Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Dunning1874]

Since this thread has gone that way, putting the 2016 list comparison into (rough) numbers rather than percentages.

Central - 4 Labour & 3 Tory. SNP got over 129K and would have needed another 16K+ to take a seat. Greens got under 13K and needed just under 2K more votes to take the last seat from the Tories.

Glasgow - 3 Labour, 2 Tory, 1 Green. SNP got 111K votes and would have needed another 36K for a seat. Greens got 23K and needed another 6000 to take the last seat from the Tories.

Highlands & Islands - 3 Tory, 2 Labour, 1 Green, 1 SNP

Last seat was a close fight between Tories and Labour which Labour won. SNP would have needed another 10K in addition to their 80K+ votes to be in contention for a second, Greens another 8K in addition to their 14700 - both miles off it

Lothian- 3 Tory, 2 Lab, 2 Green

Labour were the closest challengers to the Greens for the last seat, just over 1K short. SNP's 118K votes had them just over 2K short, but have to remember that was with failing to win three constituencies and if those 2K votes had come from the Greens you'd just be swapping one pro-independence seat for another rather. To take a third seat at the expense of the Tories Greens would have needed another 22K votes.

Mid & Fife - 4 Tory, 2 Lab, 1 Green

Greens took the last seat ahead of Labour who needed over 2K more votes. Lib Dems would have taken one instead of Greens if they hadn't won a constituency. SNP got 120K and would have needed another 40K for a seat. Greens took just over 18K and would have needed another 19K for a seat.

North East - 4 Tory, 2 Lab, 1 Lib

As previously in the thread, with 15K the Greens were just over 2K short of the last seat which the Tories took, while the SNP were 34K short with 137K votes.

South - 3 SNP, 2 Lab, 2 Tory

SNP got 120K and needed another 14K to make it 4 seats at the expense of the Tories. Greens got 12K and needed another 2K to take it from the Tories. If those 2K votes had come off the SNP total they'd still have been taking 3 as well, but tactical voting here is obviously risky.

West - 3 Lab, 3 Tory, 1 Green

Greens took the last seat with 17K. SNP were 19K short having had 135K votes. Greens would have needed another 18K to take 2 at the expense of the Tories.

[cdhafc1874]

It's more than a couple.
As I said a few pages back, if everyone who voted SNP on the list in South last time voted Green it would have resulted in 6 Green and 1 Labour, instead of 3 SNP, 2 Labour and 2 Con. That's a swing of three seats to the pro-indy side.
At the other end, somewhere like Central where the SNP took every constituency, if everyone who voted SNP voted Green it would have given 4 Green, 2 Lab, 1 Con, instead of 4 Lab, 3 Con; a swing of four to the pro-indy side.
Obviously it's entirely contingent on the number that do it, but there's nowhere in the country that, purely from an independence perspective, it's not more effective to vote Green than SNP with the regional vote.
And I'm making no assumptions about how much each party's supporters like the other party. You can tell something about how willing Green voters might be to vote SNP from the reallocation of second preferences in council by-elections, where generally at least half the Green votes go SNP; but you can't tell anything about how likely SNP voters are to vote Green because the SNP are always in the count longer than the Greens.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Anyone making assumptions that a party - in this case the SNP - will win enough constituencies in each region for their voters to be able to switch en masse to the Greens on the list is New Labour levels of arrogance which ended up not going well for them in Scotland.

Your South region example for anyone who is an SNP voter first & foremost makes no sense.
Tories hold their constituencies, SNP their one but your vote en masse for Greens on the list plan would result in SNP losing 3 MSP's.

A reminder again that Boris & the Tories in WM don't care how many Green MSP's there are - they only care how many the SNP have & will happily ignore a pro-indy majority while (albeit difficult to achieve) a SNP majority is much harder for Boris to dismiss.

Never mind that - whether us pro-indy folk like it or not - voters of unionist parties deserve representation in Holyrood too otherwise you end up with a parliament that is unrepresentative of the actual voting populace.

[DAFC.]

Of course SNP are going to send a message of both votes SNP, but in areas they do very well on the constituency vote, it's pretty much a waste of a vote voting them for the list, is it not? If you are pro-indy, and from the central list, for example, you would surely be better voting SNP/Green? I'm using Central Scotland as an example as that's my area: the SNP got just shy of 130,000 votes and returned 0 list MSPs last time out. The closest party were Labour with 67,000 votes, nearly half the SNP got. They got 4 seats. That's almost more fucked up than FPTP. 

Surely the message should be vote SNP and have a look at your area's previous polling numbers and vote whichever pro-Indy party has a chance of returning MSPs? Both SNP is a clear waste if you are like me living in the central Scotland area and pro-Indy. It'll be SNP/Green for me in May. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by DAFC.

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, cdisaaccie said:

A reminder again that Boris & the Tories in WM don't care how many Green MSP's there are - they only care how many the SNP have & will happily ignore a pro-indy majority while (albeit difficult to achieve) a SNP majority is much harder for Boris to dismiss.

