Sunday, April 17, 2016

Have the Sunday Herald just totally misrepresented John Curtice's stance on so-called "tactical voting"?

And the nonsense about "tactical voting on the list" just goes on and on and on.  The SNP have got every right to be extremely annoyed about a piece in today's Sunday Herald, which makes the wildly implausible claim that Professor John Curtice has told independence supporters that they shouldn't vote for the SNP on the list, because that would "let unionist MSPs in by the back door".  I can't actually locate the Electoral Reform Society report in which he's meant to have said this, but I'm going to very confidently predict that when it does turn up, we'll find that the actual text is markedly different to the spin the Sunday Herald have put on it.  We know that Curtice's supposed "advice" simply doesn't tally up with observations he's made extremely recently, and indeed with basic indisputable facts that any psephologist will confirm.

What seems to have happened is that Curtice has averaged recent opinion polls, and found that if those figures were reproduced in the election in May, the SNP would win all but three of the constituency seats, and only two of the list seats.  But here are the rather enormous "buts" that the Sunday Herald aren't bothering to tell you about -

1) An average of opinion polls conducted weeks or months before polling day is categorically NOT a prediction of the election result (the Sunday Herald piece specifically uses the inaccurate word "predicts"), but simply a snapshot of public opinion which is subject to change as the campaign progresses.  Curtice made that very point himself when he was asked by The National to give his verdict on the "tactical voting" issue a few weeks ago.

2) Opinion polls are not necessarily even 100% accurate as snapshots, and averaging them cannot be assumed to eliminate any error.  Curtice has confessed a number of times that he's learned to go into the BBC studio on general election night with no preconceptions, because the picture that unfolds is so often radically different from the pre-election polls.  Last year, the polls suggested a dead heat between Labour and Tory, but we ended up with a clear Tory victory.  In 2010, the polls suggested a Liberal Democrat breakthrough, but Nick Clegg actually suffered net losses.  In 2005, the polls suggested that Labour would have a majority of 100 or so, but the eventual number was 66.  You'd actually have to go back a full 15 years to get to a UK general election that didn't spring some kind of major surprise on the night.  The idea that opinion polls offer us precise foreknowledge of the exact number of constituency and list seats that the SNP will win next month is in the realms of fantasy.  At the absolute most, they can provide a vague ball-park figure with considerable scope for error.

3) Curtice has repeatedly pointed out that polling on the list has proved significantly less accurate in past Holyrood elections than constituency polling, and that we generally find that the SNP's list vote turns out to be much closer to their constituency vote than the pre-election polls have led us to expect.  Conversely, the Green list vote tends to be overstated by polls.  That puts a particularly big question mark over the credibility of any extrapolation of list seats based on current polls, and I'm quite sure Curtice will have gone out of his way to explain that in his report.  It's suspicious, for example, that the SNP apparently aren't pencilled in for a list seat in the North-east, because they currently hold a list seat there in spite of having won every single constituency seat in the region in 2011.  It'll be especially interesting to see how Curtice has dealt with the problem of Survation polls, because he's stated that Survation's results for the list ballot lack credibility due to the way the question is posed.

4) Extrapolations of constituency seats are also problematical, not least because we don't know in advance the extent of anti-SNP tactical voting in a handful of potentially close contests.

5) The phrase about "letting unionist MSPs in by the back door" (which unsurprisingly does not appear to be a direct quote from Curtice) makes very little sense, because it implies that a list vote for the SNP could somehow lead to more unionist MSPs being elected than the unionist vote would justify.  The complete opposite is the case - the tactic of switching to a smaller pro-independence party on the list is supposed to prevent the unionist parties from winning their proper entitlement of list seats.  If "letting unionists in by the back door" simply means "failing to cheat unionists out of winning their fair share", that's a very, very odd use of language at the very least.

6) To support the claim that SNP list votes might be "wasted", the Sunday Herald piece risibly prays in aid the fact that smaller parties need 5-6% of the vote in a region to win one seat.  How that's supposed to assist the argument for tactical voting is a complete mystery.  I have no doubt that Curtice himself will have made the more realistic point that the 5-6% de facto threshold means there is every danger that some "tactical" list votes for smaller parties will be completely wasted.  It's certainly going to be very difficult, bordering on impossible, for RISE to hit that target figure in even one region, let alone in eight.

