Wings Over Scotland

There should simply be a new party created called the “SNP Bad” party and then all Yoons can vote for it without worrying which colour of Tory they are !

“We’re trying to think of a good reason why they’re still two separate parties”

To fool the “plebs”, as has been the case for a long time.

But even the “plebs” of Scotland can no longer be fooled.

The end is near.

We’re trying to think of a good reason why they’re still two separate parties, but to be honest with you, readers, we’re coming up short.

To be honest here I didn’t realise they were still two different parties. After their inglorious joining of the hips operation in 2014 I assumed, quite naturally I thought, that they had, post 2014, morphed seamlessly into one overly fat and outrageous party called the Conservative and Labour party! 🙂

It’s been said before, but it’s worth repeating;

They are both cheeks of the same ar$e, spewing the shame sh!te.

Here’s the thing: why on earth would anyone in Irvine want to vote Tory or Labour? It is simply beyond the bounds of reason.

The Tories committed electoral fraud in 29 constituencies in a GE and nothing is done about it.

If the Westminster elite are happy to turn a blind eye Westminster’s kiddy fiddlers, they’re hardly likely to do anything about something as trivial as the circumvention of democracy.

Undermining democracy is a very old and well practiced Westminster custom.

“We’re trying to think of a good reason why they’re still two separate parties, but to be honest with you, readers, we’re coming up short.”

To give the illusion in Westminster that we live in a democracy?

And they’re the ones who complain about a one party state

They can crow about their wee “Victory” today by hooking the voting system but tomorrow others can use the voting system too

And you know what, we will!!

Yet more evidence for me that we have to have the referendum before next May.

It’s Edinburgh South all over again. But ultimately at what political cost? At some point people will begin to twig that:

+ The red Tories are living up to their name, supported by the blue ones. At what price for genuine progressive Labourites, their party at the grace-and-favour of Tory voters? They aren’t all fanatical Unionists.

+ The Tories can tactical-vote Labour all they like, but it still doesn’t give them any more seats. Ultimately futile, unless they think they can eventually steal the Labour vote, on the principle “why vote for the Unionist monkey when you can vote for the organ-grinder?”. Which takes me back to my first point.

The Tories are chipper at the moment, whereas Labour are being pulled apart, first by their own internal left/right split, and in Scotland by a Loyalist/non-Loyalist split as well. The future doesn’t look too rosy for them. For the more forward-looking among them, though, an indy Scotland offers a far better prospect than the alternative.

Hang on, what happened there at stage 5?

It seems odd to me (he says, without having gone off to check the rules) that a majority of 24 was achieved when there were only two candidates. Why the extra stage?

Victory through the back door i hate STV it sucks and is a yoon dirty trick,thanks to that bollocks i have a Labour/Tory council nobody voted for and the real elected winners lose,only a yoon could come up with bullshit like that.

Though someone did suggest that lots of yes indy movement folks stand in the elections giving us a second vote block to add to the first SNP so when it comes down to coalition time we out number them,dont know if that is possible but i thought it a good idea.

STV is used with success in lots of countries. It needs multi seat constituencies and does not function well on single seat bye elections.

There has been much discussion about this on the previous thread. Firstly, it’s now Indy versus Union supporters in every election from here on. Secondly, Labour is Scotland is now just the right wing Blairite remnants because the left has moved on.

Combined, these two points mean that Scottish politics has evolved into right of centre Unionism versus social democratic Indy.

I am beginning to think Scotland’s future depends on turnout. In IndyRef1 if Yes area turn out had matched no area’s, we might have won. We need to get Indy voters out in large numbers for the next council election. And in IndyRef2, as well are soft No converts, we need to actually get Yes supporters to get out and vote!

The STV system is going to make it difficult for the SNP to achieve a breakthrough next year. It is designed to confuse the electorate and the Yoons may be able to use it to depress the SNP vote. I fear the Irvine result may be replicated in 2017. Ironically, a FPTP system would probably have been to our advantage.

The future fight may be a simple one, Independence V Unionism, as McDuff says, but STV seems to me to fudge the simple polarising choice.

Hope someone out there can make me feel better about this. Any thoughts, Yesindyref2?

Nice to see the Red and Blue Tories hugging each other, though.

It sounds like Scottish Labour in in alliance with the Tories, while Westminster labour (the masters) want an alliance with the SNP.

My head is starting to hurt

Kezza give us a clue – what is going on

Rough Bounds 5.26.
Well yi see I have the shopping and the garden and the ironing to do an the wee yins wull waant their tea so that wan that is on the telly or the paper fur aw the wrong reasons is the wan ah wull vote fur.
Second votes ? ach that wan

Well, the alarm bells should be ringing regarding the council results. The challenge will be for the SNP to get their vote out in 2017 – if they can manage that they are home and dry, if not, the yoons will hold control a number of councils. As others have noted, the 2017 elections are crucial – the last thing the YES movement need is a large number of yoon councils in control during IndyRef 2.

