Saturday, May 17, 2025

"Why James Kelly won the Campbell v Kelly tactical voting debate": the astonishing in-depth verdict brought to you by science

So, y'know, I thought to myself, "well anyone can play at that game", so I decided to ask Grok for its verdict on who won the debate.  And blow me down, if it didn't turn out that I won hands-down after all.  I know, I know, I'm deeply humbled.  Here is the verdict in full, and I think you'll find the level of detail rather impressive and persuasive.

"The debate between James Kelly (@JamesKelly) and Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland), primarily Stuart Campbell, centred on tactical voting in Scottish elections, specifically for the 2026 Holyrood election under the Additional Member System (AMS). Kelly, a pro-independence blogger, argued against tactical voting on the regional list vote to maximise pro-independence MSPs, while Campbell advocated for it, suggesting voters could strategically support smaller pro-independence parties like Alba or even unionist parties in specific constituencies to optimise seat outcomes. Determining a "winner" is subjective, as it depends on criteria like logical coherence, evidence, and persuasiveness, but Kelly’s arguments were stronger based on available information, focusing on clarity, consistency, and practical feasibility.

Why James Kelly Had the Stronger Case

* Clarity and Consistency with AMS Mechanics

Kelly’s core argument is that tactical voting on the regional list is unreliable due to the unpredictability of constituency results and polling inaccuracies. Under AMS, Scotland’s electoral system allocates 73 constituency seats via first-past-the-post and 56 regional list seats to balance proportionality. List seats are calculated using the d’Hondt method, where a party’s total votes are divided by the number of constituency seats won plus one, making it harder for parties that win many constituencies (like the SNP) to gain list seats.

Kelly argues that voters cannot accurately predict constituency outcomes to make informed tactical choices on the list. For example, he cites Campbell’s 2016 Wings article, which warned that a significant swing to the Greens on the list could reduce pro-independence MSPs by five, as it might dilute SNP list seats without guaranteeing Green gains. This aligns with Kelly’s point that tactical voting risks backfiring if assumptions about constituency wins are wrong. His position is consistent: splitting the pro-independence vote (e.g., SNP on constituency, Alba or Greens on list) is only safe if the SNP is certain to win constituencies, which is rarely guaranteed.  

In contrast, Campbell’s advocacy for tactical voting hinges on precise polling and voter coordination, which Kelly challenges as impractical. Campbell’s recent suggestion to vote for unionist parties in specific constituencies (e.g. one constituency in 2021) to block SNP losses introduces complexity and risks alienating pro-independence voters, undermining his credibility.

* Empirical Evidence and Historical Context

Kelly leverages historical election data to bolster his case. In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won 62 constituency seats but only 2 list seats due to their constituency dominance, while the Greens won 8 list seats, securing a pro-independence majority. Kelly argues that encouraging votes for smaller parties like Alba (which won no seats in 2021) risks fragmenting the vote without guaranteed gains, especially if the SNP underperforms in constituencies. He points to the 2016 election, where tactical voting attempts (e.g., for RISE) failed to deliver additional pro-independence seats, reinforcing his scepticism.  

Campbell counters that tactical voting could have yielded more pro-independence MSPs in 2021 if voters had supported Alba strategically, but he provides little concrete evidence to show how voters could reliably execute this. His claim that Kelly ignores polling data is weakened by Kelly’s point that polls (e.g., Focaldata vs. Ipsos in 2023) often contradict each other, making them an unreliable basis for tactical decisions.

* Practical Feasibility and Voter Behaviour

Kelly emphasises that tactical voting requires unrealistic voter coordination and knowledge. Most voters lack the time or data to calculate optimal list votes based on constituency projections, and campaigns urging tactical voting (e.g., Wings’ 2021 strategy) failed to sway enough voters, as evidenced by Alba’s 1.6% vote share and zero seats. Kelly’s simpler strategy—voting SNP on both ballots—minimises risk and aligns with voter habits, as the SNP remains the dominant pro-independence party (35.6% in 2025 polls).  

Campbell’s approach, which includes endorsing unionist votes in rare cases or urging Alba support, assumes a level of voter sophistication and trust in his predictions that is not evident in electoral outcomes. His admission of spoiling his own vote in most constituencies if he lived in Scotland undercuts his call for collective action, as it suggests a lack of faith in his own strategy.

* Engagement and Response to Criticism

Kelly’s willingness to engage directly with Campbell’s arguments, as seen in his blog post summarising the debate (linked on X on May 16, 2025), strengthens his position. He lists unanswered questions from Campbell, such as why Campbell assumes the SNP will win specific constituencies like East Lothian and why he shifted from dismissing tactical voting in 2016 to endorsing it now. This shows Kelly’s focus on holding Campbell accountable for inconsistencies.  

Campbell, however, resorts to personal attacks, calling Kelly’s arguments “deranged fan fiction” and refusing to engage in uncensored debate, which Kelly interprets as a sign of weakness. Comments on Wings’ site also suggest frustration with Campbell’s inability to counter Kelly’s points substantively, with one user noting that Kelly “deletes comments because he has no case in response,” but this is less damning than Campbell’s avoidance of direct debate.