I suspect that the report will turn out to be quite nuanced, with Curtice simply saying "if the election result reflects the average of recent opinion polls, SNP voters may wish they had switched to another party on some regional lists", but then going on explain that there are very good reasons for supposing that the figures he's referring to may not be the eventual result, and that it's therefore impossible to be sure in advance of the election that the proposed "tactical" voting strategies will not backfire.  That was essentially the balanced message he supplied to The National a few weeks ago, and as the basic facts haven't changed, I'm quite sure his verdict won't have changed either.  If he's been misrepresented as badly as I suspect he has, it'll be interesting to see his own reaction to the article - he's usually very mild-mannered, but he's surely not going to be best pleased about it.

UPDATE : In the comments section below, Topher has provided a link to Curtice's actual report.  You can read it HERE.  If anything, the Sunday Herald's misrepresentation is even worse than I suspected.  Their claim that Curtice advises independence supporters to vote RISE or Green on the list is not merely a distortion - it's flatly untrue.  He specifically states that voters face a "dilemma" because there are "risks" attached to tactical voting, and that it's understandable that the SNP are trying to avert those risks by sending out a "both votes SNP" message.

UPDATE II : I've got to be honest - I am absolutely dumbfounded to learn that the editor of the Sunday Herald seems to have spent most of the day insisting on Twitter that the article is 100% accurate, even though anyone can simply read the Curtice report online, and see for themselves that it differs radically from the way it was summarised in the article.  Even Curtice himself has indicated (with his characteristic understatement and diplomacy) that the wording of the article was a bit "strong" - and if he's not in a position to make that call, I don't know who is.  This is an open and shut case.

I don't think there's any conspiracy here - it was just a sloppy article written by someone who in all probability had genuinely misunderstood what Curtice had written (possibly with the help of a little misdirection from the Electoral Reform Society, who do have a pretty obvious agenda on this subject).  But if you've made an honest mistake, and it's blindingly obvious to everyone that you've made it, why would you dig your heels in and defend the indefensible for hours on end?  I really, really don't understand what's going on.

86 comments:

  1. I can completely understand why you advocate 'Both Votes SNP' James, and why others advocate constituency Vote SNP/ regional vote Green or Rise or Solidarity (what they call 'Both Votes Yes').

    What I'd like is for folk to remember that - beyond either way of analysing or arguing the case - we are on the same side: we are for determining our own future rather than having it determined for us by those who have 3,700 staff harassing people on benefits, and 700 investigating tax avoidance by the wealthy.

    [full disclosure: I have always been passionately pro-independence, I have always been equally astonished that people can be convinced not to run their own affairs and convinced that retaining a climate in which we can grow food, and stay alive, is only an 'environmental' issue. I always vote Green, and suggest people vote for what they believe in, whether that's best represented by one party or two]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Justin : As you know, I do not "advocate both votes SNP". I merely point out that voting tactically for a second-choice party on the list ballot is a bad idea, because the AMS system (unlike FPTP) does not lend itself to tactical voting and there's a big risk of it backfiring. One of the enormous frustrations of this debate is the way "tactical voting on this list doesn't work" seems to be automatically translated by some people as meaning something completely different.

      Delete
    2. The blatant and elementary logic is that Greens will more likely NOT get what they want if the SNP fail to gain majority.

      Indy first is not some puerile ignorance.

      Your best representation, for all that you want, is not to vote for the Greens at all, but to plough all your best effort into getting the SNP into majority.

      Delete
    3. I merely point out that voting tactically for a second-choice party on the list ballot is a bad idea, because the AMS system (unlike FPTP) does not lend itself to tactical voting

      It's an idea with a certain amount of risk attached - that's true. But that doesn't doesn't mean it is automatically a bad one. There's risk attached to all political decisions by voters. The important thing is to quantify that risk as much as you can and make your decision on the data you have. AMS is no different from FPTP in that respect, though the calculations are different.