My Slovene girlfriend takes the other side of yoonster red and blue tory cunning,

Adam Tomkins MSP Retweeted
Ruth Davidson ?@RuthDavidsonMSP 24h
Ruth Davidson Retweeted STV News
Labour’s official policy – let’s pal up with the SNP. Not oppose them, not challenge them, but do a deal with them.

“The SNP were “defending” the seat in the spite of having lost the popular vote in the ward last time around, and they actually moved ahead of Labour to win the popular vote yesterday.”

scotgoespop

galamcennalath @ 18:31,

I think you’re dang right about turnout for 2017. Low turnouts can produce dire anomalies like Cockburn’s atypical EU election win.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Loyalism may possibly still have some traction in that neck of the woods. Which won’t generally apply elsewhere.

Any PR system will tend to give every party something like their fair share of the support they receive. In that sense it’s the WM wipeout by the SNP that’s the anomaly. So the case for indy parties winning next spring has to be made from now on. Each should aim to garner as much as it can without poaching from the other.

Looks though like Labour are doing exactly the reverse. “Anti-garnering”. In which context it’s worth noting a wee article that appeared in iThe National yesterday, which mentioned that the GMB union had canvassed its members in rUK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) about whom to support in the Labour leadership contest, but not Scotland. Seems that the GMB has either signed up to a neo-colonialist position, or has already discounted its Scottish membership from future involvement in rUK affairs.

Scottish Labour supporters need to wake up and realise where their best interests truly lie.

It’s now a binary choice between the party on the left; the SNP led by Nicola Sturgeon & the party on the right; The Conservatives, Labour & BBC Shortbread Party, led by Jackie Bird.

What have I been telling everyone for years, Rev Stu?

Westminster has really always been just, “The Establishment”. Like most families they will fight like rats in a bag among themselves but God help any outsider who dares to pick a fight with a family member. The ranks close and a united front is shown to the World.

There has, at least to the present day, only been two clear outcomes when the Establishment comes under attack by outsiders. Their combined might is too much for the attacker or the Establishment simply absorbs them and then replaces a weaker Establishment party with the newcomers.

Labour were once just such a newcomer and they replaced the Liberals. Labour then became just an integral part of the Establishment.

The question now remains, who will replace Labour when they split and disperse?

Thur’s nae rid n’ blu perty’s noo,thur just aw the wan so thi’
ur,an thur is Black is thone Earl a’ Hell’s waestket, wance
thur thi’gither mind,Keech sticks!Ah wan’t thum tae git Nae
Peace, no tae oor gallus Unicorn cums gallapin hame tae a free
Scotland!

I am concluding that Labour, Scotland and London, must have been infiltrated with elements whose aim it to cause meltdown to the benefit of the Tories.

Having read BLiS’s letter to their members, and the fiascos in England, they can be no other logical explanation!

There seems, to me, to be only 2 ways of combating this preposterous voting system which is suffocating our progress:

(a)-Get the system binned and replaced with a proper democratic one such as 51 beats 49 every day of the week, simple but very unlikely to ever happen.

(b)-The formation of a highly organised set-up where we strictly co-ordinate, via a central point, an area by area voting recommendation advantageous to our cause.

Something has to be done. Any system deliberately designed to keep failures and losers in power is absolutely ridiculous beyond belief and is suffocating our countries progress.

These upcoming Council elections will be a very important step in our journey towards independence. We must not underestimate the significance of the results in 2017.

Fail to send a strong message and i feel we’ll be subjected to London rule for a lot longer than we are currently anticipating.

There is a fair bit of mileage in the story that Labour wins with the backing of the Tories. Red Tories and Blue Tories…it is all one…which is why Tories are comfortable voting Labour.

🙂

I see the SNP took the other by-election from Labour in Renfrew.

Scotland has effectively become a two party State, the SNP and the Yoons.

See this thing with the 130 odd thousand new Labour members not being able to vote.. Is that not like having a season ticket and being barred from the game?

Either way.. Democracy UK?

Anyway, looking forward to Nicola’s afterspeech when Yes wins our independence for Scotland. ?

Dunno whits happening with these question marks.. that last one was surposed to be a smiley.

Scotland!

During the United States bid for independence, they called all loyalists Tories.

It make perfect etymological sense….

The term Tory or “Loyalist” was used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown.

… in a 21stC Scottish constitutional context, it might seem reasonable to call all those loyal to WM, the Union, and London rule, Tories as our American cousins did 240 years The term Tory or “Loyalist” was used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Since early in the 18th century, Tory had described those upholding the right of the King over Parliament.

