Echoes of history
The Sunday National’s front page today elicited a sigh of “So what?” from most.
We’ve already GOT a “pro-indy” majority at Holyrood and have done for the last 10 years, for all it’s been worth. But to be fair there was a paragraph in the article that at least raised a quizzical eyebrow.
Because, y’know, that doesn’t seem very likely.
The Greens trailed in a very distant 4th in the seat in 2021, despite a relatively well-known candidate (the current Presiding Officer, in fact), and since they’d likely need at least a 300% jump in their vote to stand a chance – something not suggested by any polling anywhere – we’re not quite sure how the analysis has managed to arrive at that rather startling conclusion, even with 1,000 tries.
(It would seem to us somewhat more feasible that Reform could cannibalise the collapsing Tory and Labour votes to emerge as the main challenger, though they’d still be quite an outside bet in the unusually affluent seat.)
But something rang a bell as we read those lines. And then we remembered.
In 2016, an “analysis” from Cutbot, a “media and public affairs monitoring company” run by super-creepy Scottish Greens activist James Mackenzie, had also predicted the Greens capturing the seat from the SNP. The reality proved somewhat different.
Alison Johnstone came a distant 4th again, but her 4,644 votes were enough to let Ruth Davidson sneak through and pip the SNP candidate by 610, with almost twice as many votes as the Cutbot analysis had predicted. (The poor old Lib Dems got barely a third as many as Cutbot imagined, and the Greens less than half.)
The predictions (which were widely covered at the time by a gullible Scottish media) are still worth a chuckle a decade later. Cutbot’s website no longer exists and its Twitter account last tweeted just three weeks after the 2016 election. So we’re not sure what it is about Edinburgh Central that appears to disrupt people’s brainwaves.
(Also of particular note was its assertion that UKIP’s then-leader in Scotland, David Coburn would be “fairly comfortably elected” on the list in Highlands & Islands with 7% of the vote. In the event they trailed in nowhere with just 2.6%. In the same article, the SNP insisted that voters should give the SNP their list votes because to do otherwise “risks letting UKIP in by the back door”. In the event, 953,000 voters did so, winning the SNP just four list seats, while UKIP got nothing but almost exactly the same number of list votes – 960,000 – for Labour and the Tories secured them 45 list seats. Plus ca change, eh readers?)
If anyone thinks the analysts have got it right this time, though, we’re happy to accept any wagers made by readers who think Lorna Slater will capture the seat in three months’ time. Just let us know how much you want to bet in the comments.
What kind of window-licker is going to vote for that cunt?
What a shame Rev. that you posted this before the really big political story broke : that of the resignation of Morgan McSweeney. The implications of this for a SLab politicians by Doogie Alexander and others would merit some examination by you.
Tell you what, Cynicus, lead by example.
Explain to us the implications to you and every other Sovereign Scot of McSweeney’s resignation. Starmer’s too if the baying mob get their way.
Of course, you won’t be able to because the entire pantomime is intended to distract you from the important things going on that CAN and WILL affect ordinary Scots.
It’s obviously working.
Alternatively just relax and watch the Scottish mixed doubles colonised curling team enjoy their success (so far) at the Winter Olympics.