      But as with FPTP, the voter has to make their calculation at the appropriate level. So just as you look at the constituency with FPTP, you have to use the region not the country as a whole with AMS. Most polling projects the SNP to be winning very few regional seats because of the constituency clean sweep, but they mainly predict them in two regions.

      In South the Tories may win up to four seats, leading to two or three SNP regional seats. While I doubt they will get all four, it is likely they will get some - all their current seats are in the region. This means that SNP voters would be unwise to go elsewhere, unless their preference is to elect a Green, UKIP, Labour or Lib Dem (ie they voted SNP tactically on the constituency).

      In the Highlands and Islands, the SNP may pick up regional seats if the Lib Dems can hold on to one or both of Orkney and Shetland. I suspect that the SNP will get both, but it will be tight. So a true SNP voter wishing to maximise the power of their vote would be taking a gamble.

      In the other regions electing SNP regional seats will be more difficult as they are on track to win all the constituencies (I can't see the Tories taking Eastwood, but even if they do the SNP may not get a regional seat). It's possible that the SNP could lose constituencies in Lothian (Pentland, Edin S), in which case they might need the votes to pick up one in recompense.

      But there's no getting away from the fact that most SNP Regional votes will be 'wasted' unless they get a higher percentage than all the polls are currently showing. And polling has been fairly accurate in Scotland recently.

      Delete
  2. This is a bit off-topic, but one thing that seems to be ignored by many commentators is the motivation that drives each party. I'm not going to talk about the desire for power that motivates some individuals, but what motivates parties. RISE, the Greens, and Solidarity want to create a left-wing Scotland, and independence is a short-cut to that end. As such, they are USING independence to get what they want, and if independence occurs, their position is very likely to be strengthened. On the other hand, the SNP's "raison d'etre" IS independence. The SNP are driving the bus towards independence in the almost certain knowledge that independence will mean the end of the SNP as we know it. Of course, the SNP will probably win the first election, but success in THEIR core mission means that the party will almost certainly disintegrate in the long run. No going on from strength to strength for the SNP post-indy! Of course, some commentators, whose motives are not at all clear, use this fact as ammo, in their charge that the SNP "have given up on independence". Naïve fool that I am, I believe that the SNP leadership is populated by altruists, who are happy to pursue a goal that will, at the very least, diminish their chances of a continued career in politics. I believe that the likes of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Angus Robertson, Stewart Hosie, Mhairi Black, Pete Wishart, John Swinney and many, many others will be hailed in generations to come as the TRUE heroes of Scotland, putting the Wallace and the Bruce into the shadows. To work an entire career for the sake of a principle, knowing that you are working towards a goal that will reward others, not yourself- now THAT'S heroism! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP's main focus in this election is retention (if not expansions) of power. The SNP is now populated by careerists who are as focused on boarding the gravy train as any unionist.

      Delete
    2. The SNP's main focus in this election is retention (if not expansions) of power. The SNP is now populated by careerists who are as focused on boarding the gravy train as any unionist.

      Delete
    3. That is 110% completely wrong. I am interested solely and alone in my country being independent. I work with many people who believe in independence first and foremost.

      If you are looking for careerists that ship sailed when Labour joined the Conservatives to oppose independence. The careerists were deselected last May by the people of Eastwood, Ferguslie Park, Mid Fife, etc.

      There has not been enough time for "careerists" to come to the forefront of the SNP. And what you say is I'm afraid the most utter tripe.

      Delete
    4. Naïve fool that I am, I believe that the SNP leadership is populated by altruists, who are happy to pursue a goal that will, at the very least, diminish their chances of a continued career in politics. I believe that the likes of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Angus Robertson, Stewart Hosie, Mhairi Black, Pete Wishart, John Swinney and many, many others will be hailed in generations to come as the TRUE heroes of Scotland, putting the Wallace and the Bruce into the shadows.

      If you believe that, there's a good chance that at least some of them do too. Wouldn't that suggest they're not altruists? Becoming a major national historical figure on a par with Robert the Bruce sounds to me like a rather better personal reward than being Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

      Delete
    5. 110% wrong? Look no further than than Monklands, where the McMafia scandal is showing that there is a black side to the party which is being covered up by those at the very top. SNP X 0 for me.

