I've just noticed that Adam Ramsay penned a response to the "tactical voting on the list" debate a few days ago. It's a more nuanced piece than we've previously seen from him on the same subject, but it still made me smile, because it essentially argues : "The debate is about politics, not maths. It's about whether you care more about an SNP majority, or about maximising the number of pro-independence MSPs." You probably don't need me to point out the glorious irony that the 'political' choice Adam is presenting us with is an entirely bogus one based on bogus maths - or rather on a conveniently selective presentation of the array of mathematical possibilities.
The reality is that switching from SNP to Green on the list could in theory help to either increase or reduce the overall number of pro-independence MSPs - and so could switching from Green to SNP. As the better "tactical" option is unknowable in advance, why wouldn't anyone simply vote for their first-choice party? (The situation with RISE is different, as polling evidence suggests they have very little chance of winning any seats at all - so if maximising pro-independence representation is all you care about, all list votes for RISE are likely to be "wasted". The same is true of Solidarity in seven out of eight regions.)
However, let's humour Adam and pretend for the sake of argument that we are making a straight choice between an SNP majority and a greater number of pro-indy MSPs (we really, really aren't). Based on that assumption, he poses this question -
"why is it so vital that the SNP get a majority, rather than simply an overwhelming plurality, with Sturgeon reliant on support from parties to her left? I’ve yet to hear a good answer."
Let me make some suggestions -
1) Momentum. If the SNP lose their majority against all expectations, it will be a psychological setback for the cause of independence, and the unionist establishment and press will have a field day. A mini-example from the past is the 2003 election, when a slight increase in the overall number of pro-independence MSPs was obscured by the SNP's big losses, which was all the media cared about.
2) Mandate. We don't know exactly what the SNP's manifesto will say about the possibility of a second referendum or about more powers, but whatever wording is used will receive a clear mandate if the SNP win an overall majority in their own right. That mandate can then be used to apply moral pressure on Westminster. It will be much harder to do that if there is a more complex pro-independence mandate consisting of multiple parties with different (and perhaps conflicting) wordings in their manifestos.
3) Trust. Let's be honest - many SNP members and supporters simply don't trust the Greens to always be "on their side" on the constitution when it matters most. Whether that's justified is open to debate, but it's less than five years since there was an anti-independence Green MSP in the Scottish Parliament, and it was only last year that Caroline Lucas voted against Full Fiscal Autonomy in the House of Commons, apparently in deference to Scottish Green Party policy.
Adam goes on to make the broader point that support for independence is more likely to increase if the public see a range of pro-independence parties in parliament disagreeing with each other on bread-and-butter issues, but agreeing on the constitutional question. I think there's a grain of truth in that, but the problem is that it's unclear whether the radical left parties can bring anything new to the table - their popular support is limited, and most people are probably already fully aware that they were on the Yes side. Far, far more useful would be to see the Tories eclipsed (or at least seriously challenged) by a centre-right pro-independence party - but clearly that isn't going to happen any time soon.
That's not the only lesson to take from the 2003 election. There are various examples of pro-indy parties missing out on list seats despite getting what would have been enough votes in other circumstances - usually because another pro-indy party pipped them to the post. And of course, there was the example of Margo in the Lothians list - she got far more votes than she needed for a seat, so the extra votes were totally wasted. If those votes had been given to another pro-indy party instead, they'd have lead to another pro-indy MSP.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that would only have happened if there was some sort of way of telling voters when Margo had enough votes for a seat - and that only exists in the heads of tactical vote supporters, not in real life.
It would be interesting to see what the 2003 result would have been if the pro-indy vote hadn't been fragmented across the parties. Might try and work that out sometime...
Scottish independence is all about socialism. Why would a centre right party want to be involved? Moreover, why would they elect to exist in a country that never elects a centre right government over one that does so frequently?
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, it will be interesting to see how a June referendum impacts on the Holyrood election. Will the shine come off the SNP as they are seen talking up Brussels? Will UKIP get some MSPs elected? On 6% of the list vote, they could get 6 MSPs - matching the Greens and Lib Dems.
Interesting times!
Aldo
Next you'll be predicting a comeback for Archie Stirling's Scottish Voice. (Well, I say "comeback"...)
