK, I accept this is a big IF) the SNP list vote is 55% or higher, even if they win every Constituency seat, they will win a minimum of seven list seats, rising to 10+ depending on final percentages. For the Greens to win a sizable number (20+), 30% of SNP support would have to switch to the Greens in every region.

    This kind of ‘tactical vote’ just isn’t going to happen, and is certainly NOT worth the risk to an overall significant SNP majority.

  35. Clootie says:

    We still had over 140,000 cretins who thought UKIP was the answer to Scotlands problems.

    Even worse we have 140,000 idiots that thought David Coburn would be best placed to represent them and their interests from his house in London!

    Even mentioning that lot makes my skin crawl – I need to go for a shower.

  36. Clootie says:

    O/T

    Brent Crude down to 43.29 DOLLARS
    🙁

  37. Muscleguy says:

    All these SNP/Green recriminations are all very well, and I’ve indulged once too. But the reality is the SNP, eyes on the Independence prize and keeping their cash in the bank for the 18th barely campaigned in the Europeans. They won by default and off referendum fever. Turnout was low and there you have the perfect storm that let UKIP in.

    We were all guilty of being distracted when we know that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Add in that in the Europeans stirred up by the Media and especially the Beeb’s unwarranted exposure of Farage the Kippers were perhaps the most motivated voters whether they were genuine Eurosceptics (and the SNP contains lots of those too) and the cockers of snooks at the established parties.

    Hopefully in the next Europeans we will be less distracted and more focused and we can use the spectre of UKIP to actually get the voters out. The solution is not an internecine war between SNP and Green, which plays into the Unionist’s hands, let alone UKIP’s, we can focus on a better solution: increasing turnout for the Good Guys.

  38. green_pedant says:

    What you say is true only for elections without FPTP seats. with FPTP seats SNP votes are not worth more because they start off divided by a large number, say 8 or 9, while the Greens will at best get one constituency in all of Scotland.

  39. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Elliot Bulmer I take it you had your Elert reader badge on, step forward & collect your Proud Pedant Badge lol.

    Rev take ah break fae that calculator,if people havent got the message by now they never will.

  40. Thepnr says:

    If 100% of those that vote SNP for their first preference voted fot A.N.Other pro Indy party with their list vote.

    I suspect that would almost wipe out all the Unionist parties.

    Too risky eh!

  41. DerekM says:

    i never said it was perfect Tony and if you like it or not that was the outcome of GE2015 the tories won,maybe the question should be why did they win with such a low percentage.

  42. sydthesnake says:

    Thanks STU, after all that number juggling, a simple request please, tomorrows lottery numbers

    thanks

    Syd

  43. naebd says:

    “There are 500,000 English immigrants/settlers in Scotland ,most of them in the Red Tory stronghold of Morningside and The Grange.”

    How on earth do they fit them all in?

  44. Luigi says:

    Clootie says:

    24 August, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    O/T

    Brent Crude down to 43.29 DOLLARS
    🙁

    The red tories will be punching the air in delight.

  45. Morag says:

    If 100% of those that vote SNP for their first preference voted fot A.N.Other pro Indy party with their list vote.

    I suspect that would almost wipe out all the Unionist parties.

    There goes that fevered imagination again.

  46. HandandShrimp says:

    Clootie

    All commodities and the stock market generally are in free fall it is another “Black Monday” apparently.

    I doubt the Blue Tories will be punching the air with delight.

  47. Christian Schmidt says:

    In terms of tactical voting in an additional member system, the first thing to consider is the constituencies. Luckily this is rather easy, given the current opinion polls it is a fair assumption that the SNP will win all constituencies in 6 out of 8 regions, and all bar 1-2 in H+I and the South. So for these 6 regions, as there are 8-10 constituency seats out of 16 regional seats, and d’Hondt is used to allocate list seats, this means that any party winning all constituencies will only start winning list seats if their regional vote is over about 50%. But given that bar Lothians theses are also the stronger SNP regions, it is also a fair assumption that the Nats will get 50% in these regions if they get 50% across Scotland.

    In H+I and South, where one must always assume the SNP do not sweep all constituencies, any vote above about 40% should deliver additional list seats, and given previous results the SNP probably needs to be about 50% nationally to be above 40% there.

    Lothian is difficult for the reason Stuart says.

    So, in summary, if the SNP is at 50% or above on the list vote, tactical voting will have no positive effect. If the SNP is below 45% on the list vote, any 2nd vote for the SNP is wasted and is better given to others.

  48. call me dave says:

    @Clootie

    I was thinking that myself UKIP 140,000 votes…I know… some folk where I used to work (half a dozen) ex-labour who were convinced that’s the way forward.

    I am sure they have considered it since then.

    Don’t worry, oils well that ends well! They say all the shares are down but over a 5 year period some indexes are up overall.

  49. Andrew Haddow says:

    The maximum number of list seats the SNP could take after winning all the constituencies (in a 9 constituency region) is 3.

    This is because SNP policy is for constituency candidates to automatically go onto the list, and party lists are capped at 12.

    See page 6: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/110075/Key-CA-Scotland-web-and-email.pdf

  50. ianbeag says:

    Dr Jim says: at 2:39 pm
    “You see, you could explain this to me all day long and I’m sorry, like simultaneous equations in school I just don’t get it, I never got it then and I don’t get it now”

    Try this – another way of explaining what Rev. Stu presented so well.
    file:///H:/Blog%20articles%20to%20keep/The%20Additional%20Member%20System%20-%20Visit%20&%20Learn%20_%20%C2%A0Scottish%20Parliament.html

  51. Juteman says:

    @Christian Schmidt.
    A vote for the SNP is never wasted.
    The total votes cast will have a bearing on Nicola Sturgeons ‘authority’ to call ref 2.

  52. Robert Louis says:

    It takes a certain type of dedication (or madness) to hypothetically calculate out to round 56 using the d’Hondt method. 🙂

    The bottom line in all of this, is if you want the SNP or a pro indy Government in 2016, it needs to be SNP/SNP.

  53. Juteman says:

    Forget about the total number of seats for a moment. Most folk on here want another referendum.
    What would give Nicola Sturgeon the most authority to call one? A total vote share of 47% or 57%? Or even 67%?
    We are in a unique situation here, and it isn’t like ‘normal’ elections. From now to independence is a permanent campaign.
    Imagine if the SNP got a ridiculous figure like 70% of the vote. That could be the Scottish people speaking that would trigger Ref 2.

  54. Lesley-Anne says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “You are not describing AMS here, but the D’Hondt system.”

    DAMN PEDANTS.

    (Have amended.)

    Just count your lucky stars Stu that it was a REAL academic who picked up on this ever so slight of the slightest oversights. It could have been so much worse. The *ahem* village idiot *curtseys and doffs hat* could have been the one to do the highlighting of your oversight, how would that have looked? 😀

  55. schrodingers cat says:

    Thepnr says:
    If 100% of those that vote SNP for their first preference voted fot A.N.Other pro Indy party with their list vote.
    I suspect that would almost wipe out all the Unionist parties.
    Too risky eh!

    You are of course correct PNR
    if a 100% switch happened the unionists would be wiped out

    however, morag is also correct in that a 100% switch is unlikley to happen

    why? because of the actions in the GE, and subsequently, by the greens and the snp, who were seen to split the vote, especially in mundells seat.

    also, the actions of snp supporters like morage, james kelly and now the rev, have ensured it wont happen.

    it isnt because these people dont want to see the unionists wiped out, nothing could be further from the truth, they would love to see the unionists wiped out.

    it is just that folk dont think that the ssp or greens are worth the risk.

    as i said, the only people who lost out today are us, the unionists are over the moon. dugdale will now form the opposition

  56. AnneDon says:

    *sighs*

    I voted Green tactically. There was an article in Bella that said it was harder for the SNP to win the last seat than the Greens, and I believed it.

  57. Juteman says:

    Unionists HAVE to form the opposition!
    I can’t understand why some folk can’t see that!
    We are in a campaign for independence. Party politics will have to wait.
    The SNP are the only party capable of delivering another referendum. SNP twice.

  58. James123 says:

    Sorry to go off topic but Andy Burnham just said on the BBC that he wouldn’t work with the SNP because the politics of nationalism is divisive, he then went on tell us how he refers to himself as British first. Sounds a bit nationalist doesn’t it?

  59. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “There was an article in Bella that said it was harder for the SNP to win the last seat than the Greens, and I believed it.”

    Well, that’s not a mistake you’ll need to be making again any time soon, is it?

    😉

  60. yesindyref2 says:

    @Clootie
    Brent crude price going down means less oil extracted (generally speaking) which means more oil remaining when Scotland becomes Independent.

    It also means jobs of course, which is why this is not good news for Scotland, but revenue wise or even block grant, as part of the Union after the NO vote, it makes very very little difference.

    Perhaps we should thank the NO voters for helping Scotland to minimise the revenue to the UK, ande maximising our revenues after Indy.

    An incidental side benefit is it gives more time for facility sharing to take place amongst smaller operators, hence driving down the cost of extraction, therefore making it more viable – and potentially increasing the maximum extracted before the field / well is shut down for good. Or filling with carbon dioxide from CCS for extra revenue, considering we have some large percentage of Europe’s carbon storage space.

  61. gardennat says:

    The SNP miscalculated badly at the Euro elections. It concentrated on its identified supporters only. The other parties delivered a leaflet to every house.I found this very frustrating at the time and we worked as hard as we could to make up for this.
    If the turnout had been along the lines of the previous Euro election this would probably have paid off, and they would have won another
    seat,but UKIP voters pushed up the turnout and cost the SNP dearly.
    Goes to show that the SNP strategists are not infallible.