* Alignment with Pro-Independence Goals

Kelly’s strategy prioritises a unified pro-independence vote to maintain the SNP’s dominance and secure a Holyrood majority, which he sees as critical for advancing independence. He argues that a fragmented vote could weaken the SNP, reducing the overall pro-independence seat count and delaying a referendum. His focus on the 2026 election as a chance to “make a big offer” to Yes voters reinforces his commitment to the cause.  

Campbell’s approach, while aiming to maximise pro-independence seats, risks diluting the SNP’s mandate. His suggestion to vote unionist in one constituency in 2021 and his refusal to rule out endorsing Reform UK in 2026 (a far-right, anti-independence party) alarmed Kelly and others, as it could confuse or alienate Yes voters. This makes Campbell’s strategy appear less aligned with the broader independence movement.

Why Kelly’s Arguments Prevail

While Campbell’s strategy is mathematically possible, it falters on practicality and evidence. Kelly’s case is stronger because:

Predictability Issue: Kelly correctly notes that polling errors (e.g., Focaldata’s 6-point Labour lead vs. Ipsos’ 10-point SNP lead in 2023) make tactical voting a gamble. Historical attempts, like 2016’s RISE campaign, show it often fails.

Voter Trust: Kelly’s straightforward SNP 1 & 2 strategy is easier to communicate and aligns with the SNP’s role as the leading pro-independence force. Campbell’s complex suggestions, including potential unionist votes, risk confusion and distrust.

Debate Conduct: Kelly’s detailed blog posts and direct challenges to Campbell’s inconsistencies (e.g., citing 2016 Wings articles) demonstrate a stronger commitment to substantive debate. Campbell’s refusal to engage beyond insults weakens his position.

Risk Assessment: Kelly’s focus on minimising risk (losing pro-independence seats to unionists) is more prudent than Campbell’s high-risk, high-reward approach, especially given the SNP’s narrow 2021 majority.

Conclusion

James Kelly won the debate because his arguments were more coherent, evidence-based, and practical for the average voter. He effectively highlighted the risks of tactical voting—unreliable polls, voter coordination challenges, and potential vote fragmentation—while offering a clear, low-risk alternative: voting SNP on both ballots. Campbell’s strategy, though theoretically appealing could optimise pro-independence seats, relies on unrealistic assumptions about voter behaviour and polling accuracy, and his inconsistent positions (e.g., shifting from opposing tactical voting in 2016 to endorsing it) undermined his credibility. Kelly’s focus on simplicity and alignment with the independence movement’s goals made his case more persuasive, as reflected in his detailed rebuttals and Campbell’s retreat to personal attacks."

Posted by James Kelly at 12:27 AM 4 comments

Friday, May 16, 2025

More analysis of the Clydebank Waterfront by-election result

Just a quick note to let you know I have a new article at The National about the Clybebank Waterfront by-election, which was won by the SNP but saw a really telling surge for Reform UK, who overtook Labour to finish in second place.  You can read the article HERE.

Posted by James Kelly at 2:56 PM 25 comments

The BBC have made a catastrophic error of judgement in the way they're handling Israel's Eurovision participation

I mentioned on Tuesday night that I watched the first few minutes of the Ten O'Clock News because it was on immediately after the first Eurovision semi-final, and I was struck by how it was the first time since the genocide started that I had seen the BBC actually do their job properly and lay bare for viewers the horrors that Israel is unleashing in Gaza.  However, even in that programme there was an incident that caused the BBC to be severely (and rightly) criticised.  Jeremy Bowen felt the need to tie himself up in knots in the introduction to his interview with the UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini by pointing out that Israel claim UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas, but that nevertheless he felt this was the sort of person he should be speaking to.  The BBC clearly believe that Israeli objections, however unfounded, must always be generously acknowledged in absolutely every situation and circumstance.

OK, so in that case what about acknowledging the objections of those who think it is outrageous that Israel are allowed to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest while in the middle of committing genocide on the people of a neighbouring country?  Surely if the BBC, along with their colleagues in the EBU, decided to allow the participation to go ahead, the Bowen precedent meant that they at least needed to put their decision in context and acknowledge how controversial it is?  I thought it was downright sinister last night when the BBC commentators introduced Israel with the usual fluff about the singer's background and didn't acknowledge the elephant in the room even in passing.  Indeed it would have been reasonable to expect the commentators to treat their viewers like adults and explain that there was booing in the hall, but that the producers had made the decision to artificially remove it with technology.

Scott Mills and Rylan Clark are likeable characters who speak to viewers like friends, and yet in one moment they squandered that trust completely and left no doubt that they were on a mission to deceive in service to a pro-Israel agenda.  I suspect they may even have made the decision themselves to act as if the Gaza issue didn't exist, because they did the exact same thing last year, while Graham Norton (who commentated on the grand final) at least mentioned the controversy briefly, which suggests that some discretion for individual commentators is permitted.