      Delete
  3. Well that one article will take 5% off the Sunday Herald's circulation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I think they have shot themselves in the foot over this one. I will still buy it for now, and see what is said next week.

      They will be trying to appeal to all indy supporters, not just SNP, for extra sales, and it may not be a more cynical ploy. -
      But that article headline today was completely misleading.

      I suppose any readers thinking of giving up on it has a dilemma too. Is it better to have one independence supporting newspaper or none at all ?

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry but Tom Gordon seems to be taking over the agenda at Sunday Herald. I suspect it's nothing more than a front now. Definitely not the paper of Scottish Independence.

      Delete
    3. Having Tom Gordon in charge of Politics at the pro-Indy Sunday Herald is like Corbyn having Hilary Benn in charge of Laboir policy on nuclear weapons. It can only blow up in their face.

      Delete
  4. There's a guy who comments on Wings(Rock), who is forever warning people that the Sunday Heralds so called support for independence is simply a way to tap into the Yes voters because of the Heralds falling sales figures.

    He would warn that in the lead up to important elections, the Sunday Herald would be forced to publish destructive articles by the papers owners.

    I must admit I thought he was of the 'tin foil hat brigade' but I'm afraid this article shows that Rock was the one who has been shown to be 'on the money'

    The Wings twitter feed also has details about who the authors of some Sunday Herald articles, who it turns out are editors of some staunch pro-Labour, anti-SNP site.

    Ah well, So long Sunday Herald and thanks for your betrayal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Tom Gordon attacks the SNP continually online and in the main paper. The Sunday edition has been under attack from within for a long time.

      Delete
  5. James, some articles on particular constituencies (and their make-up) would be interesting/useful in the run-up to the election to illustrate how certain seats are by no means certain to go to the SNP. I'm sure you did something similar for a few constituencies in the general election last year and they were interesting and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why would anyone vote Rise! The party is a collection of pseudo intellectuals,amateurs and agitators. They attract people like Sillars because he could start a fight in an empty room.

    Noone serious about independence should touch them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looking at the original report,

    http://electoral-reform.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/publication/The-2016-Scottish-Election-Briefing.pdf

    Curtice is indeed more balanced. He outlines the way the AMS system works and points out (uncontroversially) that very strong support for the SNP in the constituency vote is expected.

    He makes the point (which I had not heard before) that this can result in the balancing effect of the list vote being swamped. In other words the first-past-the-past element of the ballot may produce more SNP seats than can be balanced out by the list seats.

    He then describes the dilemma for independence supporting voters; whether to vote SNP twice and risk not getting an additional SNP seat because of the way the D'Hondt system works, or to vote for a smaller pro-indy party and risk that party's vote not making the 6% threshold needed for a seat.

    Curtice makes this point in a neutral and balanced way, despite the Sunday Herald coverage.

    I'm a Green and although I agree with James that a RISE vote is probably doomed to be wasted, the Greens are looking likely to pass the threshold and worth a vote if you think the environment is worth saving.

    Poor reporting by the Sunday Herald should not obscure Curtice's well written assessment of the situation, and pro-independence voters need to understand the arguments in it in order to decide where their list vote should go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Better to find out now, that the Herald on Sunday is a "fifth column", rather than on the eve of the next indyref.
    The media that operates in Scotland is colonial in nature and inclination.
    That should ALWAYS be at the front of our minds when reading/watching/listening to news relevant to Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sunday Herald or The National are only there to boost circulation for the Herald .The leopard has not changed it's spots , it will always go in for the kill on the SNP .Divide and conquer is the name of the game today .