They'll dismiss it regardless. Either the SNP and wider independence movement can actually use all the cards they've got or they can set their own increasingly unlikely standards and make it exponentially more difficult to push forward the case for independence. The only way Boris Johnson is going to accept an SNP majority as a mandate for independence is if it gets enough traction before the election and doesn't happen so he can dismiss it for another parliamentary term.

 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, cdisaaccie said:

 

That is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Anyone making assumptions that a party - in this case the SNP - will win enough constituencies in each region for their voters to be able to switch en masse to the Greens on the list is New Labour levels of arrogance which ended up not going well for them in Scotland.

Your South region example for anyone who is an SNP voter first & foremost makes no sense.
Tories hold their constituencies, SNP their one but your vote en masse for Greens on the list plan would result in SNP losing 3 MSP's.

A reminder again that Boris & the Tories in WM don't care how many Green MSP's there are - they only care how many the SNP have & will happily ignore a pro-indy majority while (albeit difficult to achieve) a SNP majority is much harder for Boris to dismiss.

Never mind that - whether us pro-indy folk like it or not - voters of unionist parties deserve representation in Holyrood too otherwise you end up with a parliament that is unrepresentative of the actual voting populace.

 

I'm not making a pro-indy argumen and in my earlier tweet I also gave the same advice on the maths for the pro-union side, which is Lib Dem everywhere except H&I, where Conservative would be the most effective list vote. I'm not recommending this course of action at all. I believe that as we live in a PR system so folk should vote for the parties and people they want, assuming they like any at all. And if one side games the system then so will the others, which leads to polarisation and worse government. All I'm doing is talking about the maths, which for many people is important in deciding how to vote.

[Juanhourjoe]

6 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Since this thread has gone that way, putting the 2016 list comparison into (rough) numbers rather than percentages.

Central - 4 Labour & 3 Tory. SNP got over 129K and would have needed another 16K+ to take a seat. Greens got under 13K and needed just under 2K more votes to take the last seat from the Tories.

Glasgow - 3 Labour, 2 Tory, 1 Green. SNP got 111K votes and would have needed another 36K for a seat. Greens got 23K and needed another 6000 to take the last seat from the Tories.

Highlands & Islands - 3 Tory, 2 Labour, 1 Green, 1 SNP

Last seat was a close fight between Tories and Labour which Labour won. SNP would have needed another 10K in addition to their 80K+ votes to be in contention for a second, Greens another 8K in addition to their 14700 - both miles off it

Lothian- 3 Tory, 2 Lab, 2 Green

Labour were the closest challengers to the Greens for the last seat, just over 1K short. SNP's 118K votes had them just over 2K short, but have to remember that was with failing to win three constituencies and if those 2K votes had come from the Greens you'd just be swapping one pro-independence seat for another rather. To take a third seat at the expense of the Tories Greens would have needed another 22K votes.

Mid & Fife - 4 Tory, 2 Lab, 1 Green

Greens took the last seat ahead of Labour who needed over 2K more votes. Lib Dems would have taken one instead of Greens if they hadn't won a constituency. SNP got 120K and would have needed another 40K for a seat. Greens took just over 18K and would have needed another 19K for a seat.

North East - 4 Tory, 2 Lab, 1 Lib

As previously in the thread, with 15K the Greens were just over 2K short of the last seat which the Tories took, while the SNP were 34K short with 137K votes.

South - 3 SNP, 2 Lab, 2 Tory

SNP got 120K and needed another 14K to make it 4 seats at the expense of the Tories. Greens got 12K and needed another 2K to take it from the Tories. If those 2K votes had come off the SNP total they'd still have been taking 3 as well, but tactical voting here is obviously risky.

West - 3 Lab, 3 Tory, 1 Green

Greens took the last seat with 17K. SNP were 19K short having had 135K votes. Greens would have needed another 18K to take 2 at the expense of the Tories.

Beaten to it I'm afraid.Stephen Daisley (@JournoStephen) Tweeted: Alliance for Unity won't win any seats at Holyrood. The only impact it might have is splitting the pro-Union vote and getting more nationalists elected.

 

https://t.co/gXOwzABfjh https://t.co/2IghZZXkpH https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1372675191516581888?s=20

[Highland Capital]

I must say I hate this system.  I'd much rather we did away with this nonsense FPTP constituency vote and had some sort of PR system for the local seats as well.  In fact I'd rather we went to something like the Irish system and instead of having one local and X regional MSPs, just have bigger local constituencies with four MSPs each (or something like that) voted by STV.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Highland Capital

[John Lambies Doos]

I must say I hate this system.  I'd much rather we did away with this nonsense FPTP constituency vote and had some sort of PR system for the local seats as well.  In fact I'd rather we went to something like the Irish system and instead of having one local and X regional MSPs, just have bigger local constituencies with four MSPs each (or something like that) voted by STV.

It's a far fairer system, but counts can litterly go on for weeks

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, Highland Capital said:

I must say I hate this system.  I'd much rather we did away with this nonsense FPTP constituency vote and had some sort of PR system for the local seats as well.  In fact I'd rather we went to something like the Irish system and instead of having one local and X regional MSPs, just have bigger local constituencies with four MSPs each (or something like that) voted by STV.