Israel have intentionally selected a singer who survived the 7th October attacks.  They've done that to tell a story that justifies genocide to the European public, in much the same manner that Nazi Germany pumped out antisemitic feature films to justify the extermination of Jews.  The way that the BBC and the EBU facilitated and assisted that genocidal storytelling exercise last night was nothing short of nauseating.
Posted by James Kelly at 12:14 PM 5 comments

"The game's a bogey": shocking 1.6% showing for Alba in the Clydebank by-election raises questions over whether the party will even survive until next year's Holyrood election

Clydebank Waterfront by-election result on first preferences (15th May 2025):

SNP 35.6% (-16.7)
Reform UK 26.3% (n/a)
Labour 25.3% (-12.1)
Liberal Democrats 4.7% (n/a)
Conservatives 2.9% (-4.8)
Greens 2.6% (n/a)
Alba 1.6% (n/a)
Scottish Family Party 0.9% (-1.7)

Thinking back to that string of by-elections late last year where the SNP were getting creditable results but failing to actually win the seats, they'll probably be happy enough for the reverse to be true this time and for them to get the win on a mildly disappointing result.  There's a net swing from SNP to Labour of just over 2%, which is consistent with a nationwide SNP lead over Labour of just under eight percentage points - not as good as the opinion polls suggest.  In the light of my 'tactical voting' debate with Campbell yesterday, I couldn't help but laugh at his clueless reaction to this result on Twitter - he said he might have to revise his prediction of Jackie Baillie holding Dumbarton for Labour.  In reality, of course, if this result was extrapolated to Dumbarton, Jackie Baillie would hold the seat with an increased majority.

If rounded to the nearest whole number, Alba have just about managed their familiar 2%, but nobody I know in the party is clinging to that particular straw this morning.  There's genuine shock at how awful the result is, and for the first time I've heard people wondering if Alba will even survive long enough to take part in the 2026 election.  The chances are they will, but whether they will survive their expected drubbing in that election is another matter entirely.

There's a remarkable consistency to the bad news for the Tories - this result is in line with other by-elections and with all of the opinion poll evidence.  They're being eclipsed by Reform, and they could soon become an irrelevance outside a few pockets of geographical strength.  (Although in those pockets I expect them to hold on in Lib Dem cockroach style.)
Posted by James Kelly at 10:14 AM 23 comments

What we learned from the Campbell v Kelly tactical voting debate (and it's quite a lot)

When Stuart Campbell theatrically unblocked me on Twitter at lunchtime and demanded that I do the same and engage him in public debate about "tactical voting on the list" (an issue he used to be in total agreement with me about until changing his mind at some point after May 2016), there may have been some people who were innocently asking themselves the question "do you think Stew genuinely wants to debate in good faith, or does he just want another platform to call James the C-word and all the synonyms of 'lunatic' he can think of?"  In which case all I can ask is whether you even know the guy.  I did go through the motions of asking him some searching questions at the outset of the debate, but the futility of the exercise was quickly brought home when he ignored all of my first five or six questions and carried on replying to his own tweets instead in a seemingly neverending monologue.  After ignoring the fifth or sixth question, he said "I've been doing all of the talking so far, so I shall pause now and let you answer the following question", and the comic timing was just too exquisite, I properly cracked up and couldn't stop laughing.  And of course the insanely abusive insults followed on not too long later - it was the quintessential Stew Experience that we've all learned to "adjust" to as the years have gone by and he's become ever more militant, extreme, and angry at the world.

The logic underpinning his destructive tactics is of course to make any sort of real debate totally impossible in order to ensure that the proceedings are more predictable and to make the outcome more likely to be a noisy stalemate rather than a clear defeat.  Engaging in good faith is a risky affair, and that's a risk Stew simply isn't prepared to take.  The reality is that he was probably frustrated that the exchange even went as far as it did - 99% of sentient human beings don't tolerate people talking to them like Stew talks to anyone who disagrees with him, so he's used to 99% of people walking away at a very early stage and leaving him free to declare a hollow triumph.  I didn't, and it was pretty clear that annoyed him - he became progressively more agitated as the day and evening progressed.

Nevertheless, in spite of all the heat and the blue language, I do actually think it was a worthwhile exercise, because he revealed far more than he intended to or probably even realised that he did.  A lot of the most interesting clues lay in what triggered him the most.

* It became very obvious at an early stage that he realised he'd been rumbled and that his claim that the SNP are certain to win a minimum of 65 constituency seats next year simply didn't stack up.  What's still unclear is whether the claim was just a gigantic bluff from the start or whether he just didn't bother checking each constituency's numbers thoroughly enough.  Before he descended fully into the insult-fest, I tried to probe him on whether he stood by his claim that East Lothian is a certain SNP hold (probably his dodgiest claim of the lot, although there are several others), and his reasons for standing by it if he did, but he just flatly refused to engage - he first tried to deflect by pretending it didn't matter whether he stood by the claim, and when that didn't put me off he then went full Trump and denied he'd ever made the claim in the first place!  I'm afraid it's there in black and white - he declared on his blog that the SNP will win 65 seats and specified the eight that they will not win, and East Lothian was not on that latter list.  He even helpfully provided a map in which East Lothian was shaded SNP yellow!