  62. Rock says:

    The Greens would hold an SNP minority government to ransom if they held the balance of power in 2016.

    SNP supporters, don’t take any risks – give both votes to the SNP to make sure we re-elect an SNP majority government.

  63. msean says:

    Independence is the end game here for me,after that,I may very well vote for other scottish parties. Nothing will be fairer in this Scotland while Scots have others spending and voting in their own interests and not Scotlands.

    The unionist carry on in Westminster since the referendum and general election have convinced me even more that Scotlands future lies elsewhere,and I won’t be falling for any kind of ‘we’ll take a pound then give them forty pence back later’ tactical stuff from unionist parties either.

  64. galamcennalath says:

    James123 says:
    “Andy Burnham … then went on tell us how he refers to himself as British first. Sounds a bit nationalist doesn’t it?”

    They never see their British nationalism as nationalism at all.

    I suspect this is because they see Britain/UK/England as the default and everything else is a deviation and foreign. A throw back to a time when Empire meant huge status beyond simple national identity. Nationalism was something everyone else did, while those at the heart of the great British Empire rose above such vulgarity.

    That mindset persists, I’m certain of it!

    A trivial example is how the UK is the only nation on earth to not put its name on postage stamps. The excuse is they were first, I suspect the reality lies with this idea the the UK is the normal default and everything else is … well, different from the norm.

  65. Fireproofjim says:

    OT
    I never really was a conspiracy theorist, but the simultaneous closure of two power stations in Scotland is something to think about.
    It leaves us dangerously exposed to outside pressure.
    Next time there is a referendum the threat of Project Fear will be to cut off power to Scotland if there is a Yes vote.

  66. louis.b.argyll says:

    Will the increased polarisation, primarily between the remaining The Labour Party in Scotland supporters, and those of the SNP/Indy Bloc, cancel out, the previous(more generous)SNP/LPIS anti-tory(so called) alliance-in the list vote.

    There were a great many 1st/2nds shared between what we’re 2 similarly sized party supports.

    The examples shown are now only for mathematical purposes.

    The SNP should have walked away with the Euro vote.

    Others have said they took their eye off the ball…

    ..more like they couldn’t predict the spin..

    Endless defending (and defending by attacking) by SNP campaigners, due to weak journalism, made the urgency and importance of the vote drown in dumbed-down pseudo controversy.

    Basically “let’s bury the facts that we cannot argue with, under this pile of manure we found”

  67. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “with FPTP seats SNP votes are not worth more because they start off divided by a large number”

    I know. Maybe read yesterday’s feature.

  68. Lollysmum says:

    Public discussion from Oban with Scottish Government’s Cabinet. Live now

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEXj554UGx8&feature=youtu.be

  69. Morag says:

    So, in summary, if the SNP is at 50% or above on the list vote, tactical voting will have no positive effect. If the SNP is below 45% on the list vote, any 2nd vote for the SNP is wasted and is better given to others.

    This is entirely untrue. The SNP got 44% on the list vote in 2011 and secured 16 list seats.

    I addressed this in the previous thread and I can’t be arsed typing it all again. Please, please stop making pronouncements which are simply wrong and which could cost us another independence referendum if people are misled by them.

    To put it simply, the band of support where the SNP doesn’t win all the constituencies and so will be in line for compensatory list seats even on 40% or less of the vote in the region, and the band of support where the party sweeps all the constituencies in the region and yet secures another list seat, OVERLAP.

    There is no sweet spot where any voter can be confident that the SNP will win all the constituencies in a region, but still not have any chance of a list seat. It doesn’t exist, so there’s no use looking for it.

  70. Morag says:

    the unionists are over the moon. dugdale will now form the opposition

    Oh do give it a rest. The Greens were never going to be the official opposition. The only way for them to supplant Labour in that position would be to take votes from Labour!

    An exercise in which they appear supremely uninterested.

    In contrast, the unionists would be over the moon if the SNP lost significant support due to this misconceived wheeze you were so keen on, so that this could be represented as the party lacking a mandate for another referendum. Nobody is going to be counting Green votes or seats when they make that assessment, painful though this may be for you to understand.

  71. mr thms says:

    Did you know there are no less than eight articles about Kezia Dugdale in the Herald’s Politics section?

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/

  72. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi ianbeag.

    The link you offered Dr Jim was to a file on YOUR PC, not a page on the web.

    Dr Jim will be even more confluzzled now!

    8=)

  73. Dan Huil says:

    mr thrms @7.32 pm.

    Is that why the Herald is laying off more staff?

  74. galamcennalath says:

    Re the SNP and UKIP and the EU elections.

    I did hear just afterwards that the BBC had given five, or was it six, times as much coverage to the UKIP as it did to our ruling party of government, the SNP.

    So a fair amount of blame must lie with the bl00dy BBC, again, for its hopelessly biased unpresentative reporting!

    As we have all discussed so many times, there are Scots who still accept what the MSM and BBC tell them. They painted UKIP as relevant to Scotland and the usual gullible suspects fell for it.

  75. sandycraig says:

    REV @3.16

    I think you are absolutely right. The majority haven’t a clue who their MEP is. I used to know mine, met him once, but can’t remember the name of the current one. Think they do lots of important stuff like making sure bananas are not too curvy.
    o/t
    Heard COURIER political editor covering the NICK/ALEX spat, his words, on GMS this morning. Covered it pretty well, except he missed out the important bit that oor NICK LIED AND LIED.

  76. Onwards says:

    One easy way for independence supporters to look at it is that the SNP got a majority last time when asking for both votes.

    A repeat performance will do me.

  77. Suzanne says:

    I have a simple, failsafe way of making sure I’m happy after voting. All my votes, for every election, go to the SNP until such time as we are independent. Only then will I sit back and look at the political landscape.

    No tactical voting, no list seats for other Indy parties. If you’re wanting independence, you do what’s necessary to gain independence. Vote for the party that has the political clout to get it.

    I do want a vibrant mix of politics. I want to see anyone who wishes to stand have a good crack of being part of the Scottish government. I do want to see accountability and good opposition to keep a government honest and true. But I want all those things in an independent Scotland, where we have full responsibility for ourselves and are subject to no-one else.

  78. heedtracker says:

    Did you know there are no less than eight articles about Kezia Dugdale in the Herald’s Politics section?

    Check out troll boys at rancid The Graun

    https://archive.is/Goj8U

    One more historic and self confessed UKOK liar speaketh onto the vile separatists-

    “When I spoke in Edinburgh recently I warned of the dangers of replacing impartial – if sometimes imperfect – broadcast news with the “echo chamber” of Twitter or a UK version of Fox News which allows people to read and hear only what they already agree with.”

    Will Scotland ever be rid of these BBC impartial – if sometimes imperfect – broadcast bullshit artists? No.

  79. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi galamcennalath.

    You typed,
    “As we have all discussed so many times, there are Scots who still accept what the MSM and BBC tell them.”

    And I know that is the battle we have to fight. I used to accept the BBC as the epitome of impartiality – until the referendum campaign was under way. Then I saw the way stories were spun and distorted.

    The problem is that many on Facebook, for example, seem to spend 95% of their online time sharing pictures of cats, dogs, children, cars, motorbikes, pics of their breakfast/lunch/tea/’dinner’/supper, and other important stuff.

    I had an old friend block me (apparently permanently) on Facebook, in the months before the referendum, because of pro-indy content I was posting on MY OWN timeline.

    He was blinkered and refused to see ‘outside the box’. He is not alone; there are many like him. All we can do is chip away, giving them one thing at a time to consider.

    I’m working on a long-time SNP supporter at work, who intended voting ‘NO’ in the referendum. Told her about the ‘alecsammin/Nick’ spat today and the çr@p about the Pacific Quay demo. Also told her about ‘London Calling’.

    If you chip away at the harder rock, sooner or later you will create a work of beauty – a YES vote in indyref2.

  80. galamcennalath says:

    heedtracker says:

    “… the dangers of replacing impartial … news …”

    Surely nobody in the London bubble media actually believes that to be true, which means, they lie when they describe themselves as impartial … No surprise there, then!

  81. Dennis says:

    Someone should give you a medal for the way you analyse stuff like this for us lazy b*ggers out here. A pity there aren’t more journalists like you…

  82. Dr Jim says:

    @Lollysmum

    Just finished watching livestream

    thanks for that

  83. Paula Rose says:

    It strikes me that for our fellow Scots who are not that interested in politics, but will vote – and may have voted No out of fear – there is a necessity to show them that majority support for the SNP and independence is normal, and that outcome will leave no wriggle room for the MSM to spin things.

    Talk of an opposition of Yes supporters is to my mind a bit far fetched at this stage.

    When Scotland looks after its own affairs there may well be times when different parties have different views on co-operation across the British Isles – in the meantime the debate will be between a Scottish approach to challenges and opportunities or a UK one.

  84. Graeme Doig says:

    What Suzanne said!

    It matters not a jot who the opposition are after May. The message of a huge SNP vote on both counts and a majority in parliament are all that matters at this stage.

    We really are at a point where momentum to independence needs kept up on all fronts and a huge mandate for any ‘significant change’ and/or AN other reason to initiate indy ref 2 is what is required. No?