I doubt it'll happen since you only have to look at the snobbery even on here towards List MSPs who are automatically seen as lesser for not having been elected by 15,000 hogs who mostly go off party preference anyway.

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, Juanhourjoe said:

Beaten to it I'm afraid.Stephen Daisley (@JournoStephen) Tweeted: Alliance for Unity won't win any seats at Holyrood. The only impact it might have is splitting the pro-Union vote and getting more nationalists elected.

 

https://t.co/gXOwzABfjh https://t.co/2IghZZXkpH https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1372675191516581888?s=20

That would be so, so sad.

[jamamafegan]

Lol

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/huw-edwards-ordered-delete-tweet-20213816

[Highland Capital]

4 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

5 hours ago, Highland Capital said:

I must say I hate this system.  I'd much rather we did away with this nonsense FPTP constituency vote and had some sort of PR system for the local seats as well.  In fact I'd rather we went to something like the Irish system and instead of having one local and X regional MSPs, just have bigger local constituencies with four MSPs each (or something like that) voted by STV.

It's a far fairer system, but counts can litterly go on for weeks

To be honest that wouldn't bother me.  I'd rather have a fairer result even if it take a while to get it.

[DrewDon]

I'm not usually a fan of tactical voting, but I'm strongly considering giving the Greens my list vote in the North East. I haven't voted for them before, and don't fully agree with them on a few issues, but as a centre-left, pro-independence voter, it seems like the most logical thing to do in my region. I've always been pretty impressed with Patrick Harvie, too.

[Kejan]

10 hours ago, DrewDon said:

I'm not usually a fan of tactical voting, but I'm strongly considering giving the Greens my list vote in the North East. I haven't voted for them before, and don't fully agree with them on a few issues, but as a centre-left, pro-independence voter, it seems like the most logical thing to do in my region. I've always been pretty impressed with Patrick Harvie, too.

Likewise and doing the same. 

Angus South and NE Scotland so it'll be SNP and Greens. I believe the Greens were 2k short of a seat last time, hopefully enough of us can get one reasonably decent MSP in for a Tory or Lib.

[SANTAN]

11 hours ago, DrewDon said:

I'm not usually a fan of tactical voting, but I'm strongly considering giving the Greens my list vote in the North East. I haven't voted for them before, and don't fully agree with them on a few issues, but as a centre-left, pro-independence voter, it seems like the most logical thing to do in my region. I've always been pretty impressed with Patrick Harvie, too.

 What has impressed you about Patrick Harvie? 

I'm just taken back, I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone say that. 

[Juanhourjoe]

Really? Looks like you haven't been paying attention to a huge chunk of the views on this forum.

[doulikefish]

52/48 yes/no in the herald seemingly

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

30 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

52/48 yes/no in the herald seemingly

Excellent polling for the good guys, but I notice that The Herald's headline is 'SNP majority on a knife edge'. 

Given that gaining a majority in Holyrood is high on impossible under almost any circumstances, you can see how the narrative is being set up here. When the SNP fall short of a majority.....and we end up with virtually the same make-up in Holyrood as we have now.... the headlines will be all about 'SNP failure' and how Scotland voted to save Unionism or some guff like that. 

We live in a very strange society in Scotland, when the continued success and popularity of the SNP can somehow be judged a 'failure'. But that's how it's going to be set up.

 

 

[HTG]

9 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Excellent polling for the good guys, but I notice that The Herald's headline is 'SNP majority on a knife edge'. 

Given that gaining a majority in Holyrood is high on impossible under almost any circumstances, you can see how the narrative is being set up here. When the SNP fall short of a majority.....and we end up with virtually the same make-up in Holyrood as we have now.... the headlines will be all about 'SNP failure' and how Scotland voted to save Unionism or some guff like that. 

We live in a very strange society in Scotland, when the continued success and popularity of the SNP can somehow be judged a 'failure'. But that's how it's going to be set up.

 

 

I think you'll find that there's a real desire for reform in the air to make it more difficult to get a majority. The set up was supposed to emasculate Holyrood in the first place so it either needs shut down or replaced by something that's only going to give the "right" result. Similar to Russia, China or any of the many other tinpot "democracies" out there. 

[sophia]

11 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Excellent polling for the good guys, but I notice that The Herald's headline is 'SNP majority on a knife edge'. 

Given that gaining a majority in Holyrood is high on impossible under almost any circumstances, you can see how the narrative is being set up here. When the SNP fall short of a majority.....and we end up with virtually the same make-up in Holyrood as we have now.... the headlines will be all about 'SNP failure' and how Scotland voted to save Unionism or some guff like that. 

We live in a very strange society in Scotland, when the continued success and popularity of the SNP can somehow be judged a 'failure'. But that's how it's going to be set up.

 

 

I saw that earlier.

Apparently the snp are on schedule to "scrape" a majority.

There was a time when I would be very happy to be enlightened by quality journalism and Ian Bell is much missed but when you see the like of that, is it any wonder that many will look elsewhere for sober reflections on the data.