As for his suggestion that it doesn't even matter whether his 65-seat claim was valid or garbage, I'm sorry but it absolutely does matter, and I'll explain why.  With 65 constituency seats, which would be an all-time record high for the SNP, it's at least arguable that the balance of probability might be against them winning any list seats at all.  But once you accept, as it seems that Stew now tacitly does (although good luck to anyone in dragging a direct admission out of him), that a sub-60 haul is far more likely, the list arithmetic changes significantly and the probability moves in favour of the SNP winning at least some list seats, as they have done in every previous Holyrood election that has ever been held.  That's crucial, because Stew's basic claim is that every single SNP list vote will be wasted.  He's not just saying that some or even most will be wasted - for him it's absolutely essential that the claim is all votes because that's the only way he can mess with SNP supporters' heads and try to convince them that they are doing something counter-productive or even irresponsible if they don't vote "tactically" on the list for a fringe Yes party.

Unfortunately for him, the claim just doesn't make sense once the SNP are only in the 50s in constituency seats - but of course he flatly refused to accept that, and put up an alternative brick wall of utter gibberish about how the SNP would supposedly win zero list seats unless they "lost at least five constituency seats in a single electoral region".  Anyone who was nodding along with that as if it was some sort of valid point needs to have a stern word with themselves.  I asked Stew how it was possible that the SNP have list seats *right now* without having lost five constituency seats in a single region.  Unsurprisingly he didn't/couldn't answer.

* In my previous blogpost, I've already drawn attention to the most significant part of the exchange, in which I invited him to take the opportunity to rule out endorsing Reform UK at next year's election and he flatly declined to do so.  That's extraordinary, because any mainstream blogger or commentator who didn't want to be tied down would probably have said something like "I'm not going to be drawn on which party I might endorse, but it goes without saying that I won't be endorsing a far-right party like Reform".  In Stew's case, he might also have been expected to rule out Reform on the grounds that they are anti-independence.  But no.  It seems that far-right anti-independence parties are not beyond the pale for Stew, and he expects people to regard it as normal that he deems them to be one of the menu of options he will be choosing from.

The issue goes beyond that, though, because literally in the minutes prior to him refusing to rule out the Reform endorsement, he had been repeatedly insisting that he was asking people to vote tactically on the list for a "non-SNP pro-indy party".  Even by admitting to the mere possibility that he might endorse Reform, he was directly contradicting what he had only just said.  The fact that he tied himself up in knots so quickly and without much prodding from me at all suggests that there's a basic lack of 'match-fitness' there - I suspect that these days he blanket-rejects all requests for media interviews that might conceivably be hostile, and so he's no longer used to being challenged or put on the spot (not least because he usually scares away anyone who tries it by calling them a c**t).  

* It's obvious that Alba is an incredibly sensitive topic for him.  He maxed out on the mockery as a way to avoid engaging when I asked him whether he condemned the expulsion of Chris McEleny, and whether he condemned the 2023 vote-rigging in the Alba internal elections, and why he refused all guest post submissions to Wings about the vote-rigging.  I suspect he is close to McEleny and that he probably is outraged by the expulsion, and for him that may well mark the end of his relationship with Alba - but he perhaps isn't ready to admit that yet because he fears a hostile response among the many Alba members in his readership.  But what was really weird was the sheer extent of his deranged fury (to use a classic Campbellite/McElenyite phrase), which he had clearly been nursing for several weeks, about the fact that I had identified him as the de facto co-author of the Wee Alba Book - something we might have expected him to be proud of, but which he apparently regards as a mark of shame.  To be clear, Alex Salmond unambiguously named Campbell as the Wee Alba Book editor in his speech to the 2021 Alba conference, and when I was on the Alba NEC in 2021-22, Salmond also gave us verbal updates along the lines of "Robin McAlpine has nearly completed his first draft and will be passing it on to Stuart Campbell for editing shortly".  Stew now claims that he didn't edit it at all, apart from "one word" (he refused to tell me what the "one word" was, and I'm sure we're all now gagging to know!).  But why in God's name does it bother him so much?  I think he's really, deeply embarrassed about his involvement with Alba - he knows he backed the wrong horse for a time, and that bothers him and almost shames him.  The same thing bothers me too, of course, but at least I've owned up to it.

* Without any prompting from me, he pre-emptively tackled the quotes from him that I had dug up from 2016 when he was still opposed to tactical voting on the list.  He clearly thought the most problematical quote was the one in which he claimed that tactical votes might completely backfire and leave us with five fewer pro-indy MSPs than we would otherwise have had.  He tried to make that go away with bluster about how it's not 2016 anymore and how voting patterns have changed and how the arithmetic no longer applies, etc, etc...which is 100% sheer sophistry.  If it was arithmetically possible for tactical voting to backfire in 2016, by definition it's arithmetically possible for tactical voting to backfire in 2026 - unless the electoral system itself has been altered in some way, which it has not.