  85. Tamson says:

    I don’t think there’s much chance of UKIP winning a list seat next May. To do that, they’d need to be scoring more than 15000 votes in one region, hope the turnout isn’t too high, and the numbers work in their favour. Can’t see it. Moreover, because AMS is proportional, any votes they gain limit the chances of the other 3 unionist parties getting list MSPs – especially the Tories. Ruth scraped in in Glasgow 2011 when there was no UKIP candidate on the list.

  86. One_Scot says:

    Well said Suzanne.

  87. Lesley-Anne says:

    Just in case anyone wants to sign up.

    http://yesparty.co.uk/

  88. @Lollysmum

    Thanks for that.

    Wish list: 1/ A daily livestream events page like mainstream TV has so that we don’t have to rely on other people coming across them by accident or design.

  89. cearc says:

    I’m with Suzanne there.

    When leaving the count on that grey morning, I commented to someone, ‘Och well, at least I won’t have to think about and choose who I’m voting for in future elections.’

    When we win it will be the time to think about other candidates.

  90. Lollysmum says:

    You’re welcome Dr Jim

    I watched it too & realised that I don’t think I’ve seen a public cabinet meeting being posted here before. But of course I may be completely wrong on that score.

    I have to say I can’t seem to get over how accessible the Scottish Government is. We never see our MP let alone members of government in England.

    I spoke to Shona Robison when Morag & her friends treated me to a trip to Holyrood just after the election-she was writing a card in the area outside the Parliament Gift Shop. She had a bottle of ScotParl whisky in front of her so I asked her if it was for the Election celebrations 🙂

    I go into WM on a fairly regular basis but you would never get to do that there-security wouldn’t allow you to go up to someone & speak to them like that. To say I was gobsmacked is putting it mildly 🙂

  91. Morag says:

    Lollysmum, we went to Holyrood a couple of days before the election, don’t you remember? You’d leafleted so much of Tweeddale West, we thought a day off could be justified!

  92. heedtracker says:

    galamcennalath says:
    24 August, 2015 at 8:45 pm
    heedtracker says:

    “… the dangers of replacing impartial … news …”

    As they say in the US, “why is this lying b_____d, lying to me now?”

  93. orri says:

    An alternative explanation for what the d’Hondt Method does is that it finds the number of votes needed per seat for a given number of seats. In the EU elections 6 seats each per 140534 votes. If there had been only 5 it’d have been 174109.5 and for 7 it’d be 129834.3333 .

    To see what’s going on fill a grid going down by the parties in order of highest votes to lowest. In the first column fill in the number of seats won, in the second that divided by two, the next by 3 and so on.

    You then colour in the grid from the top left growing it by a cell at a time picking the one with the largest number not already chosen.

    I may be dreaming but I’d swear I heard talk of Conservative and/or Labour voters being persuaded to vote UKIP in order to prevent the SNP from gaining a third seat. At the same time much fuss was being made about the 3rd on the SNP list being somehow unsuitable and how the Green candidate was a much better choice. So there’s no guarantee that the results we see aren’t the result of an attempt at tactical voting.

    In this case just 28,340 voters voting for the Conservatives rather than UKIP would have given the seat to them. However there’s a large range from 10,669 where the seat would have gone to the SNP instead. That’s a fair indication of how tactical voting can lead to failure.

  94. Anagach says:

    Suzanne – spot on.

  95. Lesley-Anne says:

    I’ll just leave this here for the economists amongst you. 😉

    http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-charges-scotland-billions-of-pounds-in-service-costs/

  96. James Barr Gardner says:

    Suzanne hit the the nail in on one.

    Remember folks who we are dealing with in this journey to an Independent Scotland they may only see their own Party as being significant however it is the big picture that really matters as such we must keep the SNP momentum going and add to it at every possible chance.

    Apart from enlightening the Scottish People we must continue to reinforce our commitment to Independence and make sure the unionists in Scotland wither on the vine. As for Westminster unionists they are a breed unto themselves, who will use every dirty, slimy, divisive tricks, they beyond shame. The only way to deal with them is a massively politically informed Scottish Electorate that is growing despite the media lies,smears, and threats.

    Vote SNP for everything! If you want free of Project Fear and all its crap, keep Voting SNP, you know it’s the only forward, Free Scotland!

  97. davidb says:

    Pedantry alert here. That imaginary 7th seat could be an imaginary 12th seat. Denmark has 13 seats for its 5.6 million people. We are under represented. We really should have 12 seats.

  98. ianbeag says:

    Brian Doonthetoon says: 7:36 pm
    Hi ianbeag.

    “The link you offered Dr Jim was to a file on YOUR PC, not a page on the web. Dr Jim will be even more confluzzled now!”

    Brian & Dr. Jim at 2.39pm – my apologies. Correct link to simplified explanation of AMS http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/65978.aspx
    Scottish Parliament website also contains worksheets for DIY calculatiomn of election results
    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/EducationandCommunityPartnershipsresources/Worksheet_for_Anywhere_Region_Results.pdf

  99. louis.b.argyll says:

    Graeme Doig, quite right..

    -but at the same time, momentum for YES is less crucial than depth of support.

    Accepting the need for well-argued and reasoned progress is key, not merely accepting facts and truths, but recognising, then understanding the issues that affect us all.

    Families are glimpsing brighter futures, as current insecurities and inferiorities are already being replaced with hope for greater opportunity -.and responsibilities to our own communities.

    Scotland needs to MATURE INTO Independence.. Ref1 was a trap we fell into.

  100. yesindyref2 says:

    Mmmm, yesparty: “I do hereby declare, as is my Constitutional Right as a Sovereign Scot, that Scotland is an Independent Sovereign Nation, and that We, as a Nation, no longer consent to Westminster Governance.”

    Interesting idea. In theory if over 50% of over 16s signed that declaration in a verifiable fashion, then Scotland would be independent, regardless of Westminster, Holyrood, the SNP – or a referendum. It would be a referendum in itself.

    It would be interesting to see evaluations of the legality of such a declaration in the event of that over 50%. I suspect there would need to be a facility though to remove a signature if the signator changed their mind.

    Not a despised UDI by Government, potentially supported by less than half the population, but UDI by People statement. Self-determination indeed. I suggest running it past LPW if possible.

  101. yesindyref2 says:

    @davidb
    I think that’s to do with the EU’s intention to give smaller nations more representation in the EU Parliament. So Denmark with 5.6 million gets 13 MEPs, 2.3 per million, but UK with 63 million gets 78 – just over 1.2 per million. Germany etc are similar.

    iScotland would get around 12 indeed, eventually.

  102. Rob fae Edinburgh says:

    I am glad UKIP got their seat, and no I didn’t vote for them. The current immigrant/eu love in is not to everyones taste. I have voted SNP for years. You can argue about immigration, it is all lovely and Scotland is not like nasty racist England (cough) but the EU no fucking way jimmy. I will not trade one set of actual establishment bastards for a far more dangerous bunch of police state bureaucrats.

  103. Graeme Doig says:

    ‘Scotland needs to MATURE INTO Independence’

    No argument there louis.b. Just think we need to do it quickly and with everything we’ve got.

  104. Lesley-Anne says:

    Just a wee aside here but it appears tomorrow’s papers are almost all running with scare stories about another financial crisis.

    Boy I’m just glad we all voted NO last year cause obviously we are Better Together and have the lead towel folder in charge of Britain’s finances. 😀

  105. Mealer says:

    Ms Dugdales on STV Scotland Tonight just now.All wind and pish.Her deputy Alex Rowleys says he wants a referendum on Trident.Ms Dugdale wouldn’t say if she agrees with him or not.Weak.

  106. Lesley-Anne says:

    Mealer says:

    Ms Dugdales on STV Scotland Tonight just now.All wind and pish.Her deputy Alex Rowleys says he wants a referendum on Trident.Ms Dugdale wouldn’t say if she agrees with him or not.Weak.

    I’m sorry Mealer but I’m confused here. 😉

    Can you remind me here WHO exactly is the Branch Office manager and WHO is the Branch Office deputy manager? 😀

    Has the Branch Office found a clean sheet of paper to start writing all their fabulous new policies on yet? … Thought not! 😛

  107. Russell Bruce says:

    Am important addition to yesterday’s article. Vote for the party you most want to succeed but do not lend your vote to another pro independence party other than the SNP because that will weakened the case for Independence. However enticing the appeals of smaller parties are for, some the system does not work that way and you will defeat an objective with no practical possibility. The analysis is clear is you want a left of centre government and progress to a future referendum use both votes for the SNP. Let the smaller parties make progress on their own merits.

  108. Still Positive. says:

    Lollysmum @9.34.

    In 2001 my colleagues and I took a group of asylum seekers we were teaching in a Glasgow school to the Scottish Parliament on The Mound (as it met there then). We met Fiona Hyslop and Linda Fabiani and they couldn’t have been more interested in both the children’s stories and our experiences as teachers. They were the only MSPs who met us and both SNP.

    In my experience the SNP are the most accessible politicians and are always happy to mingle with the public at every opportunity – be it local galas, fetes and other community events.

    As an aside, I am FB friends with my SNP MP who I first met in 1992 when he was elected to the then Clydebank District Council at the same time as my late husband and we met at various functions.

    Still think it rather surreal that when I posted a pic on FB on Friday of my new car, my MP liked it.

  109. Mealer says:

    Lesley-Anne 10.56
    No need to apologise.I find it all rather confusing too.The only way I can make any sense of it is by accepting that Kezia finds it all very confusing also.

  110. louis.b.argyll says:

    Graeme,
    Yes, but the movement has yet to fully flower, buds and shoots and freshness are fine as signs of life.
    We can see that engaged communities and grass roots are already inspired.

