Tuesday, April 19, 2016

It doesn't matter whether you're an optimist or a pessimist about the SNP's chances : "tactical voting on the list" is a bad idea either way

As you probably saw on last night's post, John Curtice made clear that so-called "tactical voting on the list" becomes very risky as soon as you assume (as you really ought to assume if you haven't shut down your brain under instructions from a RISE press release) that there is a chance the election result may differ somewhat from current opinion polls.  Crucially, the direction in which the polls lead us astray doesn't really matter - if the SNP are being overestimated by the current polls, they'll need list votes and list seats simply to retain their majority, but if they're being underestimated on the list vote, they stand to win a decent number of list seats even if they take a clean sweep of constituency seats.  Both of those possibilities are very real, but if you were a gambling man/woman, you'd probably be betting more on the latter, simply on the basis of past history.  And if that's how it works out, SNP supporters switching "tactically" to a fringe party on the list could easily reduce the pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Although the SNP's strength on the list vote was very severely underestimated in 2011, that doesn't always happen - in fact, their list support was overestimated a tad in 2007.  But there is one very clear pattern that was seen in both elections, namely that the difference between the SNP's constituency and list vote was overestimated.  If you look at Wikipedia's list of 2011 polls (which may not be completely exhaustive, but it's the best one I can find), an average of the final eight polls suggests that the SNP should have done about 4.1% worse on the list ballot than on the constituency ballot.  The actual gap on election day was just 1.4%.  The story in 2007 was very similar - the last eight polls listed by Wikipedia suggest that the SNP should have done 3.5% worse on the list than in the constituencies, but in fact the real gap was 1.9%.

Yet again, the polls this year are "predicting" (to misuse the Sunday Herald's favourite word) an implausibly wide gap between the SNP's support on each of the ballots.  Every piece of logic would suggest that they're probably wrong about that, if nothing else.  So in trying to interpret what the polls are really telling us about the current state of play on the list, there are two basic options - either we can assume that the polls are broadly right about the constituency vote but are underestimating the SNP on the list, or that the polls may be somewhat wrong about both ballots.  (Unless it's by complete chance, they're unlikely to be right about the list and wrong about the constituencies, simply because the constituency question is asked first,)  No matter which of those options you favour, the tactical voting lobby are left with a big problem.  If we can't entirely trust what the polls are saying on either ballot, then all of the incredibly precise "predictions" (ie. projections) of seat numbers that are being used to make the case for tactical voting are completely meaningless.  But if the SNP are being underestimated on the list, and can actually expect to take around 50% or more of the list vote, the projected number of list seats for the party needs to be adjusted upwards.

Take the new Panelbase poll, for example.  If you pump the headline figures into the Scotland Votes calculator, the Greens take nine list seats, the SNP take five list seats, RISE take zero and Solidarity take zero.  But if you make a very modest adjustment to take account of the polling error that was seen in both 2007 and 2011 (ie. if you increase the SNP list vote by 2% and decrease the Green list vote by 2%), all of a sudden the SNP are left with more list seats than the Greens - in spite of sweeping to victory in 66 of the 73 constituency seats.  In that scenario, Green list votes would be "wasted" in slightly more regions than SNP list votes (and of course RISE and Solidarity list votes would be wasted everywhere).  And that's before you even take into account the fact that SNP list votes will be an absolutely vital safety net in the event that they do just slightly worse in the constituencies than this projection supposes - if they take two fewer constituency seats, they would need at least one list seat to retain their overall majority.

So it's categorically not the case (as Tommy Sheridan said to me in our debate a few weeks ago) that only "pessimism" about the SNP's prospects could possibly lead us to think that SNP list votes will not be "wasted".  In fact, even the most conservative optimism about the SNP's prospects on the list vote would mean that we might expect the party to win more list seats than all of the smaller pro-independence parties combined, regardless of the results in the constituencies.

65 comments:

  1. Vote for the party that you want to represent you in parliament, the whole point of AMS is to balance out the FPTP unfairness. If you want to vote SNPx2 then do so, if you prefer the Greens, RISE or Solidarity vote for them. Hell if you want to give your vote to Ruth Davidson then do so. That's what democracy is all about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds to me like a good argument for revising the Holyrood voting system to ensure that representation is genuinely proportional.