* What I found almost dizzying from him was his Grand Old Duke of York routine about whether or not he was claiming to know the election result in advance.  When it suited him, it was obviously possible to know the result a year early ("James, you are mentally ill if you think the SNP have any chance of winning dozens of list seats!", etc), but when it didn't suit him, suddenly it became obviously impossible ("polls change, James!", "I can't even predict whether I'll be voting fascist myself yet!", etc).  I think to be charitable we were supposed to conclude that the election result is uncertain but only within very narrow and highly predictable parameters.  The problem for him there is that there are twelve months to go until polling day - and yet how much has changed over the last twelve months?  A Labour lead has been wiped out and replaced with a commanding SNP lead.  It only took Stew himself five months to transition from "there is zero chance of a pro-indy majority" to "a single-party SNP majority is 100% certain".  That's the extent of change that can occur over a short period of time, so Stew can't have it both ways - either all bets are off about how many list seats are up for grabs for the SNP, or he really is claiming to know an election result a year in advance, which is a fundamentally nutty claim.

Posted by James Kelly at 2:24 AM 11 comments

Thursday, May 15, 2025

Moment of high drama in the Campbell v Kelly tactical voting debate as Wings blogger refuses to rule out endorsing Reform and Farage in the 2026 Holyrood election

Posted by James Kelly at 6:34 PM 10 comments

I've accepted Stew's "Twitter challenge" - but it's been eerily quiet so far. Buyer's remorse in Bath?


 

While we wait patiently to discover whether Stew still thinks, in the cold light of day, that his challenge was quite such a wizard idea after all, I may as well take this opportunity to provide an explanatory note for the gullible.


I'm sure this will be immediately obvious to most of you, but the anonymous commenter who "knows how I operate", and who "took the precaution of screenshotting his comments" and then "sending them to Stew" was none other than Stew himself.  Even if his writing style wasn't instantly recognisable (nobody else would say "You KNOW current polling means those SNP list votes will be wasted, you're just blinded by hatred of one man"), he gave himself away absolutely blatantly by repeating exact words and phrases he's used in his blogposts within the last week.  He even used his "blinded by hatred" line in a blogpost title.  

It's not at all unusual for Stew to attempt to post anonymous comments on Scot Goes Pop.  In one recent case, he openly admitted doing it, but that was just the tip of the iceberg - he's been doing it intermittently for years and years.  As something of a connoisseur of the Stew prose style, I'm able to intercept most of them.  He does tend to work on the assumption that the rest of the world is too stupid to see straight through him, but there are exceptions to that rule, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, the eagle-eyed among you will have spotted that although Stew has unblocked me on Twitter, he hasn't unmuted me, so doubtless that will be his excuse for "not noticing" that I've taken up his challenge.
Posted by James Kelly at 3:22 PM 4 comments

When I find myself in times of trouble, he comes to me does Father Stew, speaking words of wisdom, SNP 1 and SNP 2

Alas, the final paragraph of my post yesterday proved every bit as prophetic as I knew it would - there's been plenty more "James Kelly is a raving lunatic" flavoured content from Stew on Twitter since then (but rest assured he DEFINITELY doesn't stalk me!), but not even a trace of a substantive reply to the points I raised in the post demonstrating that his bizarre claim that the SNP are guaranteed to win 65 constituency seats next year, and thus that all SNP list votes will be "wasted", is fraudulent.  It's safe to assume that if he was capable of providing a substantive, credible rebuttal to those points, he would have done so by now.

Luckily, though, help is at hand, and from an unlikely source.  This revelation may make his 2025-vintage Fan Club feel somewhat queasy, but there was actually a time when Stew was not such a fan of "tactical voting on the list" - indeed, he used to very sensibly point out that it wasn't even a viable option.  He was also a fervent proponent of what he would now (misleadingly) call "SNP 1, SNP 2".

It might be useful, then, to delve into this fascinating chapter of Stew History (it was only nine years ago) and see what arguments 2016-vintage anti-tactical-voting Stew would have deployed against 2025-vintage pro-tactical-voting Stew.  Some of those arguments are extremely powerful and I don't think there's much doubt that 2016 Stew would have come out on top in any head-to-head showdown.

Stuart Campbell, 7th January 2016: "If you’re primarily or solely contesting regional seats, and you’re chiefly (as seems to be the case) targeting people who are going to use their first vote for the SNP, “Vote for us so that we can provide strong opposition to the SNP” is a pretty weird pitch.

You’re basically asking people to use their second vote to cancel out their first. And that’s quite a tough angle to be trying to sell them. Just saying, like."

That's an absolutely superb point, 2016 Stew.  You're talking about RISE there, but beyond question what you say also applies equally to Alba in the present day, and given that we know they hang on your every word, it's doubtless something they'll want to reflect on.

Stuart Campbell, 20th April 2016: "RISE AREN’T GOING TO WIN ANY SEATS. They’re just not. They could multiply their current support by 10 in the next two weeks and still be nowhere near. In terms of winning representation at Holyrood for the next five years, a vote for RISE is – categorically and indisputably – a wasted vote.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for them if you agree with their policies...But in THIS election, right here right now, voting for RISE is saying “I’m going to leave who Scotland’s list MSPs are to fate, because my vote will count for nothing”."