    ..but the timing of the effort must suit the whole.

    We can never consolidate.

  111. maxi kerr says:

    There is a part in us all that would like to see a greener world, but they will never have enough clout to do anything about outside a meaningful party. They just wasted their votes and helped to keep unionist parties in the game.At this time in our history ,it is a pretty stupid thing to do.

  112. ronnie anderson says:

    @ lesley_Anne I dont know who Kezia,s dress designer is ( maybe Ikea),but I used that same patern on a chimney breast 20+yrs ago.

  113. Dr Jim says:

    @Lollysmum

    I so enjoyed that

    It amazes me that how some folk in our country see our Government as the enemy, I’m a SNP member so of course I’m biased, but given that, where else is your Government going to turn up on your doorstep and open up discussion for all to take part

    I was fortunate enough to have an idea that I put forward on agriculture taken seriously and now is going to form part of policy, it was nothing big or fancy, and I’m no expert, it was just a thought, and that’s the difference the opposition don’t get

    We can meet and talk to our politicians, we even get regular emails from them, they’re in our streets, and still half the country won’t accept these guys are on our side and doing the best they can with what resources the are allowed , they’re not on the telly every five minutes shouting Labour Bad, they’re working

    “Tell us what you think” could be a SNP motto because if they’ll listen to someone like me (who can’t do maths) everybody’s got a shot

    Once again, thanks for that, it was way a better watch than whatever was on the telly

  114. AlanBissett says:

    Morag, that’s twice on the same day you’ve distorted what I said, on different threads, so I’m afraid I’ll have to post something similar in reply as I did to your last one.

    You say: “Alan Bissett started lambasting the SNP for selfishness in not ‘standing aside’ to let the Greens have a clear run at the last seat.”

    That has to be placed in context, Morag. It was in response to those blaming the Greens for ‘letting UKIP in’ by standing against the SNP in the Euro elections. I was pointing out that, logically, the argument could be applied the other way too, especially given the Greens were standing one candidate and the SNP several.

    The SNP are at the height of their popularity. They might never again have the same electoral pull as they will at the 2016 elections. If certain SNP supporters are not prepared to countenance other pro-Yes parties wanting to run on the list – or in Euro elections – then I can only infer a dismissive relationship to the broader Yes movement. I’m not in the Greens, but I’m worried about the emerging hostility to them for daring to stand even on the list, as though these should be spaces rightfully reserved to the SNP.

    Morag: “What was so disturbing to me was that this came in the middle of an exchange where Alan was urging a “tactical” non-SNP list vote on SNP supporters, telling them blatant falsehoods about the d’Hondt electoral system.”

    I didn’t urge a ‘tactical’ non-SNP vote on the list, just a normal vote! Y’know, those things that parties standing for election want? My argument about Green/RISE being on the list was to do with diversity in the parliamentary profile of the Yes movement, which is beneficial to us all long-term. The ferocity with which you reject this adds to the worries that the pro-Yes left have about the SNP dictating terms to the rest of us. Some seem happy for it to be ‘not about the SNP’ when they need campaigners for a Yes vote, but ONLY about the SNP the rest of the time. Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that.

    The plurality of Yes was its strength; the Unionists were only able to win by successfully isolating the *SNP’s plan* for independence and destroying it. Many SNP supporters recognise this and so welcome the diversity. Given Green/RISE would always back the SNP on a motion for another referendum, quite why others like yourself, Morag, act as though the pro-Yes left is some kind of threat to be neutralised (until such time as you require us to campaign for Yes) is a little disappointing.

    Morag: “and then Alan bad-mouthed them (and the SNP) when they appeared disinclined to go along with his little scheme.”

    Only if ‘bad-mouthing’ means ‘discussing and disagreeing’, but your language is certainly dramatic in these reports, Morag! Your reference elsewhere to ‘Yes luvvies’ – people who, like everyone else, risked a great deal during the campaign, I might remind you – is indicative of this.

    You’re going to have to adjust to the reality that Yes is a multi-party movement now.

  115. Big Jock says:

    I think people often confuse the SNP with a normal party.

    The SNP are a political movement not a political choice. We only need one strong party to get independence. Several small ones are there to split the movement and allow enemies to gain power over a divided movement.

    Beware Greeks bearing gifts and so called fundamentalist independence parties. Trust nonexof them!

  116. Geoff Bush says:

    Rev Stu – you are truly wonderful – but you are a serious electoral geek ! (that’s a compliment btw)

  117. Scotspine says:

    Im going to go out on a limb here and risk attention from GCHQ and box as MI5 are otherwise known as.

    Ive read lots of comments on here for the past two and a bit years. The articles are spot on and the vast majority of people comnenting are obviously wholeheartedly committed to Scottish Independence.

    The big however is though, until people start demonstrating regularly in high numbers in public and by that, I don’t mean 2 to 3 thousand outside the establishment mouthpiece on Pacific Quay, but 10, 000 plus in central Glasgow and Edinburgh, no one is going to take any real notice.

    Im not advocating such action, just stating fact.

    The Establishment arent sufficiently frightened of their position or they would be implementing the Smith Commission double quick time to try and appease.

    And before anyone calls me a troll or whatever, we have voted in SNP at Holyrood, wiped out Unionist parties at Westminster and come within a baw hair of a yes vote. Have they conceded anything worthwhile yet?

  118. Paula Rose says:

    (just love it when this site is the bestest xx)

  119. boris says:

    Labour Party in Scotland membership at May 2015. 13,000

    Leadership voting approximate turnout 80%

    Keiza Dugdale attracted approximatel 70% of the votes. 7,280

    Hardly inspiring

  120. George Wood says:

    Alan Bissett you said “My argument about Green/RISE being on the list was to do with diversity in the parliamentary profile of the Yes movement, which is beneficial to us all long-term.”.

    Well it will be a very long time before we get Independence, if at all, if we divide the Independence vote.

    Voting for minor Independence parties under the current systems of voting is doing what the Unionists desperately want.

    How much better would the Unionists have done if they hadn’t split the Unionist vote in the Westminster election?

  121. Morag says:

    Alan, I just saw your reply on the other thread and spent some time answering you.

    Twitter is a difficult medium for putting forward any sort of complex argument, but I’m quite disturbed to realise I haven’t actually misunderstood what you’re saying, and that you still don’t seem to understand how the system works despite the clear explanation at the top of this page.

    It was in response to those blaming the Greens for ‘letting UKIP in’ by standing against the SNP in the Euro elections. I was pointing out that, logically, the argument could be applied the other way too, especially given the Greens were standing one candidate and the SNP several.

    I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to expect the Greens not to have stood in the European elections. They had some hopes of getting a seat, although these proved over-optimistic. I think the real criticism of the Greens related to their dishonest attempt to try to persuade SNP voters to vote Green by falsely claiming that this would freeze out UKIP. Stuart has explained how this was wholly misguided, perhaps more clearly than anyone did at the time, but it was certainly known to be misguided.

    Your suggestion that the SNP should have stood aside in favour of the Greens makes no sense at all. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how the electoral system works, despite Stuart having drawn a clear diagram.

    The SNP is the dominant party in Scotland. It expected to come first overall, and indeed it did. It was assured of at least two European seats. Surely you can’t seriously be suggesting it could have stood aside entirely, giving up all seats, to give the Greens a better shot? But that’s the only way to stand aside in an election of this nature. To decline to stand at all.

    The Greens didn’t stand one candidate out of any self-denying impulse. They knew it wasn’t worth selecting anyone else because they couldn’t possibly get more than one MSP elected. Any more candidates would only have been window-dressing. It was realistic, but it didn’t and couldn’t limit the number of votes they got.

    Similarly, if the SNP had stood only two candidates, what would have happened? Again, it couldn’t have limited the number of votes they got. Well, after the entire media had stopped guffawing and the party had become a laughing-stock, what would have happened is that once the two MSPs had been elected, the rest of the SNP votes would have been thrown away. It wouldn’t have benefited the Greens in the slightest.

    The point I was making was that you didn’t understand this, and still don’t seem to understand this, and yet you are one of the people who puts himself forward as a pundit to be listened to on the subject. It’s disconcerting, to put it mildly.

    I have no problem with people whose primary political allegiance is to parties other than the SNP. Or that they vote for them. That’s normal behaviour. I think that Scotland’s progress to independence is best served by the SNP retaining its overwhelming strength until the goal is achieved, and I’ll argue that point just as others will argue for diversity. That’s healthy.

    What I do have a problem with is people who lie and misrepresent the d’Hondt system to trick primary SNP supporters into voting for some other party, under the pretence that the SNP won’t get any list MSPs, or that sacrificing one SNP MSP will magically deliver four Green MSPs. Neither of these things is true, as Stuart has demonstrated.

    You yourself were peddling this line quite strongly on Twitter, with the rubbish about a vote for the Greens being worth four times as much as a vote for the SNP. That’s the point I was challenging. I was then informed that I didn’t want independence, that I was putting party above indy, and that I was a unionist plant. I don’t take kindly to that.

    I don’t think you understand the system. In fact I’m sure you don’t. I kind of hoped you did now, after Stuart’s explanation, but I’m not sure it’s happened. How about not urging a particular vote on people based on misunderstood arithmetic, and simply saying you’d rather see a weaker SNP and a couple of smaller parties picking up a couple of seats, if that’s your opinion? It’s a reasonable opinion, which can be countered by those who believe that a strong SNP is the best and probably the only way to independence, without having to argue spurious arithmetical misrepresentations all round the houses.