It looks like Lab, LibDem, and Cons are all working towards this too!

The 2017 council elections should be seen as the pre-indy warm-up.

Apathy is unacceptable after centuries of inaction..this is a wake-up call.

The stats from the example above are simple to explain, even to those less inclined to get into local democracy.

We need to sell the arguments and rally the nation, the 45% is now nearing 6O%.

With Wings watching our backs, the front foot is now required. Steady mind, but definitely in a positive direction.

louis

It would be nice to think so but I fear few care much about local politics. The 20% turnout in Irvine (the weather was poor I concede) suggests that it isn’t a vehicle to launch much of anything.

Royal Bank of Scotland to disappear for customers outside Scotland

link to bbc.co.uk

Watch (or not) as the implications of de-branding are brushed under the carpet.

“As the bank itself became a global brand, RBS became the global brand. I’m now saying we no longer have global aspirations, we have local aspirations.”

“Each one of those brands will stand for something quite different in their own communities, and our staff will work with customers under those brands.”

Naw-bag jobs are on the line here 😉

Irvine has feature in Scotland’s struggle for independence in the past. In 1297 we had the infamous ‘Capitulation of Irvine’ when the Scottish forces fell out among themselves and a lot of the Scots went over to the English side.

Some things never change.

Is the problem with STV not that our population does not know how to use it properly for their vote?

I may have this wrong but I thought that you could make multiple choices in order of preference. Some people feel obliged to list all parties in order of preference and therefore end up voting for them all to some degree, all of which will be used. Is the trick to vote in order of preference only for those parties that you favour? Are the SNP voters also placing in preference the Labour and Conservative candidates and so casting votes for them? Should they not be leaving those options blank if they do not want them at all?

I do not understand the system myself and agree with the person upstream who was calling for a tutorial on how to use the STV system effectively.

@John from Fife

STV. Used in many places. It has its advantages, and its cons.

One advantage is that once people get used to it, it does make sense.

link to en.m.wikipedia.org

I agree the Tories and Labour have been joined at the hip in recent years but let’s be frank; were the SNP governing genuinely for the ordinary people of Scotland, instead of joining the aforementioned two parties in their fetish for neo-liberalism, they wouldn’t have to worry about sixth counts. The results would take care of themselves as would support for independence. Unfortunately many ordinary Scots don’t take kindly to a party which claims to be “fighting for Scotland” yet a) allows a multi-billionaire from Manchester to threaten ordinary working class Scots at Swiss-based Ineos’ Grangemouth plant with their jobs from the comfort of his luxury yacht; and b) takes the side of foreign big business against Scottish workers in the ongoing Scotrail dispute. Like it or not, currently the SNP are doing a very passable imitation of the red and blue Tories, and quite possibly diminishing the appetite for independence as a consequence.

Labour going in with Tory votes is the story and should be repeated and repeated and repeated.

20% turnout will always harm us as it is the habitual senior party hacks that is turning out at this figure. It is however very easy to produce a result out of such a turnout if you have done an effective canvas and are prepared to follow up with door knocking on election day getting identified support out to vote.

I do wonder however how wise it was to put Nicola’s father up. Some folk will have seen it as dynasty building as Nicola’s mum is the provost.

SNP must stand more candidates so that 1,2,3 votes are shared or vote once and only once. I know of one person that thought they should vote for ALL candidates at the last council elections. 6 candidates. Effectively she voted her own candidate out.

North Ayrshire is a funny place for Labour a friend who lives there tells me. Labour have no foot soldiers and with the tories voted to prevent any hustings type material on lampposts etc. Their shadow leader Gallagher who writes in the Herald all the time believes he isn’t Scots but a Viking/brit!! He is involved with the Viking festival which is full of British Army events, WW2 bombers and Union flags everywhere- all public money. Hardly a saltire to be seen.
Having said that I think Labour will get kicked out next year assuming they still have a party.

Irvine West result Labour Win!! SNP 2nd and @ScotTories 3rd with 20.5% f vote

Two exclamation marks. How excited Annie Wells must have been.

London’s Jocks see a defeat for the SNP as a defeat for Scotland.

I’m hearing rumours that Labour in central Scotland where they currently hold 2 seats in a 3 member ward are promoting independent (Labour) candidates to stand in the belief that people will give enough 2nd votes to well known local independents and scupper SNP where It has 2 candidates.

Instead of 2 SNP, 1 Labour

You get

1 SNP
1 Labour
1 pretendy independent but really Labour.

I heard it from a current Labour activist so pissed off with the way they are treating Corbyn, he will leave the party if smith wins.

I’m wondering if Labour voters would vote Tory if the roles were reversed. Does anyone know of by election results where Labour votes were redistributed and how their vote split?

Fraser Coats says:
12 August, 2016 at 10:27 pm
Maybe you could elaborate heedtracker.