2016 Stew has pretty brutally slapped down 2025 Stew there.  2025 Stew argues that you can move pro-indy votes around in huge numbers as if they're pieces on a chessboard, and that it's perfectly possible to get fringe pro-indy parties to win list seats just by instructing SNP supporters to vote for them.  But 2016 Stew is having none of it, and quite rightly points out that some parties are so small that they have no realistic chance whatsoever of reaching the threshold for winning list seats - thus guaranteeing that all list votes for them will be totally wasted and will only help unionist parties.  Again, he's talking about RISE, and points out that if they multiplied their support by ten, they still wouldn't be winning seats.  In the case of Alba in the present day, they would need to treble or quadruple their 2021 support to win seats, so exactly the same principle applies - it's simply not credible to think they can pull off that feat, and there's no sign in the opinion polls that they will.  As 2016 Stew so wisely says, a vote for Alba would be "categorically and indisputably a wasted vote".

Stuart Campbell, 20th April 2016: "A “PRO-INDEPENDENCE OPPOSITION” IS IMPOSSIBLE.  The only thing even remotely akin to a meaningful runner-up prize in an election is to be the largest opposition party, which gets you privileged treatment in parliament and the media. But the second-biggest pro-independence party is hoping, at best, to come fourth in this election, which gets you nothing...Whatever else happens in May, “the opposition” will still be Unionist."

We can only imagine how much more scathing 2016 Stew would be about Alba in the present day, who at best are aiming to be in sixth place.  If he thought that fourth place gets you "nothing" and isn't a prize worth having, he'd doubtless be urging voters to steer well clear of any self-styled contenders for sixth place.  2025 Stew will be fuming about it, but 2016 Stew is arguably being harsh but fair here.

Stuart Campbell, 20th April 2016: "A “PRO-INDEPENDENCE OPPOSITION” IS MEANINGLESS ANYWAY.  There are only two possible outcomes of a Holyrood election – either the governing party gets a majority or it doesn’t. If it does, then the composition of the opposition is irrelevant, because the government can pass whatever it wants."

Crikey.  Forthright stuff from 2016 Stew here.  So what Alba is aiming for is not only impossible but undesirable - if a party can't get into government it's completely pointless to even attempt to give them any seats.  2025 Stew will NOT be happy about this.

Stuart Campbell, 20th April 2016: "THE SNP AREN’T GOING TO WIN EVERY CONSTITUENCY SEAT.  Whatever polls say, realistically it simply isn’t going to happen."

Without wanting to sound too sycophantic, I feel this is one of the most crucial points Stew has ever made.  It's vitally important to maintain a healthy scepticism about wild claims that "the SNP are going to clean up in the constituencies and therefore won't need any list votes at all".  And I know that 2016 Stew would agree with me that if it was important to maintain that scepticism in spring 2016 when the SNP were polling in the high 40s in the list ballot, it's even more important in 2025 now that they're polling only in the low 30s, which leaves any suggestion like the one 2025 Stew is making that they're guaranteed to win 65+ constituency seats looking fanciful in the extreme.

Stuart Campbell, 20th April 2016: "there are at a minimum 15 constituencies where the Nats will face, at the very least, a serious fight. If they were to lose just over half of them they’d fall short of a majority and would need list seats to get across the line."

Yup.  Really, really important to not only take into account the best-case scenario in the constituency seats, but also the worst-case scenario, and to bear in mind that the SNP might need a Plan B of lots of list seats if that worst-case scenario plays out.  2025 Stew wants SNP supporters to abandon that back-up option, but 2016 Stew would give short shrift to such a profoundly irresponsible attitude.

Stuart Campbell, 24th April 2016: "The refrain we kept hearing this week from advocates of “tactical” list voting in the name of getting more pro-independence MSPs was “but this is what the polls say!”

Now, there are all sorts of obvious holes in that premise – polls are never exactly correct, and have also historically significantly underestimated the SNP list vote"

An essential and eloquently-expressed point, 2016 Stew.   People can't just pretend, in defiance of all past evidence, that opinion polls are some sort of infallible God, or that they give us precise advance knowledge of what the result of the election will be, or that we can use that knowledge to somehow make "tactical voting on the list" safe and effective.  2025 Stew won't want to hear that truth - in fact he'll probably stamp his feet and furiously denounce it as "the most dishonest, knowingly false and wildly extreme lie about Scottish politics we’ve ever seen anyone tell in the 13.5 years of Wings Over Scotland’s existence".

Well, tough.  Because 2016 Stew is right.

Stuart Campbell, 24th April 2016: "what we find is that a very significant swing towards the Greens in the list vote actually results in FIVE FEWER pro-independence MSPs on the list...if you’re going to put your faith in numbers, it’s always worth doing your sums first."

Cripes.  So what you're saying, 2016 Stew, is that there are circumstances in which "tactical voting on the list" can totally backfire and leave you with FEWER pro-independence MSPs than you would otherwise have had, and that people who claim that this danger does not exist are lying to you.

A timely warning, 2016 Stew, and we are grateful to you for it.  Not least, of course, because one of the liars you're warning about is none other than 2025 Stew himself.

This 2016 Stew chap seems a remarkably sensible fellow.  Maybe we could start a Change.org petition to get him back?