  122. Lesley-Anne says:

    Well Well Well.

    I may be well off track here but if this article from the Express follows through to its conclusion then Germany may yet be on the receiving end of a severe kicking from … erm … GREECE!

    https://archive.is/UxrKm

  123. Paula Rose says:

    As someone who supported the SGP – this site explains why I am now a member of the SNP. The world I want for the future will be won when we lead rather than follow.

  124. Morag says:

    I joined the SNP in 1992 because it was the only independence movement we had. In 2012 when Yes Scotland was formed I joined that, and took off all my SNP badges. I wore blue and white instead of yellow and black. Yes Scotland was our independence movement and I was wholeheartedly behind it.

    Yes Scotland disbanded on 19th September 2014. I took the Yes badges off and stuck the SNP badges back on and dug out my yellow sweatshirt again. Once more, the SNP was our independence movement, and it’s still the only one we have.

    Close on 100,000 people came to the same conclusion. They’re in the SNP because it’s the way to get independence, and they’ll put up with a reasonable proportion of clay in the feet to that aim.

    I understand the frustrations of the smaller parties, but the fact is that even if they support independence, they are not Scotland’s independence movement. The SNP is. It’s been at this for over 80 years, with independence as its primary aim. It’s not going to share out its voters with smaller parties, and its supporters aren’t going to respond especially well to the sort of sense of entitlement that says, vote for us instead because diversity.

    They’re also not going to respond well to the sort of lying and misrepresentation that’s being used to try to trick primary SNP supporters out of their list votes. Sorry, but they’re not.

    Reacting with resentment to the SNP’s success, and behaving as if SNP supporters shouldn’t be defending or campaigning for their own party because “it’s selfish, you just want a one-party state” isn’t helpful. The greatest joy for the unionist parties would be to see the independence vote split more evenly among three parties, just as theirs is.

    These constant attempts to annexe the votes of people currently intending to vote SNP aren’t endearing the smaller parties to anyone. Well-planned campaigns to attract Yes or soft No voters who wouldn’t vote SNP could be amazingly successful, but nobody seems to be trying that one.

    If the smaller parties behave reasonably, stop antagonising SNP supporters, and bide their time, they’ll reap the benefits after independence, when a lot of people will decide they don’t need an independence movement any more and will be looking around as floating voters.

    Keep bickering and trying to split the SNP vote, and there might not be an independence day to benefit from.

  125. Janet says:

    So, the real purpose of UKIP? Surely to protect the City of London from European inspired regulation and scrutiny?

    Investors get anonymity whilst everyone else gets serfdom!

  126. Kevie Helmet says:

    Who thinks this is a good idea

    http://yesparty.co.uk/#declaration

    I was about to sign up then thought awhile.

    On the surface it looks like something every Independence supporter should sign up to but the one thing that stopped me was the letters UDI.

    UDI is something that’s recently been discussed at some length on this forum and is clearly not popular by the majority of posters here including our glorious Rev but that said I think a popular declaration that reached over 50% of our voting population could be a powerful weapon in our struggle to gain independence or at the very least a 2nd referendum

    Some people could also be put off by having to put their home addresses and I could understand their concerns but I also understand the need for verification but my view is I’m a supporter of independence and have been for many years and I don’t care who knows it

  127. Mealer says:

    Morag 2.33
    I can’t agree with that.The SNP is the political spearhead of a broader cultural and social movement.

  128. AlanBissett says:

    Morag –

    You are misrepresenting me to the point of it being offensive.

    I didn’t put myself forward “as some kind of pundit” – I had a discussion on Twitter.

    Your language choice is aggressive and alarming. I didn’t “lie and misrepresent the d’Hondt system to trick primary SNP supporters into voting for some other party”. I simply suggested that SNP supporters might want to vote for another party if they wanted plurality in our parliament. What occurred was a quite disturbing circling of the wagons, people like yourself saying: ‘Get your own voters, don’t steal ours.’ As though voters *belong* to the SNP! I was challenging the sense of entitlement, Morag, which I am sorry to see is still in evidence.

    “You yourself were peddling this line quite strongly on Twitter, with the rubbish about a vote for the Greens being worth four times as much as a vote for the SNP.”

    I categorically didn’t say that. You seem to be confusing our discussion with a different one.

    “I was then informed that I didn’t want independence, that I was putting party above indy, and that I was a unionist plant. I don’t take kindly to that.”

    I absolutely did not call you a ‘Unionist plant’ or say you didn’t want independence. I’ve never called any Yes supporter a Unionist plant. You’ve made that up.

  129. schrodingers cat says:

    @morag
    painful though this may be for you to understand, the only person bickering, calling people liars and insulting them, is you!
    stick to your conspiracy theories

  130. Grouse Beater says:

    An outsider’s wise counsel: Why not use personal e-mails rather than allowing the enemies of Scotland to enjoy the theatrical spectacle of people on the same side trying to clarify motive and meaning?

  131. scottieDog says:

    @Lesley-Anne
    Re the financial crisis. Folk have been predicting what is happening in China. It’s a result of their private debt bubble. This is their 2008.
    Osborne busy creating another private debt bubble here as he asks the already beleaguered private sector to take on more debt in order to furnish a govt surplus. This never ever works.

    The only way indy scot will be able to react flexibly and effectively to these crises is to have its own floating currency. The bank of england simply isn’t independent of the uk treasury.

  132. Dorothy Devine says:

    No worries young Mr Bisset , Craig Murray will be along in a minute to offer his support – he too has been the subject of derision from the same all knowing source.

    I see the SNP are worried by the possibility of a split in the Labour Party – or at least the Herald would have us believe the tripe they have written about that possibility.

    I am in murderous mode as far as the MSM is concerned.

  133. Sinky says:

    Cat Boyd repeats the myth in to-day’s The National that if you vote SNP in list vote you are only helping Labour and Tory to sneak in.

    http://www.thenational.scot/comment/cat-boyd-scotlands-new-left-alliance-will-help-us-rise-against-the-old-order.6768

  134. Luigi says:

    Scotspine says:

    25 August, 2015 at 12:24 am

    The big however is though, until people start demonstrating regularly in high numbers in public and by that, I don’t mean 2 to 3 thousand outside the establishment mouthpiece on Pacific Quay, but 10, 000 plus in central Glasgow and Edinburgh, no one is going to take any real notice.

    That’s not the way it works, Scotspine. There is always inertia and a considerable time lag to these things. The people are not out in the streets (yet) because the majority, whilst frustrated, do feel that some progress has been made. Think of the position in 2005 and you will notice how far Scotland has come in ten years.

    Most people (including many posters here) can see the way things are going. We realise some patience and discipline is required at this stage and so we bide our time. There may come a time for mass protest before independence, then again it may not be necessary. Things are moving our way, slowly but surely.

  135. Anagach says:

    The SNP are polling in the region of 60%, other parties are bound to focus on pulling some of that support to themselves. They can focus on voters that currently do not vote, or new voters, but at 60% the current SNP support is just too big to ignore.

    One of the soft ways of drawing voters is to pitch for list votes as ‘its not so important’ and can be placed as a ‘second preference’, ‘allows for better opposition’ and a number of other excuses. Expect to see a lot of this in editorials, opinion pieces, and across the MSM in the run up to May next year.

    As above if you support a party best to vote both times for that party. Only split your votes if the party you really want is not available on one of the constituency or list options and you have no choice but to split your vote.

  136. Douglas Muir says:

    The biggest effect is still the voter who doesn’t vote. The turnout for the Euro elections is never pretty. If we had a referendum level of turn out then I don’t see how UKIP could have gained their seat.

  137. call me dave says:

    SNP fear labour split? 🙂

    https://archive.is/vp7Hk

    Can’t access Nation on-line ‘again’ and my access to the paper through my e-mail link also not working now. 🙁

    PS:
    Your call (I’m not listening) asking about a referendum on Trident.

    Will that be a UK one then Mr Rowley? We all know how that will turn out.

    As for Kezia, come out from behind the settee, tell us what your view is because we don’t know what labour stand for and you promised us that all would be made clear!

    Sun splitting the pavement here in Fife, off for a jaunt and a paper! ;-(

  138. Ken500 says:

    The Greens support private shooting estates rather than Golf Developments. The Greens are funded by Landowners. The Greens would rather have people sitting in traffic for hours trying to get to work, than build by-pass roads. The Greens would rather have centralist travel policies than direct flights from Scotland. The Greens would rather build unwanted, wasteful carbuncles than pedestrianise City Centres. The Greens renege on their own policies and waste £Billions of public money.

  139. Fireproofjim says:

    Luigi,
    You are correct to point out how far we have come in ten years. It is completely staggering!
    Almost a clean sweep of Westminster MPS. A clear and increasing majority at Holyrood.
    Opinion polls showing around 60% approval. Another talented and well-liked leader. A referendum which increased YES support from 20% to 45% in a year. Two YES supporting newspapers.
    A Labour Party which is shattered and demoralised.
    All this in the face of relentless media opposition.
    It is really amazing, and we just need to keep working and always vote SNP/SNP.
    Time for looking at other options is after Independence.

  140. Robert Kerr says:

    @call me dave.

    My National subscription also failed and when I tried to reset my password I was advised they the system didm;t recognise my email address.

    I have emailed Lynn Craig about this.

    Maybe a cyberattack?

  141. Les wilson says:

    BBCS in call Kaye, debate on whether or not Trident should be replaced. Very few coming out for renewal.
    The Westminster line is not holding at all.