DeleteHas it ever occurred to you that one reason the centre-right is so weak in Scotland may be that this is one of the few countries where they've abandoned patriotism to the left?
a rise in the Ukip vote would be a double edged sword. One the one hand the Unionists could point to a British phenomena taking root in Scotland. On the other, if they thought splitting the vote across Labour/Tory/Lib Dem was bad...wait til a small but substancial Ukip vote would do. I doubt there is much that could guarantee a SNP landslide more than a noticeable increase in the Ukip vote.
DeletePatriotism is a subjective thing. You have Scottish patriotism and British patriotism (the two things being not necessarily mutually exclusive).
DeleteThe centre right is unpopular in Scotland because of Thatcher, tribalism and a heavy reliance on the state. Within my parents lifetimes the centre-right were very popular. In the 1955 election, the tories got a higher % vote share than the SNP did in 2015. Hard to believe, but true.
Aldo
It would be interesting to know how Scots who voted Tory in 2015 voted Tory in 1955.
DeleteThe 1955 election was held on 26th May, and the minimum voting age was 21, so to have voted in both elections you'd have to had to be at least 80 years and 11 months old on polling day last year.
DeleteBack in those days the centre right were in favour of the state doing things like providing housing, Healthcare etc since then the neo liberals have moved things further to the right to such an extent that a 1950s tory would today be regarded as a lefty radical. There's no reason a centre right party of the traditional 1950s tory variety couldn't be pro indy. Other independent countries aren't dominated by the left, why would Scotland be any different?
DeleteInteresting James but I'm not sure what your point is. Within living memory, most of Scotland was conservative. In 1955, the tories certainly weren't pro Scottish independence so the people must have been lacking in patriotism then? But of course not - this was the generation that fought the war.
DeleteMy point is that your comments regarding the SNP and its allies having a monopoly on patriotism are somewhat wide of the mark. I think Domhnall is correct - the conservatives and the entire field of British politics have shifted right since 1955, while Scotland never really got over the ending of the post war consensus. Patriotism is nothing to do with it. Economics is everything to do with it.
It's a good job then that our new powers allow us to shape our economy like never before - setting tax and welfare to our own taste as well as intervening to nationalise certain institutions we collectively decide would perform better as part of the public sector. It's a path I don't agree with, but I'm willing to accept the majority will.
Aldo
A UKIP surge could help or hinder the unionists, agreed. In that way I suppose its quite similar to your own 'risk the list' dilemma. What you need to worry about are anti politics protest voters switching from SNP to UKIP. There are also many pro indy folk who dislike the EU.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would just be quite happy to see lefty Greens and SNP forced to rub shoulders with kippers for 5 years. Their indignant rage at having to breathe the same air would amuse me.
Aldo
Its obvious from the nature of your comments what your frame of reference is. In Scotland you are the anti politics protest vote. Those who ignore the mainstream propaganda to search and share on the internet links to original sources are those who are Yes. Those who are no are either self serving as you appear to be or uninformed because they still don't realise they are told what to believe. You can teach people how to find the truth but people with no humanity are beyond reach. Your definition of socialism in another comment sounds more like free market capitalism. The feckless and lazy being rewarded from the hard work of others. If a lot of people don't have jobs it took years of systematic deliberate destruction of viable businesses to achieve that level of social engineering.
DeleteAnonymous @ 2:52 PM:
ReplyDelete"Scottish independence is all about socialism." Yes, indeed: I'll have some of that.
Now comes my problem: is that anywhere near the ends of a "left of centre, social democratic and progressive party"? Show me, please, where "socialist" or "socialism" features as a #SNP self-deception.
While I appreciate where Mr Kelly's headline piece is coming from, and going to, I'd like to be assured that selection of candidates for Holyrood 2016 is based on better due diligence than Westminster 2015. "46 per cent are female" is a decent boast, but gender alone doesn't deliver a balanced slate. Kavanagh and Cowley, 2010 noted the significant increase in MPs from business backgrounds — banking, etc,. in particular. The FT on 22 April last observed that, even more so, 2015's SNP candidates — therefore now MPs — tended to be even more that ilk. For me, if a few real socialists sneaked through selection, so much the better.