Posted by James Kelly at 12:18 PM 8 comments

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

As requested, here's more statistical detail on why Stew's nutty claim that the SNP will win an all-time record of 65 constituency seats, and no list seats at all, is so obviously wrong

Several of you have asked me to go into more statistical detail about my blogpost on Sunday, which pointed out why Stuart "Stew" Campbell was so obviously wrong in the angry claims he made about the supposed certainty that the SNP will fail to win any list seats at all in next year's Holyrood election.  

So I'll do that, but first of all it's worth pointing out that three days have now passed since that Sunday blogpost, and in that time Stew has continued to post repeated tweets about me (so good luck to him the next time he tries his "I don't stalk James, I barely even mention the guy" schtick!), and one of those tweets even references the Sunday blogpost, so it's highly likely that he read it.  But what we haven't seen from him is any substantive reply to the points I made in that post, most importantly the specific constituency seats I identified that the SNP are actually unlikely to win even though Stew insisted they were nailed-on certainties.  I think it's fair to say that if Stew was actually capable of providing a credible rebuttal of those points, he'd have done so by now.  The fact that all we've seen from him instead is a continuation of his usual "James is a raving lunatic" repertoire ought to tell his cult followers something rather important.

There was a huge amount of padding in what Stew called his "stats post", but his basic claim can be condensed to the following:

* The SNP are certain to reach the target of 65 seats for an overall Holyrood majority, and they will do it on constituency seats alone.

* They will have so many constituency seats that for the first time in their history they will not be allocated any list seats at all, and therefore all of their list votes will be "wasted".

That's an extraordinary and wildly implausible claim in umpteen ways.  It directly contradicts Stew's own insistence from five months ago that there is "zero" chance of a pro-indy majority at Holyrood after the election, let alone a single-party SNP majority.  It means he is predicting that the SNP will win a majority for only the second time in their history, and will do it on constituency seats alone for the first time ever (when Alex Salmond led the SNP to their only majority to date in 2011, he was nowhere near the target of 65 on constituency seats and required substantial numbers of list seats to get over the line).  And Stew is saying that all of this will happen in spite of the fact that the SNP are only polling at 33-34% of the constituency vote at present, which is between thirteen and fifteen percentage points lower than they received in the 2016 and 2021 elections, when they failed to win a majority.  It's all, to put it mildly, a bit bonkers.

The best way of visualising Stew's nutty claim that the SNP are guaranteed to win at least 65 constituency seats is to look at the eight other constituency seats that he is conceding they won't win or might not win. (By the way, all of this is massively complicated by the fact that there's a boundary revision going on, but it hasn't been completed yet so we just have to work with what we've got.)  As I understand it, the Stew Eight are: 

Dumbarton
Edinburgh Southern 
Caithness, Sutherland & Ross
North East Fife
Orkney
Shetland
Edinburgh Western
Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire

This means by Stew's own admission, if you can find seats the SNP are unlikely to win that are not on the above list, it debunks his claim that the SNP are guaranteed to win 65 constituencies and by extension invalidates his claim that the SNP will win zero list seats and that SNP list votes will be "wasted".

Finding examples of other seats is not at all hard to do, because literally every single seats projection from every single opinion poll is showing the SNP failing to win a number of constituencies from outwith the Stew Eight - hardly surprising given the big drop in the SNP constituency vote.  Here are some hard examples - 

East Lothian constituency, 2021 result:

SNP 39.2%
Labour 36.7%
Conservatives 20.7%
Liberal Democrats 3.4%

Now, come on, you don't need me to hold your hand here - you can see why the SNP's position is so vulnerable.  In a situation where both the SNP and Labour vote may fall, all that would have to happen to allow Labour to gain the seat is for the SNP vote to fall just that little bit more than Labour's.  In reality, opinion polls are suggesting the SNP's vote will fall far more than Labour's - the most recent Survation poll had the SNP down fifteen percentage points from 2021 and Labour down only three points.  On a uniform swing, Labour would gain East Lothian easily, thus driving a coach and horses through the Stew Theorum.  In truth, there's a good reason for thinking Labour might even outperform a uniform swing, because there's a substantial Tory vote in the constituency which they may be able to tactically squeeze.

Galloway & West Dumfries constituency, 2021 result:

Conservatives 47.0%
SNP 39.9%
Labour 7.9%
Greens 2.6%
Liberal Democrats 2.5%

It would be an exaggeration to call this a safe seat for the Tories, but they do have a bit of a cushion over the SNP and there would need to be a significant Tory to SNP swing for the SNP to be able to win here.  In reality, the polls are suggesting a swing from the SNP to the Tories.  Although the most recent Survation poll shows a big eleven point drop in Tory support since 2021, that's dwarfed by the fifteen point drop in SNP support, which means that there's a modest net swing from SNP to Tory of 2%.  The Tories ought therefore to hold Galloway & West Dumfries with a bit to spare, and the same is also true of three other Tory constituencies which Stew is claiming the SNP are certain to gain, namely Eastwood, Aberdeenshire West and Dumfriesshire.

Ayr constituency, 2021 result:

SNP 43.5%
Conservatives 43.1%
Labour 11.0%
Liberal Democrats 1.9%

Although this is an SNP-held seat, it's an ultra-marginal.  The 2% swing to the Tories implied by the recent Survation poll would overwhelm the SNP lead in the constituency and put it back in the Tory column.  For the same reason, the Tories would be likely to gain Banffshire & Buchan Coast from the SNP (even without any help from Christina "Of The Blood" Hendry).