  142. Luigi says:

    Ken500 says:

    25 August, 2015 at 9:38 am

    The Greens support private shooting estates rather than Golf Developments. The Greens are funded by Landowners. The Greens would rather have people sitting in traffic for hours trying to get to work, than build by-pass roads. The Greens would rather have centralist travel policies than direct flights from Scotland. The Greens would rather build unwanted, wasteful carbuncles than pedestrianise City Centres. The Greens renege on their own policies and waste £Billions of public money.

    There are many genuine greens with the best of intentions. However, like the Labour party, they have suffered from serious infiltration. Whereas Labour was infiltrated by red tories, the GP has been infiltrated by the gentry for their own purposes. What better way to keep the plebs off one’s land than to declare it a “conservation zone”? It is also rather convenient for the NIMBY crowd to hide behind environmental issues as an excuse for stopping/delaying important developments, even if the real underlying reason is that it spoils their view, or affects the value of their property. My heart bleeds. 🙂

  143. Robert Peffers says:

    @AlanBissett says: 25 August, 2015 at 12:05 am:

    ” … I’m not in the Greens, but I’m worried about the emerging hostility to them for daring to stand even on the list, as though these should be spaces rightfully reserved to the SNP.”

    Here you claim to be, “Not in the Greens”.

    … quite why others like yourself, Morag, act as though the pro-Yes left is some kind of threat to be neutralised (until such time as you require us to campaign for Yes) is a little disappointing.”

    Yet here you are claiming to be one with the use of, “require us”.

    Which beggars the type of question that goes, “are you now or have you ever been …”. Like the BBC, who yesterday were all confused referring to the entire YES movement as the SNP when it suited their argument, you both seem only too pleased to confuse the two terms to suit your own agendas when it suits your argument.

  144. Ken500 says:

    The Tories have ruined the Oil sector.

    It was taxed at 80% – $100 a barrel

    Now $40dollars a barrel. Taxed at 55% It should be 30%

    Multinationals making vast profits tax evade though the City of London. Google etc.

  145. Robert Kerr says:

    Received email re National.

    Morning Mr Kerr,

    We have an issue this morning with all our digital editions, our technical team have been working to resolve this since 6.30am and are still working on it, we are hopeful of The National being available in the next hour or so, baring no further technical issues.

    Our apologies for the inconvenience.

    Regards,

    Lynn Craig
    Customer Support Manager

  146. Colin says:

    So, this means that the EU elections use Scotland as a region for the calculation? I always thought that this calculation would be applied to the whole of the member nation, i.e. the UK. Are there then other regions? And how do these regions operate administratively/politically at Parliament?

  147. Joemcg says:

    Naughtie says Salmonds “vendetta” against the BBC is “weird and bizarre” dear oh dear.

  148. Morag says:

    Alan, rather than attacking me personally, could you perhaps take a little time to explain to us how the SNP could possibly have proceeded in order to sactifice its chance of the third Euro seat, in such a way as to transfer its support to the Green Party?

    My concern is your deep lack of understanding of what you’re talking about. That’s why I brought it up, as an example of high-profile Yes-supporting people talking absolute mince about the electoral system.

    You seem to take offence whenever SNP supporters either campaign for support (which is perfectly normal behaviour) or try to explain the huge howling errors in all this “tactical vote” manoeuvering. This isn’t a tea party where nice children share out the votes to those who came with fewer. The smaller parties have no entitlement to be gifted votes just because they supported Yes.

  149. call me dave says:

    @Robert Kerr

    Thanks for that information. 🙂

    In the cafe free WIFI and encouraging my acquaintances from ‘Scottish’ labour to tell me what labour stands for.

    Most have ditched the donkey jacket and soviet hats but none can answer the question, neither can Kezia

    Secretly I think there are a few votes for the SSP and SNP there but who knows?

  150. Robert Peffers says:

    @Kevie Helmet says: 25 August, 2015 at 6:50 am:

    ” … Who thinks this is a good idea

    http://yesparty.co.uk/#declaration

    I was about to sign up then thought awhile.

    On the surface it looks like something every Independence supporter should sign up to but the one thing that stopped me was the letters UDI.”

    I’ve pointed this out before. There is a general misunderstanding of what UDI actually is. The initials stand for the term, “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”, and the first of that is, “Unilateral”.

    This is the very much misunderstood part of the definition and it gives a very particular meaning to particular, “Declarations of Independence”.

    For example if the United Kingdom Government holds an in/out referendum on European Union membership and then withdraws from the European Union this constitutes a, “Unilateral” declaration of independence under the definition of, “Unilateral”, as the UK government system puts a single party, or party alliance, into office.

    So just what is the dictionary definition of, “Unilateral”?

    Unilateral adj.
    1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defence” (New Republic).

    2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.

    3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.

    4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.

    5. Having only one side.

    6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.

    7. Botany Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

    This particular thread is presently featuring several side issues where the members of smaller parties supporters are carping about the SNP NOT being the whole YES campaign and that such as the Greens should not be criticised for standing candidates against the SNP in certain constituencies.

    This indicates that any declarations on behalf of the YES campaign can, in no way, be a Unilateral declaration as the YES movement is not a unilateral movement. It is composed of several disparate, and often opposing, political movements.

    I’ll put that another way – not all declarations of independence can be legally considered unilateral.

    In effect the already independent Scottish Legal System states that the people, and not either the monarchy or state, are legally sovereign.

    Thus if the matter of Scottish independence were supported by a majority of the people of Scotland then, under Scottish law, it would be illegal to oppose it if Scottish law were to so decided. No other declaration is thus required.

    There has never been a legal ruling that Westminster actually has sovereignty over Scotland for at the time of the Treaty Union only the three country Kingdom of England was a Constitutional Monarchy and at no time thereafter have the legally sovereign people of Scotland been offered the chance to give away their legal sovereignty to either the monarchy or the Westminster Parliament. Being legally sovereign then it directly rests with the people and not the Westminster parliament to give away the people’s sovereignty.

    In effect when we Scots elect an MP we grant that MP the right to exercise our sovereignty in the UK parliament. In the case of the English, Welsh and N. Irish when they elect an MP they give that MP the right to exercise the sovereignty of their monarch or parliament at Westminster. (The English Monarchy signed away the exercising of their sovereignty to the Westminster Parliament in 1688 after the, “Glorious Revolution”, but as the two Kingdoms were still then independent that could not affect the independent Kingdom of Scotland. Indeed it kicked off the 57 years of the wars of Jacobite uprisings that spanned the Treaty of Union of 1706/7. To this day the Union calls those uprisings of Scots as the Jacobite rebellions but you cannot against a monarchy not your own and William & Mary of Orange were imported to replace the deposed King James II of England but as Scotland was still independent in 1688 the removal of James as the English monarch could not also remove him as the Scottish King.

  151. FortBill says:

    I have spent hours studying the effect of the list vote and have created a spread sheet to allow me to run any combination of constituency seats and list votes.
    I am perfectly clear in my own mind that the following rules apply
    Tactical voting is a waste of time, far too many variables, and is pointless if you don’t know how many constituency seats you will win.
    It would be possible to gain more pro-indy seats if we sacrificed some of the predicted list vote, but it would be impossible to co-ordinate.
    A high percentage of the list votes (around 50%) is likely to compensate with a list seat if a constituency seat is lost.
    The best way to ensure a SNP majority is vote SNP both votes.
    Oh and most of all No SNP majority No independence

  152. FortBill says:

    I have spent hours studying the effect of the list vote and have created a spread sheet to allow me to run any combination of constituency seats and list votes.

    I am perfectly clear in my own mind that the following rules apply

    Tactical voting is a waste of time, far too many variables, and is pointless if you don’t know how many constituency seats you will win.

    It would be possible to gain more pro-indy seats if we sacrificed some of the predicted list vote, but it would be impossible to co-ordinate.

    A high percentage of the list votes (around 50%) is likely to compensate with a list seat if a constituency seat is lost.

    The best way to ensure a SNP majority is vote SNP both votes.

    Oh and most of all No SNP majority No independence

  153. skozra says:

    I’ll be voting SNP as always and only SNP.

  154. Dan Huil says:

    Vote SNP in both votes.

  155. Jamie says:

    People are forgetting about the SSP or RISE and Solidarity. If 6% of SNP voters in each region voted RISE and 6% voted Solidarity that would mean that each region would have 3 pro yes msp’s elected via the list system. 1 green, 1 SSP and 1 Solidarity.

    In theory this could be arranged online so that each region maximises a pro yes vote on the list but it would not be easy. I think the biggest benefit would be having some old school socialists back in the parliament that can only be a good thing. Who is there at the moment to keep the SNP left? Labour? I doubt it that can only make the SNP feel the need to compromise to the right if any and that would be tragic.

  156. crazycat says:

    @ Robert Peffers at 9.59

    When Alan Bissett uses the term “us”, he is explicitly referring to “the pro-Yes left”.

    That’s a lot bigger than the Green Party. I think you are seeing a contradiction where there is none.

  157. Luigi says:

    Well, I have to admit, I was considering SNP+Green, but I am now very wary of the complexity and the risks involved (thanks to explanations by our Rev and James Kelly), so it will probably be SNP+SNP in 2016. For any supporter of independence, surely the priority for next year has to be another SNP majority government.

    A wee bit of me is still waiting for the SNP manifesto, however. I do hope to see a sensible decision on IndyRef 2 (e.g. a declaration of Scotland’s right to hold one at any time, and long term intention to hold one if the people desire another one, but no daft commitment to have it by a specific date).

