Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Highland Capital]

Notice that that poll has the Greens winning Glasgow Kelvin. There’s an outside chance that could happen but seems very unlikely.

Didn’t Panelbase predict the SSP getting a seat a few months ago as well?

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

There are only really 2 scenarios that will grab Westminster's attention in regards to another referendum. 

The first is that the SNP win enough constituency seats to gain a majority. The second is that the SNP fall short in constituency seats, but Alba take enough list seats for these 2 parties to call it a 'super majority'. 

Westminster, the media, and the opposition parties have no intention of recognising that the Greens are a pro-independence party. If the SNP fall short but the number of seats the Greens take increases, this will be dismissed. Not even considered. 

I find it unlikely that the SNP will gain enough constituency seats to win a majority. It may well be that they'll need Alba to win a number of list seats to keep the momentum for a second referendum going forward.

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

53 minutes ago, Pato said:

I'm seeing quite a lot of cars driving about with alba stickers, but mind you I thought we were going to win in 2014 because there were yes stickers on lampposts in deepest darkest chapelhall

I hope that folk who see "ALBA" car stickers don't think that means that the driver/owner supports Salmond's shower.  They have been used by Gaelic speakers/advocates for years. 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Oh dear. I see that we're already in the realms of sheer desperation, by which the SNP can't possibly make a convincing political argument to counter the Yoons' falsehood, without everyone gormlessly chucking their list votes in the bin to gormlessly hand them their very own majority. 
Genuinely pathetic stuff that will regain no voters who are thinking of putting their second vote elsewhere. Try again. 

We've had a pro-independence majority in Holyrood for the past five years, dimwit. It took an SNP majority to get a referendum.

 

These two things weren't related though - the reason there was a referendum was because the Scottish parliament voted to hold one and Cameron agreed. In the last 5 years, the Scottish parliament could also have voted to have one, but it would have been rejected due to it being a different Prime Minister and also due to the fact we'd already had one recently.

 

50 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

Alba and the SNP seem hell bent on tearing each other apart though. The SNP are peddling a ridiculous "#bothvotesSNP" strategy which is demonstrably daft under any sort of scrutiny of the polling numbers and ALBA supporters seem  intent on attacking Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP than the unionist list fodder that they claim to be targeting. Getting personal with the most popular politician in the country and trying to get her supporters to vote for you is strategic insanity.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the SNP asking people to vote for them - it's surely exactly what you'd expect. Having some sort of nuanced strategy of not asking people to vote for them on the list (unless you live in certain areas) would be ripe for confusion and would potentially cost them seats in the areas where they do need a list vote.

[Double Jack D]

17 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with the SNP asking people to vote for them - it's surely exactly what you'd expect. Having some sort of nuanced strategy of not asking people to vote for them on the list (unless you live in certain areas) would be ripe for confusion and would potentially cost them seats in the areas where they do need a list vote.

No, I suppose you're right.

However, I'm in Mid Scotland and Fife where in 2016 120000 list votes returned no SNP MSP's. There would've needed to be another 3 list seats before they got another MSP through the list. Therefore it's a totally wasted vote however I keep getting told that not voting SNP on the list threatens the indy majority when it will have no impact whatsoever.  It's quite off-putting being blatantly lied to.

[Turkmenbashi]

53 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

Notice that that poll has the Greens winning Glasgow Kelvin. There’s an outside chance that could happen but seems very unlikely.

Didn’t Panelbase predict the SSP getting a seat a few months ago as well?

I wouldn't think it unrealistic if the vote is split enough and with unionist tactical voting that Labour could get in. Still will be #bothvotesgreen for me.

[Turkmenbashi]

19 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

No, I suppose you're right.

However, I'm in Mid Scotland and Fife where in 2016 120000 list votes returned no SNP MSP's. There would've needed to be another 3 list seats before they got another MSP through the list. Therefore it's a totally wasted vote however I keep getting told that not voting SNP on the list threatens the indy majority when it will have no impact whatsoever.  It's quite off-putting being blatantly lied to.

Even if Alba relatively successful andt here is a supermajority, of SNP, Alba and Green votes, if the total percentage of independence support is 50% or less, it will just be perceived as gaming the system and won't  help get those extra needed voters for independence. If SNP were to get over 50% of the vote on the list but even with no benefit of additional list  msps that would probably help independence far more. A Indy majority is public support, not more msps.

[John Lambies Doos]

Unless SNP are polling around 55% constituency its far to risky having another referendum, i think Yes would lose. Some SNP voters don't want independence, some Labour voters do. Its probably fair to say that Torys will be returned at next GE, perhaps then is the time, demographics are on ourside but a referendum defeat would be fatal

[Highland Capital]

28 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

However, I'm in Mid Scotland and Fife where in 2016 120000 list votes returned no SNP MSP's. There would've needed to be another 3 list seats before they got another MSP through the list. Therefore it's a totally wasted vote however I keep getting told that not voting SNP on the list threatens the indy majority when it will have no impact whatsoever.  It's quite off-putting being blatantly lied to.

I understand why the SNP say 'both votes SNP' at every opportunity but their new line of attack to hammer home that point seems to be is pointing to 2011 and showing how the list votes put them over the top.  That was a different election, with quite a different make up of local seats...and ten years ago.  They still seem to saying that it could well be the list that puts them over the top and while that could be true, it'll be list seats won in the H+I and the South that does it - the odds of it being a renegade list seat they win against all odds in Mid Scotland + Fife are miniscule.  It's looking increasingly like the easiest route for an SNP majority is through hoovering up the local seats and anyway, they'd have a majority now regardless of the list if they hadn't lost local seats they already had.  Their final argument seems to be telling folk to list vote SNP as an insurance policy, but they lost at least two local seats in the Lothians in 2016 and didn't pick any on the list.