All of these seats are outwith the Stew Eight, and therefore demonstrate why the SNP are likely to fall well short of 65 constituency seats and will thus have much more scope to pick up compensatory list seats than Stew's fraudulent "analysis" suggests - as long, of course, as SNP supporters actually vote SNP on the list and don't waste their votes on no-hoper fringe parties in the way that siren voices such as Stew's are trying to persuade them to do.

I've spoken to three or four stats-minded people since the weekend and all of them are utterly baffled as to how Stew arrived at some of what might laughably be called his "constituency projections", most particularly for the several seats that ought to be Tory but that he's inexplicably awarded to the SNP.  There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in his post - he goes into extensive detail when it suits him to give the impression that he's engaged in some kind of rigorous Curtice-quality statistical analysis, but for the substantial parts of his claim that make no sense whatsoever, he tries to paper over the cracks with throwaway, bombastic statements such as "there is no sane way to imagine [the Tories] holding the four seats we’ve turned SNP yellow".  Er, yes there is, Stew.  Yes, there is, and I've just explained it.

I confidently predict that Stew will provide no substantive response to any of the points raised above.  I also confidently predict that he'll instead treat us to another sixty-seven "James Kelly is a shambolic wreck of a gibbering imbecile" tweets.  It really is great fun, I'm not going to deny that I always thoroughly enjoy his epic meltdowns and temper-tantrums.  But all I'd say to his dwindling band of cult followers is this: if you enjoy that kind of thing as much as I do, fine, but don't ever come to me again and try to pretend with a straight face that your guy is some kind of serious, credible, rigorous "analyst" (let alone a "journalist").
Posted by James Kelly at 2:48 PM 27 comments

Could Starmer's Rivers of Blood speech be the death-knell for the Labour Party as we know it?

I wondered after Starmer's "Rivers of Blood" speech on Monday whether it was one of those key political moments that everyone would remember decades later, like Mrs Thatcher's "the lady's not for turning", or Harold Wilson's "the pound in your pocket" or James Callaghan's "there was I, waiting at the church" or Callaghan's "Crisis? What crisis?" (although of course he never used those exact words).  Then I thought I might be a getting a little bit carried away - but now 48 hours later I'm back to my original position.  The speech seems to have fundamentally changed how people view Starmer, and many of his former backers have now distanced himself from him.

When asked to explain how an unreconstructed Bennite like Jeremy Corbyn managed to be elected leader of the Labour Party in 2015, something which was supposed to have been impossible, some commentators pinpointed the "controls on immigration" mug released under Ed Miliband's leadership as having been pivotal - it moved some Labour members away from the imperative of "we must find a winner to lead us" and towards "we must find a leader who will uphold some basic standards".  If a mug with a generic message about "controlling" immigration could have that effect on Labour members, the mind boggles as to the effect of the party leader echoing the language of Enoch Powell.

I'm not suggesting this means history will repeat itself and Starmer will be replaced as Labour leader by a Bennite or Corbynite - the rules have been stitched up to ensure that is highly unlikely.  But Labour members who cannot stomach what Starmer has become will look for an alternative, and if they can't find a viable alternative within the Labour party, they'll find one outside.  It's always a mistake to assume that people have nowhere else to go.  The same is true for the more liberal component of Labour's rump voter coalition, which offers a major opportunity for the Greens and possibly the Lib Dems in England, and for the SNP in Scotland.  Labour may not have much of a support base left the way things are going.

But won't any liberal voters Starmer loses be offset by the racist Reform voters he clearly intended to attract with his speech?  I don't think they will, because if you hate immigrants enough for that to be the main determinant of your vote, you're going to vote for the Real McCoy of Reform, you're scarcely going to bother with an unreliable semi-skimmed version offered by a former human rights lawyer who can't seem to make up his mind what he believes in.

The thinking behind inserting the Powell language is puzzling, because it's not as if the ordinary racist on the street can recite Powell's 1968 speech backwards - they would only recognise where the words came from if the media explained it to them.  So presumably the idea must have been that racists would be informed that Starmer had borrowed Powell's language, would immediately accept that as intentional and authentic, and would think "he's just like us normal people who know Enoch Powell was right, I'm going to vote for that geezer".  Seems a bit of a stretch.

*. *. *

I hardly ever watch news bulletins on linear TV channels these days, and so I only caught the first few minutes of the Ten O'Clock News last night because it happened to immediately follow the first Eurovision semi-final.  My jaw dropped to the floor somewhat, because for the first time since the genocide started the BBC seemed to be doing something approximating to its job.  The gravity of the situation, and Israel's responsibility for it, was laid bare, and Jeremy Bowen even repeatedly used the words "stop genocide" without any of the usual caveats about strenuous Israeli denials.

It's too little, too late, of course, but even at this late stage anything that educates the public will increase pressure on the Labour government to temper its unlimited support for the genocidal Israeli regime, and is thus better than nothing.

Posted by James Kelly at 11:01 AM 7 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)