  158. Robert Peffers says:

    I’ve been listening to the Labour Leadership debate on BBC Radio 5 all morning and it was hilarious. What a crowd of total numpties that lot really are. (and I include in that, “crowd”, the BBC).

    To paraphrase the late Winston Churchill, “Never, in the field of human conflation, has so much bullshit been propagated by so few”.

  159. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Scotspine.

    There’ll be an opportunity for 10,000 to take to the streets, well George Square onnyhoo, at the ‘Hope Over Fear’ rally on 19th September.

    Also, there’ll be a pro-independence rally in Dundee’s City Square, on Sunday, 4th October.

  160. schrodingers cat says:

    Tactical voting is a waste of time, far too many variables, and is pointless if you don’t know how many constituency seats you will win.

    it is true that we cannot know how many constituency seats the snp will take……that is the risk
    is it worth it?
    are the greens and ssp worth it?

    those are the variables

    in truth, we can never know the future with certainty on any point, but we can what will probably happen,
    eg
    the tory vote in glasgow is likely to tank, which is why ruthie has tactically switched to edinburgh. she doesnt have a crystal ball either
    we cant say for certain that the monster raving loony party wont win the holyrood election either, but after may it looks unlikely, more probable is that the snp will sweep the constituencies

    the more constituencies the snp take, the less list msps they will gain.

    this is a fact, not a lie as some on here would like to make out

    as i said, the only question is whether or not you think the risk is worth taking.

  161. heedtracker says:

    The Tories have ruined the Oil sector.

    It was taxed at 80% – $100 a barrel

    Both blue and red tory boys made sure that their Scotland region had absolutely nothing to do with the UKOK oil and gas industry.

    As Ruth Davidson and kept saying in that garrulous jolly way of cringers and toryboys, ” £ comes up from London and if you vote YES, that £ flow from London will stop”

    Cringers etc like it this way. It’s safe and secure in teamGB. And exact same unionist creepshow now BBC Project Fear the living daylights out of Scotland with current price of a barrel of not Scots oil. These are the good times Britnats.

    Take their resources, shut down their democracy, hamstring their economics, EVEL them out of Westminster, BBC vote SLab Scotland, Jim Naughty, Nic Robinson, keep them cowed and frightened…

    Or

    Other news, EU referendum looms for YewKay, EVEL really punches home what your NO vote means.
    https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/english-votes-for-english-laws/

    “I welcome the idea of English votes for English laws. I would welcome it more enthusiastically if I thought that its consequences and constitutional importance had been fully thought through.”

    A huckster speaks and vile seps would do well to listen carefully here and Slovenia:D

  162. schrodingers cat says:

    People are forgetting about the SSP or RISE and Solidarity. If 6% of SNP voters in each region voted RISE and 6% voted Solidarity that would mean that each region would have 3 pro yes msp’s elected via the list system. 1 green, 1 SSP and 1 Solidarity.

    correct jaimie, but what people are pointing out here is that your senario only comes true if we win all of the constituency seats in whatever region you care to mention

    it is this risk that many people dont want to take, for a variety of reasons.

  163. Dr Jim says:

    @Sinky

    Just read Cat Boyd’s piece in the National and am wondering if she’s aiming that at people with smaller brains than the rest of us

    Basically “Don’t vote SNP because that’ll let somebody else in”

    Didn’t we just have ten months of Murphy chuntering that one out, that’s not even a good try and I’m surprised at the National for giving it space

  164. Tony Little says:

    @Jamie

    Sorry, but you are dreaming. For this to work you have to know FOR CERTAIN that the SNP will take every Constituency seat. This is impossible to predict as the electorate can not be pigeon-holed like this.

    Do you really trust the pollsters to give accurate forecasts for the Holyrood election? What is they “predict” SNP at 75% constituency and people believe it and either fail to bother voting, or give their vote to someone else and as a result SNP only secure 5/6 Constituency seats? Result? NO MAJORITY if the SNP voters gift their votes to other parties.

    Did you read the Revs article from Sunday? If not, I recommend you do so.

  165. Luigi says:

    Robert Peffers says:

    25 August, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    To paraphrase the late Winston Churchill, “Never, in the field of human conflation, has so much bullshit been propagated by so few”.

    Robert, the correct term is “Labour Values”.

  166. A2 says:

    @Morag

    “and that I was a unionist plant. I don’t take kindly to that.”

    Yes, don’t you really hate it when that sort of thing happens! :p

  167. MochaChoca says:

    Of course, if Scotland had a similar level of representation to other small EU countries we would have 12 or 13 MEPs so our representation would be far more proportional than it is now.

  168. Tony Little says:

    @schrodingers cat

    In the unlikely even that SNP do win every constituency seat, they have a majority. BUT, if they poll at close to or above 60%+ in the Regional vote, they are also likely to gain between 6-8 additional List MSPs. That’s simply how the system operates.

    Now as you correctly say, we have NO IDEA how the constituency voting will pan out. So why risk it? SNPx2 seems the safest option.

    If you (as in the ‘world’ you) are firmly behind the Green policy portfolio – vote Green. Or SSP or RISE etc. But if you are an SNP supporter, don’t think you will gain much (if anything) by gifting your vote to the Greens or Rise or Solidarity or whomever. That way lies huge risks as these articles by Rev Stu have clearly demonstrated.

  169. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Luigi.

    I don’t expect the SNP to publish their manifesto until towards the end of April, next year.

    Manifestos are not published 8 months before an election. The SNP manifesto for the recent general election was published on 20th April. Their manifesto for the 2011 Holyrood election was published on 14th April, 2011.

    Why should the SNP publish a manifesto in the next few weeks? It would only allow all other parties to attack it in their own manifestos – and they’d have 7 or 8 months to fine tune their attacks!

  170. CameronB Brodie says:

    AlanBissett
    Hi, I hope you don’t mind me pitching in.

    I simply suggested that SNP supporters might want to vote for another party if they wanted plurality in our parliament.

    How would greater plurality now, serve to help us achieve independence? IMO, there will be plenty of time for plurality after we secure our independence and can conduct ourselves as any other civilised democracy does. Not that Scotland is currently anything other than a democracy, all be it of the UKOK plc genus.

    Is Scotland suffering as a consequence of the SNP’s governance? Scotland can not flourish without independence, so why back an unfancied runner in the race?

  171. HandandShrimp says:

    Brian

    That is I think sensible and right. All the parties will hold their manifestos close until the election looms. For one thing the volatility of the world economy could render some aspects out of date by the time of the election.

    That said I do think there will indications at conference that the door will not be shut on a second referendum even if the exact wording is not set in stone.

  172. Tony Little says:

    @schrodingers cat

    Been playing around with numbers out of interest. Let’s assume a 9 seat Constituency in which SNP win 8 and Lab 1. Regional vote with high SNP support as follows:

    SNP 60%; Lab 18%; Con 14%; Green 5%; LD 3% (I have ignored the smaller parties for the moment).

    Allocated ‘votes’ (in this case %ages, but it’s the same) round 1
    SNP 6.67% (calculated as 60% /9, i.e.8 MSPs +1)
    Lab 9% (calc 18%/2 i.e. 1 MSP + 1)
    Con 14
    Green 5
    LD 3

    R1: Cons win 1 List MSP and their %age vote drops to 7%
    R2: Lab wins 1 List MSP and their %age vote drops to 6%
    R3: Con win 1 MSP % drops to 4.67%
    R4: SNP wins MSP % drops to 6%
    R5: Lab win % drops to 4.5%
    R6: SNP wind % drops to 5.45%
    R7: SNP wins final MSP

    So IF (a big IF perhaps) my calculation is correct, the SNP can still win quite a number of List MSPs. (Perhaps someone with a mathematical bent can check?)

  173. Morag says:

    Yes, don’t you really hate it when that sort of thing happens!

    Touché. I didn’t actually think you were the Scotsman character mind you, just commenting on the name. Slightly unfortunate choice, is all.

  174. Morag says:

    So IF (a big IF perhaps) my calculation is correct, the SNP can still win quite a number of List MSPs. (Perhaps someone with a mathematical bent can check?)

    The idea that the SNP won’t win any list seats seems utterly fanciful to me. The vote isn’t evenly spread across the regions. In some the party will get list seats because it hasn’t won all the constituencies, in others it may be riding high enough to get a list seat (or two, if you follow our convener!) on top of all the constituencies. It would be an enormous fluke if they didn’t.

    Or not a fluke at all, but the result of a concerted and co-ordinated campaign of misinformation designed to hoodwink SNP supporters into giving away their list votes. Cui bono, one has to ask.

  175. Brian Powell says:

    Germany announced it is going to ban GM foods, using the same new EU law as the Scottish Government.

  176. Lollysmum says:

    O/T
    New Petitions Committee (11 MPs)Won’t Accept Petitions from Popular Websites-from the Mirror

    https://archive.is/zDGN3

    They are determined to shut us up, it seems!Can only use govt’s own site.

  177. K1 says:

    We need a very strong hand for Indyref2. We have 56MP’s in Westminster, and we need as many MSP’s as we can muster to maintain and keep the pressure up for Independence.

    Like many, I intend to vote SNP (Con&List) for this reason, and want no ‘risk’ of our current strong position to be undermined by the possibility of ‘vote splitting’ within the Yes movement.

    Many have said: SNP is the ‘vehicle’, well we the people are the engine that powers that vehicle. We drive it forward, we are the grassroots. Let us not get sidetracked by ‘who said what when’. Opinions are just that: points of view.