OK, your vote NO bleh is terrible.

Dan Huil says:
12 August, 2016 at 5:49 pm

‘IndyRef2: There is now no way the bbc and others can repeat IndyRef1 in pitching three anti-indy politicians against one pro-indy politician in TV debates.’

Sorry Dan, but that is exactly what the state broadcaster will do in IndyRef 2.

And this goes a long way to answering the Rev’s question as to why the Unionist parties continue to remain separate even although the dividing line in our country’s politics is now clearly between the forces of self-determination and those of British nationalism: having three pro-Union voices against one pro-independence spokesperson suits the British Establishment just fine.

The BBC, and Unionist TV and radio more broadly, will adhere relentlessly to this formula to the bitter end. Just look at the state broadcaster’s recent post-Brexit debate in Scotland in which the British Labour Party, the third placed party in Scotland with 20% of the vote, provided two of the four panelists, the Tories one of the others. Or the way that the SNP remains massively under-represented on Question Time, rarely featuring despite being the third biggest political party in the UK.

Although pro-independence parties represent over 50% of the electorate in Scotland and have around 95% of the seats in the Westminster parliament, you won’t see a panel on the BBC with a pro-independence majority – although Unionist majorities are of course routine. And that’s because one of the primary aims of the BBC is to preserve the idea of the United Kingdom as normal and mainstream, the notion of Scotland as an independent country as abnormal and radical.

So in Indyref2, just like in Indyref1, just like always, we can expect nothing from the BBC but propaganda and a very skewed playing field.

Not much in that SNPbad NewStatesman thing, Duncan’s very angry and SNP are very bad too, “More than anything, she suggested, winning back Scotland simply meant putting in more work: “Hard yards. Sometimes in politics there is no substitute.”

Only a two years ago but where are they all now?

link to youtube.com

Is it true the tories didn’t even leave their care homes to vote? Mainly postal. Some tory worthies go around the nursing homes to get the votes in.

On balance snp unlucky to lose but still shouldn’t have.

…trying to think of any circumstance in which I would select a Tory candidate on my preference list…Nup not going to happen.

As I understand it only one mark must be made on the STV ballot paper. The second, third, fourth etc are not required. Therefore if in the case of second and third counts you have marked only one candidate no one else gets an unintentional boost.

Just a thought.

“The Yoon Party”

Simples…

The luck of the Irish: link to wp.me

link to caltonjock.com

I voted Yes heedtracker and will do so next time. You don’t have to support the SNP to support independence you know; that’s a mistake usually associated with unionists. Maybe this isn’t the place for rational debate.

The thing to remember is, Scotland undoubtedly wants to be Independent, the problem is the British State, media and elite are always trying to make it look like we don’t.

Note to Tory, Labour, Lib tactical voters.

Everyone can see your false politics.

The results will show that your parties are hollow facades..
Pretending to have difference when their are none, good luck with that long term.

First priority for all the Westminster parties is to hate the SNP, Suppress the Scots, and keep the finances gained from their richest colony by lies, deceit and covert collusion.

As posted above, I can visualise the BBC Propaganda channel at Indy Ref 2 having a “Debate” with Jackie Burd, Millionaire Unionist, hosting the show,

Participants, Ruth The Mooth Davidson, Kez Dipity Dug, Weee Willie Police are Bad like SNP, David Coburn UKipper, McTernan and someone from the Street with an SNP Badge.

Thanks to everyone signing the Blatant BBC Bias Petition!
Now at 90,759 Scottish Signatures and heading up to 91,000.

link to you.38degrees.org.uk

Just one in twenty dodgy postal, deceased, nursing or holiday-home ‘votes’ being straightened out, will give us a level playing field in IR2.

The electorate Register is being “revised”.

This is not the routine updating as in time past,it is a “revision” to cause concern.

An urgent measure must be brought in to challenge any addition or removal of names.I would go further requiring an independent check on such changes.

I am worried as back in the day I was involved in checking some voter registration and what is happening now would send the alarm bells sounding.

Re Ineos etc..

The way that infrastructure, tax/trade/tarrif deals and big public money projects are sourced is an impossibly immoral procedure.

Governments (and councils) often look for the least damaging option, so poor is the ethical profile OF ALL LARGE COMPANIES.

The rich pickings made available to corporations are preserved as a right, in law.

‘Value for money’ (including working conditions) only starts once the profit margin is reached, and a means to skim the profit is legally sound.

It’s so unfair, that we presume there must be nothing we can do about it.

We need to re-write the rulebook. But how can we do that in the modern world?

Well…

This is the only way that the toxic Tories can maintain control and govern over Scotland.

to do that they need the help of their Labour Stooges as a front.