    ReplyDelete
  10. That article in the paper is very misleading. This link to a tweet points out what John Curtice said but left out of that article:

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/721628914079178753

    latest list poll - Panelbase

    SNP 47 (-1)
    CON 19 (+2)
    LAB 18 (-1)
    GREENS 8 (+3)
    LIB DEMS 4 (-3)

    Constituency

    SNP 51 (+1)
    LAB 19 (-2);
    CON 18 (+1)
    LIB DEMS 5 (-1)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The answer to your question is YES.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is my opinion that all and any information presented in Any media source will most certainly have a bias one way or the other, whether that be based on belief,
    understanding, misinterpretation tactics or any other reason you can think of. Choices, Read and believe, Read and dismiss, Store for further analysis and comparison as information becomes available, Wait until you have gathered enough information from many sources to allow an informed decision to be made. Personally the last of the choices I find has served me well over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very disappointed in the Sunday Herald, lowly and scurrilous.
    As the chap above me has pointed-out, they appear only to be prostituting themselves during those times they're permitted to do so by their owners.
    If 'our' Sunday Herald genuinely had our best-interests at heart, this clumsy and amateur inaccuracy would not have seen the light of day. Shame on the fifth columnists.

    Both Votes SNP

    ReplyDelete
  14. James [& Prof Curtice] points out," An average of opinion polls conducted weeks or months before polling day is categorically NOT a prediction of the election result...simply a snapshot of public opinion which is subject to change as the campaign progresses."

    To use opinion polls, therefore, to influence electoral opinion begs the fundamental question "Cui bono?" That'll be the newspaper neo-liberal owners who sponsor the polling companies. The Scots electorate now know that Brit MSM are not to be trusted, ergo, the reasons for and uses of MSM polls are massively questionable.

    This site and others like them are principle reasons YES are maintaining momentum towards self-determination because they can gather information [intelligence], analyse it, disseminate the conclusions and distribute it to the public in a timely manner. This IT God-send wasn't available to our Independence campaigns in the 70's, 80's & 90's.

    The internet is evidencing manipulative/lying Brit bosses MSM/dodgy pollsters for the selfish Red/Blue Tories for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  15. SNP 1&2 is the clearest way of making sure SNP get a working majority. I'm not interested in wiping out the opposition, just in making sure they can't derail the SNP government.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Sunday Herald no more. Proof once again that the MSM is fundilimundily an integral part on the britnat establishment.
    To hell with the lot of them.

    SNP x 2.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In South Scotland Region both Rise - Scotland's Left Alliance and Solidarity - Scotland's Socialist Movement are on the List.

    I look forward to a fascinating battle between them as they fight each other for the left vote.

    Or have I got this wrong

    ReplyDelete
  18. The "exclusive" article is written by one Peter Swindon former parliamentary assistant to Anas Sarwar who is standing on Glasgow Regional List for Labour. A conflict of interest anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I knew James and Wings would destroy this.
    Anonymous at 8.05. Beautifully put. My sentiments, if I could express them so eloquently.
    E-mail to the editor, Sunday Herald shortly. I have barely missed an edition since it came out for Yes, sometimes had my doubts, but this is too far. I might add the National with it's incessant left-wing commentators is getting at bit wearing as well.
    And isn't it nice Not to have the comments infested with GWC1 and 2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that he had important letters to write in crayon to the Daily Redcoat.

      Delete
    2. Amen to that Glesga Keelie.

      Delete
  20. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM

    Infested is a term one would expect from Nazis. Not unexpected to hear it from a Nat si. We infested the ballot boxes 2014 and fooked you lot of infestation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crayon chewing hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. Dear GWC2 I my hard earned taxes weren't wasted on your education, Irelands worst export oranges

      Delete
  21. Ah, thought it was to good to be true, GWC2 the Tories useful idiot just couldn't help himself.

    The chaps down the Conservative club will be telling him what a good patriot he is as we speak.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'll be voting SNP because they stick up for Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  23. SNP 1+2 is now the only game on town.

    Rise-able and unfortunately the Greens are coming out as anti-Indy so they can FUCK OFF and won't ever get any of my votes.

    Reap what you sow comes to mind.

    Bella's cover is well and truly blown, ��

    Always thought the Sunday Herald was suspect so mo surprise there.

    We need to urge dropping both a anti-Indy outlets and funding.

    Simples.

    Bella- no crowdfundong.

    Sunday Herald- just don't buy the fucking rag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really follow them because I don't expect them to get anywhere, but I'm surprised to hear that RISE have come out as anti-Indy. Got a link?

      Delete
  24. SNP 1+2 is now the only game on town.

    Rise-able and unfortunately the Greens are coming out as anti-Indy so they can FUCK OFF and won't ever get any of my votes.