      Delete
    2. Proportionality is limited by the fact that in a 129 seat Parliament the lowest vote a completely proportional system can accommodate is 0.7% - one MSP. Parties polling lower than that e.g. RISE and Solidarity, wouldn't get representation without surgery. Suppose you could amputate a leg or something to get three quarters of a person.

      In reality the threshold is much higher. But I am sure those parties will increase their vote share by x 50. In two weeks. And sweep to victory

      Delete
  2. It's not rocket science, if you don't want the Yoons and the Yoon media to destroy Scotland and our lives, you have to use both your votes for the SNP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. SNP x 2

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM

      Is this term Yoon intended to be a subtle way of side stepping being rascist against the British and English?

      Delete
    3. Correct - yoon is racist, like criticism of cybernats/the SNP is anti-Scottish.

      Delete
    4. Just Googled "Yoon"- images for, clearly racist; https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Yoon&client=ubuntu&hs=WNw&channel=fs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG2J33xJ3MAhVSGsAKHWkrBXoQsAQIMg&biw=1138&bih=534 lol...

      Delete
  3. That item in the Sunday Herald that re-opened this whole can of worms was the final straw as far as I am concerned. I will not be buying it again the good will they got from me for supporting the "yes" side before the referendum has finally evaporated.

    I'm all for an objective, lets face it we get precious little of that in print in this country. But I draw the line at finding stories with which to beat the SNP and/or the Scottish Government. The SH witch hunt against the Scottish Police authority is a case in point and we get the obligatory story trashing the single force every weekend and sometimes two. Okay so it hasn't been a glittering record for Police Scotland but I don't need the same stale regurgitated facts spoon fed to me every week, its a boring insult to my intelligence!

    But now they seem to have gone a step further and joined the rest of the media in contriving, shallow and misleading stories (what is commonly called SNP Bad stories)and I'm certainly not paying for that every weekend when I can get it done so much better in the Mail and without the paper thin pretence of continued support for the "yes" cause.

    If the SH wants to be a "yes" supporting anti-SNP paper...good luck to it. I want a pro-SNP paper now as I don't expect more from the SNP Government than competence and as long as they provide that they have my vote all the way down the line. And the Sunday Herald? I can help thinking that, that article was more of a suicide note than and objective piece of journalism as how many of the extra 15% of readers the paper gained from its pro-yes stance does it think come from the ranks of the SNP hating pro yes camp?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't matter how you change the voting system if the people do not understand how it works.

    I would have thought ERS should have come out explaining this not not holding event on the "problem" of their being a predominant party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the Report that Curtice produced:

      THE 2016 SCOTTISH ELECTION BRIEFING
      Possibilities and Problems


      you'll see that it is mainly concerned with explaining the system. The discussion on how tactical voting might work is what was highlighted (and James would argue distorted) by the Herald because it is the most controversial bit and that's what newspapers do.

      Delete
  5. Wasn't it Alex Rowley Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour who was quoted a few weeks ago in the Sunday Herald (that bastion of objective impartiality) as saying:

    "we expect more from the Scottish Government than just competence"

    Like what for example? The party based agenda led lurching from one political complexion to the next that we get in Westminster?

    No...sorry Alex...competence is exactly what we want (as the polls show). We want a Scotland that is run for the Scots and not to suit the Labour or the Conservative parties! And by the way Alex while we are on the subject of competence a competent opposition is also something we would want, but I reckon the SNP can't oppose itself can it? So one out of two will have to do.

    As to tactical voting that might work if Nicola told everybody to vote Green on the list and not SNP. But that would rightly irritate SNP members and supports who think the Greens are bunch of unreliable fruit cakes...will we get competence from them..or will they be telling us all not to eat bacon rolls like they did to the binmen in Brighton (where they control the local council).

    The fact is there are three alternative yes supporting parties we can choose other than the SNP. The Sunday Herald never mentions the splitting of the tactically voting SNP supporters three ways does it? I'm surprised it doesn't quote Professor Curtice as saying that this three way split "would ensure" all three parties get more than 6% and "guarantee" plenty of list votes all round.