Socialism is a failed creed. It takes from the hard working and gives to the lazy and feckless. It distorts the economy, creates more poverty than it resolves, and ultimately leads to economic and social failure. The Soviet Union, China, Venezuela - even the mild socialism the UK tried out until 1979 - all ended in failure.
DeleteAldo
Thatcher called the Soviet Union Communist. You say socialist? So she was soft on the ruskies? On my...last I che ked china was Communist also, now second largest capitalist , where are your capitalist freedoms there now? I will just fly to Tibet with you and your Tory friends and hold a public forum with the local religious freedom beneficiary - the dalai lama...oh wait, wrong again. Stop calling everyone who wants representation and public spending corruption free a Communist or socialist or whatever. Patriot? Convicted.
DeleteAs a died-in-the-wool capitalist myself, I find it very strange how many self-proclaimed free marketeers are all gung-ho about internal markets and the free movement of goods and services, but somehow their capitalist zeal dries up when it comes to the free movement of people.
DeleteDavid Cameron wrote a letter to Brussels where point 3 was 'increased competition and free movement of goods and services', while point 1 was 'decreased competition and restricted movement of human beings'.
Perish the thought, but it's almost as if they're being a touch inconsistent.
Forgive the Freudian slip: "self-descriptor", not "self-deception". I'd like to think I could blame Mac predictive-spellcheck
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just had to pinch myself there to check that this isn't ConservativeHome.
ReplyDeleteMy preference is for a SNP overall majority and not just a pro-Indepedence majority however desirable to some folk that might be.
ReplyDelete@James Kelly, 3:36 pm.
ReplyDeleteNah, like the content and the company, the grammar's better here than ConHome, especially among the comments.
And, yes, it was the spellcheck. It tried to do the same thing again.
Any party that has that pretentious,supercilious,SNP-hating geek Ross Greer as a candidate ain't getting my vote.
ReplyDeleteI've just been having a look through the list of Green candidates, and it suddenly occurred to me that my own region is the only one where I haven't actually heard of any of them! Kirsten Robb's name maybe sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't place her.
DeleteThe Greens are a strange mixture of lots and lots of people who I rate very highly, and a small minority of people who I would actively vote against if I was a floating voter. Andy Wightman is obviously a class act, Patrick Harvie was an inspiration during the referendum campaign, I met Sarah Beattie-Smith last year and she was very likeable and ecumenical, from what I remember Mark Ruskell was a good MSP. I know a lot of people have issues with Ross Greer, but my own biggest issue would be James Mackenzie in Lothian. He's only ninth on the list, but I'm not sure what he'd be doing there unless they've got him in mind as a back-up plan in case an MSP resigns midway during the parliament. James Mackenzie MSP? The mind boggles. If he became a government minister, half of us would probably be interned.
Oh, actually, I tell a lie, John Wilson is standing in my region. I must have overlooked him.
DeleteDon't forget the delightful, Martin Ford. Is he not a bit of a unionist? No 2 on the NE list. There is a danger he might get elected.
DeleteMartin Ford is no longer on the list. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but there was some sort of almighty dust-up.
DeleteKirsten Robb was the number 1 candidate in Central in 2011. She's ok.
DeleteTo be honest, 9th on the Green list is a fairly safe way to not get elected and I'm speaking as such a person. (on the Highland list). Not sure why parties have so many when there are only going to be 7 list MSP's elected from all the parties put together. Mind you if you read of a multiple accident involving the 8 higher placed candidates, be suspicious!
ReplyDeleteI hope that John Finnie and Isla O'Reilly get elected from the top of our list, both great people, but I'm not holding my breath for more.........
"Not sure why parties have so many when there are only going to be 7 list MSP's elected from all the parties put together."
DeleteMy assumption is that it's because a sudden vacancy may occur when lots of the candidates have work commitments they can't get out of, or don't want to get out of. It's an exhaustive list of back-up plans.
Best of luck in May, topher.
DeleteIf a list member dies or resigns from Parliament, their place is filled by the next list member. We were told at a meeting, that it was theoretically possible for the subs bench to be fully depleted by the end of a parliament.
DeletePerhaps if only one member of your party is elected then your chance of sitting in Holyrood are remote in position 9, but if you were a red tory candidate, and you only get list seats, then 9th position may see you get in when say all your chums get jailed or go off to England to be with their pals.