Try as I might I can’t find the quote,
though I do remember Thatcher being interviewed on TV and was asked a question by the reporter as to where she got her mandate from to impose her policies on Scotland.

Her answer to him was, from the people of Scotland who had voted Labour.

@Tinto Chiel 9:56

Know what else is spooky? If YES did pick up the political cudgels, they might legitimately adopt the “Declaration of Arbroath” approach towards Scottish sovereignty to make themselves distinct from the SNP which engages with Westminster via the UK’s democratic fudge.

Scotland would then have a Republican Party and Democratic Party both fighting for a democratic Scotland with a republican constitution to emerge from an overstretched and increasingly defunct British Empire. Errrr…

Y’all have a nice day now.

I never liked the STV vote for local elections, i even tried to introduce a motion at conference to reform the local electoral system, but I failed. C’est la vie I suppose. STV has its uses, for a GE or HE election perhaps, It helps to even out the representation of all parties across the country etc, but local elections are just that, Local. Folks here couldnt care who the folk in the rest of fife vote for and what party a candidate belongs to fades into irrelevance when the biggest issues affecting the community are, potholes, bin collections and dog shit on the pavement. Whether the candidate is SNP lab or tory, shouldnt affect their ability to deal with such issues.

What folk want is a councillor to represent them, a recognisable figure, someone with a high profile in the area. There is nothing quite like being able to chap on the shoulder of your local councillor, in the local coop, pub or in the street, and asking them what is happening about the potholes in the high St. What we have got at the moment, is 3 councillors, elected by the totality of votes across the ward, using a system no-one understands, not even the councillors, and the nearest councillor lives 10 miles away!.

But I digress, there is no point in crying over spilt milk, this is the system we have and the one being used in may 2017. So, what follows are a few pointers

1. May 2017 will be the most politically charged local election. EVER.

2. GOTV.

3. Wards are sometimes 4 candidate (~14k voters) but typically 3 candidate wards (~10k voters)

4. On an average of 33% turnout, that is 3-4k voters for 3 candidates. The snp got 1 councillor elected in St Andrews (population 14k) with 700 votes !

5. You may have a vibrant and busy snp group in your area, great stuff. but these elections are fought on a ward by ward basis and their attention may well be focused on other wards. not yours

6. Get in touch with the Indy supporting candidates in your ward. You may well find the only people canvasing and leafleting your ward will be the candidate and yourself.

7. If you are out Leafleting, ditch the hi-vis vests, yes2 saltires and big yellow foamy hands. the idea is to noise up indy supporters in your ward. not the unionists.

8. Find out about the “Independent” candidates standing in your ward. Many, if not all will be unionists. Inform all indy supporters in your ward, on NO account should they select a unionists as their 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice. they should vote for Indy candidates and NO ONE else.

9. In most cases, the only Indy supporting candidates in your ward will be SNP. If this is the case, inform all greens, ssp, rise, solidarity etc, supporters in your ward to vote SNP and NO-ONE else.

10. In a few wards, you will find a greens, ssp, rise or solidarity candidate. Inform their supporters that if they vote for eg. green as 1st choice, then vote SNP 2nd (and perhaps SNP 3rd) choice. And NO-ONE else.

11. In the few wards, mentioned above, where other Indy supporting candidates are standing, Inform SNP supporters that if they vote for eg. SNP as 1st choice, (and perhaps SNP 2nd) choice. then vote greens, ssp, rise or solidarity 2nd/3rd choice. And NO-ONE else. it will invariably be the smaller Indy supporting candidates who are eliminated during the counting process, before the SNP candidates, so this tactic will tend to favour the SNP.

12. In both 3 and 4 candidate wards, it is unlikely that the SNP will stand more than 2 candidates. This is to avoid “diluting” their vote over 3 candidates and allowing unionists to sneek through during the counting process. Standing 3 candidates risks getting only 1 elected. Depending on previous results in your ward, It may be that the tactic employed will be SNP 1&2 in one half of your ward and SNP 2&1 in the other half.

13.wrt the smaller Indy supporting parties, efforts should be made to convince them that only one smaller party candidate should stand in any ward. This is likely to happen anyway, but exceptions should be avoided.

14. Looking at the 2012 results, indy supporters “tended” to vote for other indy supporting candidates using 2nd and 3rd votes but this was also the case for unionists supporting other unionist candidates. the recent by elections highlighted this, no surprises there, the fact there were only 1 candidate to elect in each ward brings this reality into sharp focus. While many on this thread decry them for being red and blue tories, because they are not yet a scottish unionist party, they are unable to limit the number of unionist candidates standing in each ward. This is a big DISADVANTAGE for the unionists. Having 2 or 3 major unionist party candidates, and 1 or 2 independent (unionist) candidates, may well allow a 2nd SNP candidate to sneek through during the counting process. In the St Andrews ward, one SNP candidate was able to sneek through because of the large number of unionist candidates in that ward.