    Reap what you sow comes to mind.

    Bella's cover is well and truly blown, ��

    Always thought the Sunday Herald was suspect so mo surprise there.

    We need to urge dropping both a anti-Indy outlets and funding.

    Simples.

    Bella- no crowdfundong.

    Sunday Herald- just don't buy the fucking rag.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I really hope the Sunday Herald have a clarification next week on their misleading headline. Reading Curtice's article, it indeed highlights dilemmas and uncertainty.

    "But, of course, this is not a strategy without risks."

    "perhaps the Greens are too far away from the
    5-6% needed to win a list seat for any likely level of SNP tactical
    support to make a difference"

    "That of course simply adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the tactical dilemma that some voters may feel that they face."

    "This caution about the accuracy of the polls’ estimate of list
    support means that there is inevitably particular uncertainty about
    the electoral prospects of the Greens and UKIP"

    "one can see why the party is using the social media hashtag
    #bothvotessnp in the election campaign—it does not wish to take
    the risk"

    I certainly don't see the SNP winning anything like 70 constituency seats. In Glasgow alone, Patrick Harvie could split the indy vote in Kelvin, letting Labour in. Lamont may have enough of a personal vote to hang on. We will see unionist tactical voting in many other seats. Complacency could see a low turnout. There are still 3 weeks to go and a lot could change.

    So if it comes to SNP or Green list seats needed to make up a majority, I would prefer SNP.

    Greens dragging the SNP to the hard left at budget times would be a nightmare for the independence cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually suspect the Greens in those three constituencies standing may help the SNP. About 20-25% of Greens are No voters and without a candidate to pick would probably go to Labour (if they voted at all).

      The majority of Green Yes voters will probably go to SNP as they have in the past. Even in Glasgow North last May the Greens picked up very little, despite the Lib Dem collapse.

      Delete
    2. Where did you get the figure of 20-25% No voters from Roger?

      Delete
    3. Topher

      It's from looking at various polls over the years - though it's always a problem because the number of Green voters in any one poll isn't particularly high.

      There's also the problem of what you mean by a Green voter, because not everyone votes the same at every election or votes how they say they are going to. And a lot of pollsters don't show Green voters separately in their tables or mainly weight by 2011 constituency - which should find exactly 0 Green voters (amazingly quite a few claim to have though).

      The most systematic thing I did was looking at various referendum polls by Panelbase over the Summer of 2014. They were weighting by how people voted in the Euros and by accumulating several polls I had a sample of the percentage of people who voted for each Party in that election who said they would vote Yes:

      Con 3%

      Lab 29%

      Lib Dem 17%

      Green 72%

      SNP 95%

      UKIP 39%

      I can't find the calculations now but from memory the figures for the smaller Parties were based on sample of 200-300ish.

      So the 20-25% may be low if anything base on that. Looking the two most recent polls available the Survation poll showed that current Green regional voters were 46% 2014 No voters (56% Yes) while the last YouGov showed a split of No 43%, Yes 57%. Both are based on small samples of around 70 though, so the closeness is probably a coincidence.

      Delete
  26. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM

    The problem in Scotland is we have one right wing nat si party with a hard core fash vote and the other parties are split in ideology. So the majority of Scots are unrepresented.
    I look forward to the British voting to get out of the EU then another Jock referendum where the nat sis will be trashed again. AYE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crayon chewing hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM

      Food Banks No More, Tartan Yellow Scum Tory Hypocrites No More. Swally yer cranes Tory Boy preferably whole.

      Delete
    3. Please James make it Glasgow Working Class 2 no more. I think many who were donors to your fundraised won't bother the next time.

      Delete
    4. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 7:01 PM

      Edna Eva Prawn is a Nat si who wants to ban free expression. Probably is a man in lederhosenl. Arbeit Macht Frei.