    Oh and talking about competence...does it make sense for the Sunday Herald to print such an obvious SNP Bad story and then pretend its doing it to be objective? I'm sure the new editor will be able to console himself that he pissed off all those slavish SNP robots who wont be buying his paper again...errr like me!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good post, but like Wings, Bella and every other independence blog/website you've all failed to point out the most basic fact.

    The unionist objective is not to win at Holyrood, it is simply to attempt to stop an SNP majority, for which their is a real possibility. Without a majority there will be no second referendum in this next parliament as a minority government will not gain enough support in Holyrood to pass this motion and Westminster would not agree. This is true even if some polls consistently show that 70% of the people of Scotland want independence.

    The loss of SNP 6 seats or so will put an end to the independence dream for another five years. Thats what this election is about, nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why do you think the WM parties are so afraid of SNP?

    They are absolutelt terrified that the mass of UK populace will discover that we in Scotland have a competent government that works for the majority of the people and will demand the same!

    Then where would they be?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now , we have Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson openly saying they want to be First Minister ( heaven help us ) .Kezia was on TV last night saying she wants us to give her both votes . Ruth Davidson was also on TV yesterday asking voters to give her both votes . If it is a good idea as they see it , to ask for both votes, why should Nicola Sturgeon be any different , why would you want to split her votes .If you are a YES voter or an SNP supporter you must give both your votes to the SNP ,you cannot afford to dilute Stugeons vote . A minority or coalition government will be five wasted years for Scotland .

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's as I said before. There's no "sweet spot" where you can be reasonably confident that the SNP will sweep all the constituencies but also be reasonably confident that they won't get any (or more than a couple) list seats. The error in the polling is such that the scenario where they lose a few constituencies and so need the list votes to compensate, and the scenario where they do well enough to get a clutch of list seats despite winning all the constituencies, overlap. Particularly when all you have is pan-Scotland polls, not individual regional polls.

    And even in the event of the "sweet spot" being the actual numbers on the day (although that would be pure chance), the best outcome that could reasonably be hoped for would be that for one lost SNP list seat, one Green seat was gained. In what way is this a good deal for SNP supporters? In what way does it advance the cause of independence?

    I note Schrodinger's Cat said on Wings that he isn't posting here any more. I think he doesn't get such a hard time there because of the absence of nested comments. But he really has been beaten to a pulp in the arguments and it's pure stubbornness that keeps him going.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rise are not standing in all seats and neither are the Greens. Hence both are exagerated in the polling.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is the very reason why that odious parasite Dewar used this system for the Scottish Elections.

    There is not a single valid reason why we have to cast our votes twice. The system is only proportional if you use the FPTP votes to calculate the list representatives.

    And never ever forget The Greens voted for THE TRAM! They helped put thousands of Edinburgh Council workers on the dole. And for what? Half a line and an empty city centre. Never forgive them. Not ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a particular fan of Dewar, but I've never really understood why Labour put in place a form of PR for Holyrood. If their intention was to rig the result, wouldn't a pure FPTP system have been better? In 1999, they'd have won pretty much everything, and it's difficult to see how any opposition party would ever have got a foot in the door.

      Delete
    2. The LibDems were very strongly in favour of PR and it would have been very difficult for the Constitutional Convention to have disregarded that. And then there would have been outrage if Tony Blair's administration had disregarded the Constitutional Convention.

      They thought it would be OK anyway as the system they did introduce significantly favours the largest party (Labour, then) and parties with very concentrated geographical support (Labour and the LibDems). They realised that Labour were unlikely to get an overall majority but thought that they could govern more or less in perpetuity in coalition with the LibDems.

      The worst-case scenario from their point of view was the SNP coming in as the largest party. But even then it was assumed either that Labour and the LibDems could combine to prevent the SNP becoming the governing party, or at worst the LibDems would go into coalition with the SNP and prevent an independence referendum and indeed basically thwart the SNP at every turn.

      Where it all went wrong was in May 2007 when not only did McConnell decide he couldn't carry off a LibDem/Labour administration in the face of the one-seat plurality for the SNP, the LibDems then refused a coalition allowing the SNP to govern at it wanted. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Now of course the SNP gets the large-party advantage and everyone is outraged. That arithmetical quirk is another reason why #bothvotesSNP is a better strategy than a spit vote, by the way.

      If you think about it, the original set-up was a gravy train for the LibDems. They were sort of expected to be perpetual junior coalition parties no matter who was the largest party. But they kind of blew it.