Summary
fully, 1/3 of all seats will effectively be uncontested by the SNP so taking control of councils will be very difficult. While James Kelly on Scot goes pop, points out that SLAB may well lose overall control of GCC, a unionist coalition will most likely keep the snp out. See Stirling and Fife councils. So little will change, (more OO walks in the post)

After saying this, this advice is designed to maximise the number of indy supporting councillors, maybe stop Stirling Council raising the butchers apron over the chambers and organising brit nat celebrations etc. (see armed forces day). More importantly, it is the councils who are responsible for organising elections and referendum, ballot boxes, polling places etc. So think how you will feel if the rest of Scotland votes during indyref2 and you cant? think how that will affect the validity of the result?

Success in 2017 will depend on your ability to GOTV in your ward.No one else will be coming to do that. only you.

schrodingers cat

would they be called labour?

@schrodingers cat 11.39.

Great post. I feel I’m going to be referring to this a lot before May 2017.

I admit to not being sure about STV when the party with most votes does not win. I do not think people in general are clear about how to vote in STV and make it count.

Apparently the YES groups are looking for material to deliver. Would it not be possible for people cleverer than me or sites like this to produce neutral fliers on STV voting with Parties like:

Like them
No Bad
Who are they?
Never heard of them
Don’t like them
Not under any circumstances

in random order on a mock voting paper and indicate how people should make or not make choices. If posted for downloading in A4 or A5 format they could then be delivered previous to and just before the elections.

Just a thought.

Fraser Coats: “This is my last comment on what seems to be nothing more than an SNP fan club, rather than a forum for any balanced debate on independence and how best to get there.”

You jump from, ‘here’s my opinion’, to, ‘anybody who disagrees isn’t rational’, and then take another leap of logic to say, ‘this place isn’t about balanced debate. I’m off.’

Do you think this is the place to publish criticism you feel necessary that requires backed up with example and quotations? Putting it to your SNP MP is step one.

How do you expect anybody to agree let alone disagree with you when they don’t have the information they need, and anyhow, your comments appear out of the blue?

How is a curious reader like me supposed to react to this specific accusation?:

They [SNP?] have taken Abellio’s side over Scotrail workers by taking council from the company but not the unions.

Is that so?

Are readers expected to make an intelligent judgment on the basis of a one-sided opinion? Are you suggesting the government didn’t consult the unions?

The reader is left none the wiser, but only sees someone venting.

“most wards had two SNP candidates”

there are 3 and 4 candidate wards.

if the snp only put up 2 candidates in a 3 candidate ward then the 3rd candidate place is uncontested, there is no way of winning this 3rd seat if they dont put up a candidate?

it is true that the snp will contest most if not all wards, but they will not contest all of the seats/candidate places in each ward.
ergo, about 1/3 of the seats/candidacies will not be contested

the snp went from about 1000 candidates to 400 when this system was introduced

“the snp went from about 1000 candidates to 400 when this system was introduced.”

Sounds to me the SNP didn’t understand the STV system by putting up so few candidates.

Tinto Chiel @ 09:56

Latterly, when the SNP became something of a threat, the [Labour] sub-text was “Scotland is crap and it would be a lot crappier with independence.”

Hah, that’s SLab in a nutshell there!

—–

There seems to be a worrying amount of ignorance about STV, even here where you would expect better somehow. But there will be voters who think (a la WM elections) they must only make one mark, and others who think they must rank all candidates. Both views are mistaken.

As schrodingers cat kindly points out, the important message to get across is to vote indy, and only indy.

As he mentions, there is a tricky issue between several candidates of the same party, which is true, but unlike TV for Holyrood, there is thankfully no issue of “poaching”, since supporters of other pro-indy parties (yes, including you Fraser Coats!) can in good conscience vote for their allegiance as first preference then pro-indy for the SNP for second, third, etc. Vice-versa for SNP supporters. The way all the votes come in from everybody will decide which preference prevails.

Votes are not wasted with STV, which is precisely why you have to be so very careful how you line them up. But there’s no need for a repetition of any of the friction that somewhat marred the ScotGE.

Don’t forget, in some places like Glasgow the Unionists will be trying the same trick if they are not challenged in attempting it: “Labour propped up by Tory votes!”. (There’s surely a Chris Cairns cartoon in that: a tottering Labour figure with a Tory wooden leg.)