Outside of the H+I and the South, it'd be interesting to see the weight of an SNP list vote compared to one for the Greens (or Alba).  Would it make the SNP or the Tories winning a list seat more likely?

8 minutes ago, Turkmenbashi said:

I wouldn't think it unrealistic if the vote is split enough and with unionist tactical voting that Labour could get in. Still will be #bothvotesgreen for me.

It's certainly possible.  Had a look at the odds there and the Greens are 3-1 to win it.  Obviously there's the factor that the SNP MSP is retiring and the Greens are running a charismatic, high profile candidate.  I still think it's unlikely just now, but it's more likely to happen now than ever before.

[SANTAN]

A lot of people making the mistake of thinking Westminster will care about an SNP majority or a combined super majority. 

It's nice to see you all distracted with optimism but realistically speaking what comes next? Boris rejects referendum after super majority, what is the plan? 

[John Lambies Doos]

A lot of people making the mistake of thinking Westminster will care about an SNP majority or a combined super majority. 
It's nice to see you all distracted with optimism but realistically speaking what comes next? Boris rejects referendum after super majority, what is the plan? 

There appears not to be one in fairness

[Double Jack D]

49 minutes ago, Turkmenbashi said:

Even if Alba relatively successful andt here is a supermajority, of SNP, Alba and Green votes, if the total percentage of independence support is 50% or less, it will just be perceived as gaming the system and won't  help get those extra needed voters for independence. If SNP were to get over 50% of the vote on the list but even with no benefit of additional list  msps that would probably help independence far more. A Indy majority is public support, not more msps.

Never gonna happen, they'll be lucky to get 40% on the list. However it will affect them very little on seat return if current constituency polling is even remotely accurate.

In order to provide a cast iron mandate for indyref2, the following are probably required:

• SNP Seat Majority
• SNP Constituency vote > 50%
• At least a 15 seat indy majority overall
• Regional vote>50% for indy parties.

I would predict that Boris would still say no to a Section 30 however. Giving us a referendum would end him politically which is quite something when you consider the shit he's currently getting away with.  

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

3 hours ago, virginton said:

 

We've had a pro-independence majority in Holyrood for the past five years, dimwit. It took an SNP majority to get a referendum.

The SG could have moved for a referendum at any time in the past five years and got majority support in Parliament. Because independence is not all about the SNP. That they didn't do so has nothing to do with them having 63 seats and not 65. 

Letting the Yoons set the benchmark and using it as justification to browbeat people into literally wasting their votes on the SNP and letting a set of Yoon losers traipse into Parliament instead is absolutely laughable stuff. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by vikingTON

[Double Jack D]

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

A lot of people making the mistake of thinking Westminster will care about an SNP majority or a combined super majority. 

It's nice to see you all distracted with optimism but realistically speaking what comes next? Boris rejects referendum after super majority, what is the plan? 

This is where Alba stand apart considerably from the SNP.

[Salt n Vinegar]

4 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

This is where Alba stand apart considerably from the SNP.

What... Is Alex going to get into a tank? 

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

This is where Alba stand apart considerably from the SNP.

I've not read their manifesto, what is their plan in that scenario? If that even is their initial plan? 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Turkmenbashi said:

Even if Alba relatively successful andt here is a supermajority, of SNP, Alba and Green votes, if the total percentage of independence support is 50% or less, it will just be perceived as gaming the system and won't  help get those extra needed voters for independence. If SNP were to get over 50% of the vote on the list but even with no benefit of additional list  msps that would probably help independence far more. A Indy majority is public support, not more msps.

Once again you are letting the Unionist side set the benchmark for a legitimate mandate and somehow expect those goalposts not to be hitched up and moved to whatever new stance they want to claim in the election's aftermath.

The mandate for an independence referendum is a majority support in the Scottish Parliament: the larger that majority, the larger the mandate. If Nicola Sturgeon and SNP strategists do not think that they can successfully make that case against seventh-tier no-mark opponents like Douglas Ross and Willie fucking Rennie then they're as well chucking it now. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by vikingTON

[Double Jack D]

3 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I've not read their manifesto, what is their plan in that scenario? If that even is their initial plan? 

To begin negotiations immediately should there be an indy majority. If Section 30 is refused then immediately challenging the legal status of Westminster sovereignty and setting up a national commission of MP's and MSP's to begin preparations for independence. Also arranging "peaceful demonstration and direct action" to engage international community into supporting our case for sovereignty.

Their position is that independence is urgently required and we shouldn't be waiting for Westminster permission or a wooly commitment on the ending of the CoVid crisis before initiating.

[Double Jack D]

12 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

What... Is Alex going to get into a tank? 

Perhaps metaphorically.

[SANTAN]

9 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

To begin negotiations immediately should there be an indy majority. If Section 30 is refused then immediately challenging the legal status of Westminster sovereignty and setting up a national commission of MP's and MSP's to begin preparations for independence. Also arranging "peaceful demonstration and direct action" to engage international community into supporting our case for sovereignty.

Their position is that independence is urgently required and we shouldn't be waiting for Westminster permission or a wooly commitment on the ending of the CoVid crisis before initiating.

Sounds very civil disobediencey. I need a few months more to get up to speed if we're going down that route.