    Everyone who knows that Independence is the only way forward for us, to secure and maintain the last vestiges of our Country as its own cultural and political entity, is what is under threat here. We cannot trust this Westminster system to ensure any kind of civil or rational discourse when it comes to “what is best for Scotland’.

    The SNP are the only party who have as their core doctrine, Scotland’s Independence. The only party who produced a fully outlined white paper for this country in the event of our Independence. People make up the body of the SNP, it is those people, in the past and now nearly half the population in this country who now see this as the only way forward.

    It is ludicrous, in my opinion, to fall for the narrative of those opposed to Independence, that our country could ever become a ‘one party state’. Firstly, right now, because we are not a ‘state’. Secondly, once Independence is achieved the ‘yes movement’, the grassroots, will splinter into it’s respective affiliations. Then the work really begins in reshaping the constitutional outlook of our country in real terms.

    We quite literally have to become ‘one’ as a movement at this time. This is a practical and pragmatic necessity, it is the only way we show Westminster that we mean to have our Independence. People can and do site the referendum in September as some clear indication that Scotland decided to stay in this Union, permanently. But those that do this without referring to the ‘means’ by which this vote was secured, merely reveal their own myopic viewpoint.

    How do we let the SNP know that ‘it is only when the people of Scotland decide that they wish to have another referendum, that we will have one’?

    We vote for them, in the General elections. We vote for them in the Constituency and the List. We vote for them in the council elections. We place them in the those positions that this so called ‘democratic’ system recognise as the legitimate route to voice the concerns of the citizens they represent.

    Then we watch this great ‘democratic’ system, twist itself into knots attempting to undermine, delegitimise, make a mockery of, by any and all means: From stamping “british’ on foodstuffs and tv programmes, to rejecting every single amendment brought forward by the SNP in Westminster. We look at our newspapers and news programmes constantly contorting anything to do with the SNP as a ‘negative’.

    We keep voting and we keep seeing the effects: the rotten corruption and dishonesty of it all, the deranged opinion pieces telling us we ‘have lost our heids’. The lack of any representative voices of those we placed in Westminster on all the main political programmes in this UK.

    We keep watching this sideshow, and we keep talking to people about it all, because now it’s ‘obvious’. Now because of what we did it is becoming clearer. That’s what our opposition do not understand:

    In less than 3 years, from 20 odd % to 45%, 56 MP’s, and the possibility of a majority at Holyrood. We are winning. Now let’s give the SNP our manifesto to finish the job, and take our country back.

  178. Jamie says:

    It is clear the vast majority of SNP voters will vote SNP in constituency vote and SNP on regional list and that is fine. It is also clear a fair number will vote SNP constituency and green in the list which will maintain the green numbers at least and possibly increase them. If some approximately 12% of the projected 50 – 60 % of SNP list voters were to split their vote between RISE and Solidarity there is still the possibility of the SNP picking up a list seat. It only takes a small number of SNP voters to change in order to increase the pro yes number of msps as well as number of left msps because let’s face it, not all SNP msps are left wing or would consider themselves as such.

  179. Robert Kerr says:

    i am not nor ever have been a member of the SNP.

    I shall vote SNP + SNP.

    No unionist shall use my second vote not being SNP to dilute my message.

    Things are changing and anger is building. Lets channel it next May.

  180. Marie Clark says:

    Having read all of the posts in the last couple of days, and the Rev’s and one or two others explanation of the voting system, I have to admit that I have not changed my mind at all about where my vote it going.

    SNP/SNP until we get our independence and then we can vote for the smaller parties after that, for a more diverse Scottish parliament.

    By the way, well done Rev and all of the others who have taken time to explain, in depths, the D’Hondt system. You really do deserve a medal.

  181. James Barr Gardner says:

    It strikes me that folk need to be more careful when dealing with opinions from dubious sources, remember the little engalanders have been playing the divide and conquer strategy for a thousand years and they are very good at it, be warned!

    However the more enlightened politically Scots become they will identify these cons/lies for what they are, MSM can try to sell the notion that SNP plus Yessers should throw list votes at smaller parties (Greens, SSP, RIC and Solidarity) note I have not included RISE!

    However if MSM thinks it’s a great idea, then it sounds like a turd and looks like a turd and it smells like a turd, then you’ve spotted yet another turd from MSM originating from wastemoster elite. Top marks for spotting yet another lump of crap. This means Project Fear is still pumping out crap, this means they’re getting desperate so folks everyone who wants Independence not just the SNP members must vote SNP x 2 in May 2016, you know it’s right!

  182. cirsium says:

    thank you, K1, for your great comment at 1.57pm. Well said.

    We are now in the end game. To maintain the pressure, it has to be SNP/SNP.

  183. orri says:

    It all depends on where the 12% and the 50% to 60% are located. It could all go hideously wrong in that it might not give any seats to the intended party whilst losing the SNP a seat.

    Propaganda wise. I’ve seen references to somehow the 56 MPs being unrepresentative due to it being on less than 50% of votes cast. No doubt the same will be said if there’s less than 50% in the list votes. No matter how often it might be said that that was just the result of a tactical decision it will be played on as a true indication of the SNP’s support. That’ll be especially true if no seats are gained by Greens or other parties.

    In the extreme scenario where the SNP get 12 seats in a region that represents 70% to 80% of those available. In the unlikely event that the SNP lose a seat due to running out of candidates I think the message would still be loud and clear, particularly as at that point we’d be talking about the SNP getting less seats than their percentage of the votes merited.

  184. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    And the other thing we should realise is that next year’s Scottish election isn’t only about electing a parliament for Holyrood.

    As Robert Kerr mentioned, we the electorate, will also be sending a message that shouldn’t be diluted in any way. That message to Cameron et al, is that we are still on the journey to independence and the more SNP MSP’s we send to Holyrood, the stronger the message, and then reinforced with a massive share of the overall vote for the SNP like, say 60+%.

  185. Lesley M says:

    @ianbeag Your link won’t work, since it’s a file on your H: drive! Here’s the link to the Scottish Parliament Document on AMS

    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx

    Be warned folks, any list vote for another party, takes away from the SNP. Which is ok if that is what you want, but a tactical vote potentially puts the other party in charge. If everyone votes SNP then Green, assuming SNP win all the constituency votes, they’d have 73 peeps, and if your list vote is all green, then the Greens have 56 MSPs. It’s not going to be like that, but just an example of what happens if we all vote SNP/Green. If you want SNP, Vote SNP on BOTH papers. 🙂

  186. Morag says:

    In the unlikely event that the SNP lose a seat due to running out of candidates …

    The SNP are actually watching this. Sitting constituency MSPs with a high chance of holding their seats are turning down a place on the list so that there will be enough candidates if that sort of landslide materialises.

    Christine Grahame isn’t going on the South of Scotland list, although she was a list MSP from there up till 2011, on the grounds that if she can’t hold the seat after five years of working in it as the constituency MSP, she’d be better off retired!

    There will be enough candidates.

  187. K1 says:

    Thanks cirsium 😉

  188. yesindyref2 says:

    @Grouse Beater
    Normally I would agree to take it to private email, but on the other hand it does alert the likes of me to the possibility of people misrepresenting the AMS system to get people to use their list vote not to vote SNP. I’m not taking sides, but I am now a lert!

  189. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi yesindyref2.

    Remember this country needs depts and droits as well!

    8=)

  190. Jim McLean says:

    Rather than use the D’Hondt method to work out the MEP share of seats, I took the individual votes cast as a percentage of the total votes cast and used this percentage of the 6 available seats. Rounding up to the nearest whole number gave 2 SNP, 2 Labour, one Tory and one UKIP.

  191. yesindyref2 says:

    I’m quite disturbed by this comment, or rather assertion, from the Cat Boyd article from a poster there:

    Actually, Cat Boyd’s point is mathematically irrefutable. IF the SNP win all or most of the constituency seats – and they look set to do so – it becomes almost impossible for the SNP to win list seats.

    It doesn’t become impossible at all, just more difficult. Tony Little (Hi Tony from Peter Piper) is totally correct, and there is a realistic chance, perhaps even a probability, that the SNP can get virtually the same list vote % as the constituency one, currently polling around 62%.

    That type of “baseless assertion” needs to be challenged every time it is put.

    By the way, for anyone who’s read my postings in the Herald in the past I do /did all my own research, maths, logic (ex-statistician / mathemetician / financial all that jazz) – same as Rev does. If I’m challenged I can go back through it, either find a mistake, or reinforce “I’m right, you’re wrong”. It’s for that reason I didn’t during the ref use Rev’s work or anyone else’s, it wasn’t my own.

    But whenever I checked Rev’s stuff I found no mistake, though I disagreed with his FFA analysis. So basically what I’m saying is, disregard Rev’s work at your peril.

  192. Morag says:

    It’s particularly worrying that Cat Boyd wrote that and that the National printed it, given that the refutation doesn’t even require abstract thought or arithmetic. The living breathing refutation is Mark McDonald.

    When the SNP was on 44% of the list vote nationally, the party took all nine seats in the North East region, and then Mark was elected to a list seat as well, on 52% of the list vote in the region.

    Only 44% on the all-Scotland poll, and this was enough to give the lie to Cat’s assertion. At 52% or wherever we are on the latest polls, it’s going to happen to an even greater degree. This is EXACTLY what I’ve been talking about, about people who don’t have a freaking clue, but do have a high profile in the Yes movement, putting themselves forward as pundits and spouting complete bollocks, and people believe them because of who they are.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top