      Delete
    6. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
  27. Has Curtice made any comment on this matter? Surely he is the "word of God" on the subject of whether he's been misrepresented.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Interesting twitter discussion, earlier today, between John Curtice and Wings –
    Wings – “Hi John, are you happy about your Report for Electoral Reform Scotland characterised like this; “Professor John Curtice says Yes Voters should instead give their backing to another Pro-Independence Party” ?
    Prof Curtice – “Sounds a bit strong. For “Should” read “Might Want to Consider” The Report points out the Risks of Not Voting SNP on the List Vote, as well as why people might want to do so”
    I agree with the eminent Professor on the Risks involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 7:19 PM

      Yes voters lost the referendum and should respect democracy but when you are dealing with fash Nat sis then expect denial.

      Delete
    2. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 8:12 PM

      Who cares what the local government is, we voted to stay in the Union. That is what is important to our economy and defense.

      Delete
    4. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
  29. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 7:50 PM

    Edna thingy is like those Palestinian supporter Nat sis who want to boycott Israel. Dinnae worry James I will give you a few shekels.
    Anon stick yer crayons up yer erse slowly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
  30. If the moronic reply from the recent resident troll sums him up that is it. Intelligence level nil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crayola does neither coherence nor consistency.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM

      But back tae reality Edna or is it Anon or David the muppet you lot of nat sis lost the referendum. AYE... Lost..AYE ...... Lost. Eat yer crains.

      Delete
    3. The crayon chewer is a massive hypocrite.

      Delete
  31. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 8:40 PM

    Wee knickerless Sturgeon is going oan aboot who really owns Scotland trying tae pretend tae be a latter day socialist who will put things right. Just a wee hypocrite like all Nat sis. All land and property is registered in Embra.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM
      It is nice to be charitable. Labour 1, Rise 2.Yellow and Blue Tories Nil

      Hypocritical crayon chewer. Hoist by your own petard.

      Delete
  32. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 9:17 PM

    Crayons and Nat sis are becoming synonymous. Thick and dense.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Usual ending to a serious subject. Degenerates into a load of garbage uttered by what is clearly a degenerate. The man has no coherent argument to offer and clearly thinks insult equates to discourse. I've had enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM

      I agree Anonymous has never said anything coherent. Thought I was on my own amongst a gaggle of Nat sis.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM
      It is nice to be charitable. Labour 1, Rise 2.Yellow and Blue Tories Nil

      Hypocritical crayon chewer. Hoist by your own petard.

      Delete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You are being far too kind to SH in your conclusion James.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Glasgow Working Class 2April 17, 2016 at 11:16 PM

    Labour 1 & 2. Down with Nat si ism and their Tory pals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM
      It is nice to be charitable. Labour 1, Rise 2.Yellow and Blue Tories Nil

      Hypocritical crayon chewer.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM
      It is nice to be charitable. Labour 1, Rise 2.Yellow and Blue Tories Nil

      Hypocritical crayon chewer.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2April 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM

      You are a drunken Nat sis with no sense of humour begone tae yer kipp poor fellow.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2April 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM
      It is nice to be charitable. Labour 1, Rise 2.Yellow and Blue Tories Nil

      Hypocritical crayon chewer.

      Delete
  37. I'm pro independence and will not be voting for SNP twice. The SNP has not put a commitment to a referendum in its manifesto, relying on the 'will of the people' to call it, but without Westminster's cooperation how is this feasible and how will any positive result be binding? A commitment to a referendum in the right circumstances is not a commitment to a referendum in any circumstances, and the SNP is wrong not to allow the electorate to give them a mandate to call a referendum if the circumstances in the lifetime of the next parliament allow it.

    How is any party meant to divorce its commitment to independence from its political standing as a governing party and all the pressures and commitments that this entails? I think the cause of independence is best represented by a diverse range of parties, not a single party insisting that voting for them is the only viable route to progress. Surely there is a conflict of interest here, as senior party figures come from SNP areas but those that voted no in the referendum. The Yes campaign needs a non-party political governing core to promote this campaign on a cross-party basis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 18, 2016 at 1:05 PM

      Does that include pro indy Tories?

      Delete
    2. Didn't know there were many of those. I wouldn't vote for them personally and they are likely to be a very small voice in their own party and probably not agree with any other generally pro-Indy policies. Generally most indy parties are left-leaning.

      Delete
  38. Follow updates from Herald Korea here. Read latest news on heraldk here.

    ReplyDelete