      Delete
    3. Didn't Menzies Campbell reveal that Gordon Brown had been concocting a bizarre plan after the 2007 election whereby Nicol Stephen would be FM, and McConnell his deputy? Brown was used to SLAB doing what he told them and was surprised when McConnell declined such an ignominious position. That was the final straw for SLAB's hegemony, I thought, not anything the Lib Dems did - they'd have been perfectly happy to go along with Brown's loony scheme.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM

      As well as having a go at the dead you do not like publicly owned transport. Amazing how a sperm can turn into a venomous vile nat si creature. Clearly you are not allowed out of the country to see what others take for granted in advanced green public transport.
      I always recommend that people should read your filth. It is extra votes for the Union.

      Delete
  12. Also independence is an add on for the Greens. It's maybe 4th or 5th on their list of priorities. Harvie has a strange concept of nationhood. He sees it as a chance to create a Greener Scotland. He doesn't see it as a chance to free our culture, redemocratise our nation and restore Scotland's place in the world. In other words independence is not that important to him per say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harvie has said he sees independence as a way to "create a more equal and democratic society, and a sustainable economy". How is that not "redemocratisation"?

      Delete
  13. Take the new Panelbase poll, for example [...] if you increase the SNP list vote by 2% and decrease the Green list vote by 2%), all of a sudden the SNP are left with more list seats than the Greens - in spite of sweeping to victory in 66 of the 73 constituency seats.

    That's true James, but you omit to point out that of the four seats the Greens would 'lose' in your scenario, only one would got to the SNP while three would go to Labour. So the result would be a nett loss of two to the Indy side, if that sort of thing matters to you.

    The reason for this is that most of the SNP list seats here come in South Scotland where the Panelbase/Scotland Votes model shows the Conservatives winning four constituencies. So the SNP get regional seats in recompense and a pure SNP voter would be wise to votte SNP in the region as well. Obviously if you are only voting SNP tactically in the constituency, than you may switch.

    Getting list seats in other regions is much more difficult because if the SNP win all the constituencies in a region then each regional SNP vote is only worth an extra 1/10th[1] of what a Green (or RISE or UKIP or Lib Dem) regional vote would be - at least till they win their first seat in a region. After that it is still worth only 1/5th. So if you are an SNP voter who has some sympathy with one of those Parties, you may decide it is better value for your vote to support them in the region.

    [1] An extra 1/11th in West and North East and extra 1/9th in Highland and Islands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2011 NE Scotland. 140,749 SNP list votes, divided by 11 = 12,795
      Solidarity got 283
      SSP (RISE) got 1,115
      Green got 10,407

      So the SNP votes 'worth less' were still 45 times the Solidarity vote, 11.4 times the SSP vote and 2,388 more than the Green vote.

      Delete
    2. Roger, you're missing the whole point. I'm not suggesting that we as a pro-independence movement are going make a conscious choice that 2% of Green voters should switch to the SNP. I'm suggesting that history shows the Greens are probably being overestimated by the polls, and that this has to be factored in to any rational voter's decision. If you want to vote "tactically" for the Greens, you can't "choose" to take 2% of the entire electorate with you, for pity's sake! There is no mind control ray available in the shops. So yes, the scenario I painted (which is just one of many, many hypothetical possibilities) is one in which voting SNP on the list is the better bet from a pro-indy point of view.

      Delete
  14. In the central region, the snp are enroute to winning all constituency seats, which means in the list, their vote will be divisible by 9(seats)+1 i.e. if they get 100,000 list votes it will only count as 10,000. Thats 90,000 wasted votes!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2011 Central Scotland
      SNP list votes 108,261. SNP won 6 constituencies.
      SNP vote for the count divided by 7 = 15,465
      Green list votes 5,793

      Delete
    2. Jules, no, no, no. You're talking as if the d'Hondt calculation remains the same for all seven list seats. It doesn't. Any party that wins a list seat will have its vote reduced by d'Hondt for subsequent list seats - and the vote of smaller parties that haven't won any constituency seats will come down much more sharply than a party that has already had its vote divided by ten. Sorry, I know you think you've found a good slogan there, but the arithmetic just doesn't stack up.