As the cat also correctly points out, having multiple yoon parties still puts them at a disadvantage, although only where they are fairly equally strong. (I just loved his PS on inventing other spurious yoon parties! Their platform would have to be “I’m the real yoon, vote for no-one else!” =laugh=)

It is no coincidence that he puts at the head of his list: GOTV. In the end, you just have to convince voters that what you are promising works for them, both on the national stage in this upcoming very political election but also locally where councillors are well-known. There’s just no escaping that. STV makes you work for every preference vote.

schrodingers cat @ 14:24 :

if the snp only put up 2 candidates in a 3 candidate ward then the 3rd candidate place is uncontested, there is no way of winning this 3rd seat if they don’t put up a candidate

I seem to recall we’ve had this discussion before, the conclusion of which was that the SNP should field a whole gamut of candidates, but have a clear 1-2-3 preference story to hammer home to voters in their leafleting. (I think Cadogan Enright may possibly have some experience of this kind of thing.)

With their present membership, the SNP surely has the numbers to be able to do it, no?

Notice there has been nothing said about the SNP winning a by-election in Ayrshire where they took the seat from Labour.

The unionists only boast when they win, and black out the losses.

West Irvine by election 12 Aug 2016

Candidate 1st EX 2nd EX 3rd EX 4th EX 5th EX 6th
Cochrane SocLab 131 2 133 13 146 -146
McCormick SGP 94 6 100 100
McPhater SLAB 1029 17 1046 14 1060 58 1118 183 1301 396 1697
Smith LIB 48 -48
Stephen Tory 639 11 650 5 650 3 653-653
Sturgeon SNP 1164 4 1168 39 1207 19 1226 51 1277-1277
non votes 0 8 8 29 37 66 103 424 527 881 1305

link to en.wikipedia.org

look what happened to the libdems in St Andrews in 2012 when they stood 3 candidates

In any case, each ward will be different, we cant really run a national campaign, or indeed make comments which will apply to all. A few wards will stand 3 candidates and good luck to them, most will only stand 2 and most wards will be aiming to win 2. If we did this across the board, we would win control of all councils

*Indy in the following means other indy supporting candidates, greens, ssp etc, not Independent which invariably now adays means closet unionist. You need to check all Independent candidates in your ward to confirm this, It might be a disgruntled de selected former SNP councillor. As i said, their are over 300 wards, It is up to you to find out these details, the SNP cant run a nation wide campaign which covers all eventualities

so with that in mind, in wards with

1. 1 x SNP candidate, no other indy supporting candidates
vote SNP 1 and no one else
all indy supporters regardless of party affiliations should support and campaign for this

2. 1 x SNP candidate, 1 x Indy candidate
vote SNP 1 and Indy 2 and no one else
if SNP voters and supporters pursue this tactic, and the Indy supporters pursue the opposite tactic
vote Indy 1 and SNP 2 and no one else
this will help both parties
NB, efforts should be made to ensure only one indy candidate stands in any ward. this shouldnt be a problem as the greens, ssp etc are unlikly to stand candidates in every ward.

3. 2 x SNP candidate, no other indy supporting candidates
vote SNP 1&2 and no one else
all indy supporters regardless of party affiliations should support and campaign for this
NB, depending on the ward, a tactic of SNP 1&2 and SNP 2&1 may be deployed

4. 2 x SNP candidate, 1 x Indy candidate
vote SNP 1&2 and Indy 3 and no one else
if SNP voters and supporters pursue this tactic, and the Indy supporters pursue the opposite tactic
vote Indy 1 and SNP 2&3 and no one else
this will help both parties, but especially the SNP

NB, efforts should be made to ensure only one indy candidate stands in any ward. In cases where their are 2 SNP candidates, Indy candidates should consider standing in a nearby ward where only one SNP candidate is standing. This would be of more benefit to the Indy candidate

5. Where there are 3 x SNP candidates….good luck, I hope you win all 3, hopefully at least 2, but you may risk getting only 1 and the majority of councillors from your ward will be unionists.

Cat?

Can’t you write an article for Wings about STV?

It would be so helpful to have a wider audience for some in depth understanding about how we approach next May’s elections. Maybe it’s a bit soon…but could ya prepare something?

schrodingers cat @ 16:45, 17:16:

then again, we might have a problem explaining to our friends what we were doing sporting a union jack rossette

Yeah, that’s the fatal flaw. I couldn’t even explain that one to myself!

Hmmm, that story of the Green voters in Irvine is a somewhat underwhelming one, if I have their 2nd preferences right as:

39: SNP
29: LibDem or none
14: Slab
5: Tory

(Not forgetting that a few may also have put SNP as a later pref.)

The Scottish Green Party of course has no direct control over their voters’ preferences, but that’s not especially convincing indy support from their prime voters there. I’m a “broad church” person myself, but I would like to see much more concrete pro-indy results next year from the Greens than merely some fine pro-indy words in the odd article in The National.

good sites Brian

but neither, or indeed any site I can find explains the exact algorithm used during the count

schrodingers cat @ 19:10

did they count 3rd choices of those green who voted
Green1 Libdem 2 ?