When Margo left us, her seat fell vacant as she was on the list on her own.
I thought lists of more than 7 were to cater for those at the top winning constituencies instead, moving everybody else up the rankings. If all the SNP constituency candidates in north east in 2011 had also been on the list, there'd have been no-one left to fill the list seat.
DeleteYes, that's true as well. But in the case of the Greens, who aren't going to win more than two seats in any region, I can't think of any reason why they would put forward lists of up to ten candidates per region unless they had an eye to sudden vacancies during the parliament.
DeleteSeems no downside to doing so. It gives some experience of the system to younger candidates, raises their profile slightly and gets them campaigning.
DeleteAnd if the worst comes to it, you have people on the list ready to step in.
I don't see any reason why not, unless it's expensive or some of the candidates are particularly toxic or divisive.
Not all FPTP candidates are on the list. There is some debate about whether someone should be on both. Labour lost any talent they had because they assumed they were winning fptp seats last time and did not stand on the lists. There is an argument that if the voters wish to remove an MSP then its a bit arrogant to tell them they were getting said failed candidate anyway - but as a lister.
ReplyDeleteRuthie polled 1845 votes but got in on the list. It is expected she will get in by the same method this time. Is the endorsement of 1800 people really good enough for a party leader?
The bottom line is,the Tories are led by an old Etonian Bullingdon boy.Theres not that many people,in Scotland who will vote for that sort of thing.They mostly died out a while ago.Ruth is just a bit player.
DeleteTo reply to the main point in your article James, the reason why it's important to have as many pro-independence MSP's as possible is that we need to get to the point where independence is the obvious destination and we are looking at the shape of post-independence politics. The voters we need to make this happen are not the die hard No's who will not be persuaded, nor the die-hard Yesses who are already persuaded.
ReplyDeleteWe need the ones in the middle who are persuadable if they see the beginnings of a multi party consensus that independence is a reasonable idea and there is a range of tenable policies for an independent Scotland from which they could choose.
In this group I think there are many who would like the SNP to be joined by other voices. The confirmed Yessers (of whom I am one) may fear the dilution of the unanimous "vote SNP twice" idea but you have to look at the electoral choices from the viewpoint of those still open to changing their minds.
I agree with you that a centre right party of independence would get some of the current Tory votes, and some of the Fergus Ewing wing SNP votes too. I disagree with their politics but a democracy needs voices for all the shades of opinion. At one point the Scottish Democratic Alliance (Google it) was looking to position itself here but I don't see it putting up candidates.
Anyway we Greens are not going away until the revolution is safely won, or after. The climate has not stopped melting down while we Scots settle our constitutional differences, cheap oil and Cameron's axe are destroying our renewables industry, and bizarre slash and burn market economics are making the rich richer and the poor more miserable. Independence is the way forward and we will be there to help make it happen.
So people who may well be unconvertible unionists but don't identify as such yet, would be more likely to become yes if parties that have little history of supporting yes prosper ? Their commitment to yes would be as dubious as said parties. If you will the end you have to will the means to achieve it. Any YES vote that doesn't go to the Yes party is viewed as a weaker vote. A green vote would be viewed as environmental more than anything else.
DeleteHow will we know if they are "unconvertible" if we don't try? And is it such a bad thing that their commitment to Yes will be conditional or in your words "dubious"? Trying to convince a majority to go for something new will obviously mean some will go wholeheartedly and some will have misgivings but decide to take the risk.
DeleteYou are viewing this from one end of the spectrum, where in my opinion most Greens also are, but try to think of it from the point of view of people somewhere in the middle. Without these people on board we will never get independence. To get them on board, a plurality of Yes voices is more convincing than a monolithic wall of SNP which can be made by a hostile press to look menacing.
Seems we have a new TNS poll. No change within MoE on the last one.
ReplyDeleteAlan Roden
@AlanRoden
TNS Holyrood constituency voting intentions: SNP 57%, Lab 21%, Con 17%, LD 3%, Other 2%.
List votes really should have some form of STV component. Even if it's as simple as an individual choice followed by a party. That'd allow you to vote for an independent with a fall back to a party preference. It'd also wean out party favourites the electorate don't back.
ReplyDelete