      Delete
  15. If the second (list) vote simply took the constituency vote counts it would avoid all the confusion and we'd still get a proper proportionally representative parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that would mean that all Parties would try to put up candidates in all constituencies as the only way to maximise their vote. The SNP and others would lose the benefit of tactical voting from supporters other smaller Parties. I suppose you could get round this by using AV in the constituencies, but it would be a different system.

      There's a little bit of hypocrisy going on here where SNP boosters are happy to accept and promote tactical voting in the constituencies, but denouncing it in the regions.

      Delete
    2. Roger, we're not promoting tactical voting in the constituencies! That's a bizarre claim. But even if we were, it would hardly be hypocritical - because you know as well as I do that tactical voting is far, far less risky in constituency seats than on the list. The only difference between us is that I don't think tactical voting on the list is even realistically possible, because there are too many variables that you can't possibly know about at the moment you cast your vote.

      Delete
    3. If you did that, no Margo.

      Delete
    4. Also, look at the Wee Ginger Dug. He doesn't want to vote for John Mason because Mason opposes same-sex marriage. He doesn't have to, as he can abstain on the constituency vote and still vote SNP on the list.

      If the system took the AM component of the MSPs from the constituency vote, Paul would be forced to vote for John Mason or else not vote at all.

      Delete
  16. If the SNP don't win a clear majority on the constituency votes alone then they have nobody to blame but themselves and their complacency in not addressing the Postal Voting System that most Banana Republic/ Monarchies would be dancing with glee to have.

    The SNP haven't earned my list vote so they aren't getting it. I will be voting for Jean Urquhart of RISE as a personal vote for her and not RISE.

    I have in the past cast personal votes or Margot as I was fortunate enough to be living and working in constituencies at times that I could do that. I voted for the SNP in those elections in the constituency vote.

    There are no guarantees with the list vote and no chance of second guessing what 700,000 postal votes will do to the whole vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The postal votes aren't insecure. The problem isn't really the postal votes as such as the extreme ease of getting on the electoral register even though you're not a bona fide resident of the area. Then give these people a postal vote and it's all too easy.

      But that doesn't add up to huge numbers of votes, and since it's mainly individuals gaming the system on their own initiative, it's quite likely it all more or less cancels out.

      Delete
  17. I'm not voting tactically as I've always voten Green for the list. That ain't going to change.

    Derek

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. Can't argue with that.

      Delete
    2. Apologies! "voted" D.

      Delete
    3. https://rollingpolling2016.wordpress.com/

      the BMG poll for Glasgow means that should the SNP fail to gain all constituencies, perhaps by a late minute scandal targeted at Sturgeon ousting her, then they would be neck and neck with the Greens.

      However if you're a Green supporter then you face the same logic as an SNP voter as far as tactical voting goes. If the Greens genuinely have a shot at a second seat the figures are too close to bolster it by voting SNP. The no tactical voting advice cuts both ways.

      Also worth noting that on those figures both the Greens and SNP are on 4.75 for another seat if the SNP do lose one at constituency level whilst Labour are on 4.2 . The SNP have a margin of only .55 per seat or 5% before they would be lower than Labour if the Greens polled lower than predicted. Boosting any party than the Greens is very risky. If the Green support in Glasgow is down to previous tactical voting then the attempt at electing a RISE list member would simply make the situation wore as all it takes is a drop of just over 1% for Labour to be in line for a 6th seat if it becomes available, assuming they aren't the ones who take a constituency.

      Hideously complicated and enough to conclude just vote how you feel on the list.

      Delete
  18. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 7:22 PM

    If we vote Labour 1& 2 we rid ourselves of the blue Tories and their Yellow pretenders.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 8:04 PM

    Scotlands richest man was interviewed and posed a question, why is Scotlands First Minister against the British Union but for the European Union. She should answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One at a time,and in the EU we can be heard and listened to,Westminster laughs at us because some of us fall for their lies every time,they play us for fun while dipping our back pockets/or purse.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 9:35 PM

      Well we have a Scottish sovereign parliament and a currency union. We have fair trade in the Union and a commin border. We have a shared stock market. We have a shared defense. Now Sturgeon has to answer why she wants to throw it away. Does she have evidense of a boom in standards of living for Scots if we leave the Union and throw in the towel with the EU or does she just hate the English!