Well, they should have in all such cases. The basic algorithm is simple: your voting preferences continue to have effect so long as any of your preferred candidates remain in contention, in your chosen order of preference.

The complication, where there may be one, is being able to see how the later preferences are operating, since sufficient information about those preferences may not be made public. (I don’t know about that.)

Your basic rules are an absolutely essential start. Parties also need to make very clear in their literature how their supporters should act. I don’t see a problem, for example, in having a single 1-2-3 across a whole ward.

I doubt many folks are reading this thread but im enjoying the setting out my thoughts and the input from the few who are reading

Robert J. Sutherland says:
did they count 3rd choices of those green who voted
Green1 Libdem 2 ?
Well, they should have in all such cases. The basic algorithm is simple: your voting preferences continue to have effect so long as any of your preferred candidates remain in contention, in your chosen order of preference.

I believe this is correct Robert

The complication, where there may be one, is being able to see how the later preferences are operating, since sufficient information about those preferences may not be made public. (I don’t know about that.)

The computer spits out various info for the election officer but the stats dont enable people to see exactly how people voted
have a look at yesterdays other by election results.

http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/4194/Result-of-by-election-for-Ward-2—Renfrew-South-and-Gallowhill

whether these figures are accessable, I dont know either Robert, difficult to find even if they are and doing this work for all wards is unfeasable

for example, in having a single 1-2-3 across a whole ward.

if there are 3 snp candidates, then i would ask indy candidates to stand in neighbouring wards
Very few wards will have 3 snp candidates, only 7 last time out of 300 odd wards. probably wards with 4 seats. the majority of 3 seat wards will only have 2 candidates
difficult to run a nationwide campaign in such circumstances. Where there are 3 candidates in a 3 seat ward, an SNP 1,2,3 would appear to be the only option, varying the tactic across could result in 2nd options going to snp candidates already elected, thus wasted

with 2 candidates, some wards will chose the SNP 1&2 only option as a tactic, others will chose SNP 1&2 and SNP 2&1, It depends on the ward and it will be up to the respective activists to decide what is best for them. In either case, I cant see the harm in asking SNP voters to put a 3 next to an indy candidate whether he/she is Green SSP etc but I doubt it will help the indy candidates very much. Conversely If the Indy voters, greens etc, vote indy 1 and SNP 2&3 this could help the SNP a great deal. Where there is only 1 SNP candidate and 1 Indy candidate, such an agreement may help both parties

@Robert J. Sutherland

The information on the 2012 election is available to the public and is facinating to read though still complicated.

I’ve chosen as an example a ward in N.E. Fife, schrodingers cat stomping ground. For example in Howe of Fife and Tay Coast (linked) there were two SNP candidates though only around half made these candidates their number one and two choice.

You need to download the excel spreadsheet “preference profile” also read the guide accompanying this or you will not have a clue as the spreadsheet is just a list of numbers. Well worth a look if you are interested in this stuff.

link to fifedirect.org.uk

@Alex Clark

Thanks for that link.

Confirms what I thought.

There was controversy over the 12 21 nonsense in my ward last time. We got a total of 1500 votes in a ward with a quota of 1292.

We literally had no chance of getting two seats.

We needed 1100 more first preference votes to get two seats. There were no other independence candidates so no possibility of getting those votes as transfers from eliminated unionists.

It did no matter one iota what order people voted for our candidates.

TheWealthOfNations, Alex Clark,

Thanks for the useful reminders. I went back to a very helpful pdf file I downloaded ages ago from the Electoral Commission called “How STV works” to refresh.

With STV there is first a calculation of the “quota”, the number of votes any candidate needs to get elected. I keep forgetting that then there may well be, as you say, one or more wins and consequent proportional redistributions of other preferences for surpluses over the quota. (My fading memory has evidently been too influenced by the list part of AV.) As I understand it, no preferences are thus “lost”, they are instead diluted as they are successively transferred in proportion. Only after that part is complete are candidates eliminated and their preferences redistributed to fill any remaining vacancies.

So it shouldn’t matter in which order preferences go to several candidates of one party, provided they all stay in contention by receiving each other’s (and indeed anyone else’s) “downward” then “upward” redistributed preferences, such as there might be.

I don’t think any of that alters schrodingers cat’s ground rules, however. Basically pro-indy votes should be encouraged to stay within the pro-indy camp, yet pro-indy candidates should also try to attract (eg. by personal reputation) later preferences of other voters on top.

@schrodingers cat @Robert J. Sutherland

“either way, the electorate does need educated, no doubt about it”

“I don’t think any of that alters schrodingers cat’s ground rules”

Totally agree with you both, if your an Indy supporter then only list Indy supporting candidates as your preferences else risk the Unionists getting elected by your vote.

We need to get that message more widely known before May next year.