      Delete
  20. I don't trust the polls nor the unionist press,I would not be surprised if they were playing with the polls making some of our support complacent and maybe fail to turn out and so we can easily lose seats,I'm really on edge about it.All the talk by rise and solidarity et al,and some folk have already said they will change their vote and vote for them on the list,we(SNP) will need these votes every one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not convinced that they're playing with the poll data. Interpretation, however, is subjective and it suits the MSM's agenda to set supporters of pro-independence parties at each other's throats.

      Delete
    2. The poll data cannot be massaged as there are now strict rules that the polling companies have to adhere to. It doesn't however stop the newspapers putting a spin on the data such as the Herald including all the don't knows/won't vote in the headline figures in yesterday's poll. The newspaper would not want to tell it's readers that the SNP were polling at 55%.

      Delete
  21. Glasgow Working Class 2April 19, 2016 at 10:24 PM

    Nat si Tartan Tories are so near to the Tories on not taxing the rich. All the Nat si lies about foodbanks and welfare down the tube. Real opportunist scumbags.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry James,Hillary up 58 to 42 with 90% in. The female over 30 vote again is staggering. Might be over 75%. Blacks she is again out performing Obama. Hispanics 2 to 1. We might have a shy black female voter thing going on here. Great speech by her. Just thought I'd update you as I saw your tweet. You are 100 % correct on voting both SNP. no one over here even gets why there is a discussion. Jefferson and Hamilton and all formed their own parties in the 1790's..more than a decade AFTER we got independence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear oh dear,

    Kezia has re-emerged from the bunker as she has probably decided it is safe to come out after her 'Trying to work for the SNP' expose, as well as her 'U-TURN-ATHON'

    Only to announce that 'Scottish' (no laughing at the back) Labour, will include a commitment to scrap Trident in their election manifesto!

    Before the news had even reached the Scottish Labour Political Campaigns Management Committee (THE BBC) another row has broken out, with news that the Westminster MP's are not too pleased that the Tories will be able to turn Kez'z wee attempt at giving us Scots something we actually want, into a taunt about Labour going soft on 'OUR' (no laughing at the front) Nuclear Deterrent.

    Will the bookies be taking bets on how long it is before Kez performs her latest U-Turn?

    You simply could not make this stuff up, it's hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Being a branch manager has it's risks. Best to consult head office before opening one's mouth. :)

      Delete
    2. Aye. Mind what happened to Wendy after her "bring it on" moment. Autonomy of thought is not well regarded by SLab's superiors.

      Delete
    3. She won't have to worry about opening her mouth after 5th of May. Anas, the new branch manager won't let her.

      Delete
    4. If they eject Kez and elect Anas as their next leader, Murphy's reign of chaos will seem like a golden age.

      Delete
  24. So wee nippy fae the chippie has effectively ruled out another indyref. The saor elbowists will be raging!

    "Whit dae ye mean thur'll be nae indyref?? We demand oor right tae get skelped in a public vote!!!

    Freeeeeduuuuuumbb!!"

    Aldo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 20, 2016 at 7:46 PM

      Wee Knickerless is not so dumb she knows most Scots are not going to vote to impose poverty on themselves. She will cling onto power and increase the bank balance. Maybe eventually be Lady Irvine or Anderston.
      At least her and Eck have given up on the Celtic Tiger, Iceland and Norway which their dumb members swallowed.

      Delete
  25. My, My! they let you both out at the same time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2April 20, 2016 at 9:14 PM

      Only me. But us Brits have you Nat sis in a corner. Economic disaster or continued prosperity in the Union. What will it be? Now no more hard done tae anti Tory stories. You have joined theTories with your austerity.

      Delete
  26. If I were living in Lothian I would have a big dilemma. I happen to like Colin Fox and Andy Wightman. I think they could both bring something to the Holyrood Parliament. I have a lot of time for Wightman, pity about his Party though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to add that Wightman is only second on the Green list for Lothian. So I likely wouldn't vote for Greens there as I detest their first choice on the list.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2April 21, 2016 at 1:35 AM

      Hardly matters who you like it is about competence and who can run the economy and give economic prosperity for all.

      Delete
  27. James, just admit it, you dinnae really ken whit yer on about.

    ReplyDelete