One thing that baffled me about the reaction of Wings supporters to my rebuttal of Gavin Barrie's article the other day is that they seemed offended and outraged that I had dared to reply to a piece that ended by directly challenging me and others (ie. those that had taken issue with Mr Barrie's argument) to "make their case". The whole thing has just got even more peculiar - because Mr Barrie posted on this blog tonight to tell me to "just stop", by which he appeared to mean that I should stop making the case he had challenged me to make. Then, in another dramatic plot twist, he immediately deleted that comment and instead posted another one asking me even more questions about the subject he had just told me to shut up about. He finished by demanding that I answer his questions, and addressed me as "matey boy", which admittedly is an exciting promotion from "dishonest c**t".
I'm more than happy to answer Mr Barrie's questions.
Question 1. "So James, what does your own modelling of the Holyrood voting system indicate?"
Answer: My "modelling" strongly indicates (ie. this is accepted fact) that any small party that fails to gain around 5% of the vote in any electoral region is highly unlikely to take a seat in that region. Any votes that such a party takes away from larger pro-indy parties will make it harder for those parties to win list seats, and could therefore reduce the overall level of pro-indy representation in the Scottish Parliament. I would be very surprised if anyone else's "modelling" shows anything different, given that it's an inescapable statement of the obvious.
Question 2. "Have you worked out the optimum number of constituency seats that would return the maximum regional seats and hence maximum SNP control of Holyrood?
Because, that might just mean, perhaps, we could do all of this without standing another party, but it would require a feasibility analysis and you know, a detailed voting model, from someone who understands the Holyrood voting mechanism, the likely voting patterns across regions based on historical analysis and a knowledge of demographic groups that live there...
I've done it. In your own time, matey boy."
Answer: No, I have not worked out the "optimum number of constituency seats" because a) it's incalculable without making some thoroughly dodgy assumptions (perish the thought that Mr Barrie would make any of those), b) it weirdly implies that winning more than the 'optimum' would somehow reduce the overall level of SNP representation, which is arithmetically impossible, and c) it's not actually an interesting or helpful question anyway, except to someone who believes that it's possible to achieve a set number of constituency seats by sheer force of will. This is the whole problem with the Wings party wheeze - it's no more possible to click your fingers and get 57 or 63 or 69 SNP constituency seats than it is to click your fingers and get the fantastical percentage of the list vote for the Wings party that Mr Barrie was breezily taking as read in his article.
I'm also puzzled by Mr Barrie's comment that "perhaps, we could do all of this without standing another party". What is "all of this"? If he means winning a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, we already know we can "do all of this" without the help of a Wings party, because we've done it with a bit to spare in both of the last two elections, and as it happens opinion polls currently suggest we're on course to do it again next time. If he means something over and above a majority, why would we need to do that, and more to the point, why would we take stupid risks in pursuit of something we don't actually need to do?
* * *
Polite notice: Any comments posted on this thread by Wings supporters saying "boooring", "yawn", "give it a rest", "get to f***, d***wad", etc, etc, etc, will be deleted. Mr Barrie asked questions, demanded that I answer them, and I have done as he demanded. Neither he nor anyone else can have any complaints about this post.
I want the analysis of the most recent opinion polls, in terms of the Scottish sample, at the more immediately likely GE we are all hanging around waiting for.
ReplyDeleteAnd I want to know why so many more broken down analyses of UK-wide op polls seem to have SNP more often than not at 4% inasmuch as what is the maximum polling intention SNP can gain on any UK-wide op poll (can it ever be more than 4%)... I guess actually if every single person stated they would vote SNP it could be 9%, aye so about 4.5% to 6% is not completely unrealistic.
Also one breakdown of the recent poll(s) I saw had SNP at 40 seats which seems few.
Lastly could the forthcoming GE be on a SNP manifesto not of iRef2 but indy itself ?
So, in other words, no.
ReplyDeleteFine others can and will do it in your place and make sure people have the best quality, robust information on which to base their decisions, with clear guidance and warnings about what we are ... And what we're not saying.
Please feel free to continue to be outraged at my perceived behaviour and mention it at every given opportunity. It's doing a terrific job to distract from you not engaging with data in any meaningful way.
Your "engaging with the data in any meaningful way" seems to me to be about establishing your baseline founded on a colossal amount of wishful thinking. I consider it extremely unlikely any Wings party would get out of single-figure percentages.
DeleteLiving in a bubble is all well and good (the micro-left in the West of Scotland have doing that for a LONG time), but the reality is that a large majority of voters have never heard of Wings, those that have would (if Indy-minded) be more likely to view it as a vote-splitter rather than a seat-gainer, and the Media would have a field-day deriding cracks in the Independence movement.
It's a ridiculous idea, founded on a profoundly undemocratic motive (gaming the system depends on a democratic imbalance that would be effectively cheating if it worked), and its most likely effect would be to weaken the SNP list vote - possibly by enough to lose them seats.
The Rev Stu has done, and continues to do, a lot of good and essential work, but he has a tendency to get bees in his bonnet that undo some of that work. I know people who used to follow him regularly who have now turned their backs on him as a short-tempered grumpling who has developed an alarming tendency to go out of his way to offend the very public he seeks to inform. His investigatory skills are still excellent, and I still read him every day, but he seems to be falling victim to hubris and obsession.
Bobelix: I broadly agree.
DeleteGavin: "In other words no"? No what? If you're referring to my answer to Question 2, it was "no, that's not an interesting or helpful thing to do and is based on a false premise anyway". But the "no" was there for all to see, so your "in other words" is somewhat redundant.
You asked questions and I answered them directly, and yet for some reason you still seem to have a problem. That's something you're going to have to work out for yourself. But perhaps start by considering this: in a discussion of this sort, what won't get you anywhere is stamping your feet and insisting that any reply to you has to buy into your basic premise (the premise in this case being that modelling based on silly assumptions tells us something interesting or important, and indeed that only modelling can tell us something interesting or important). If people bought into your premise, they wouldn't disagree with you in the first place. Deal with it.
As for your "perceived behaviour", that speaks for itself. It's up to you whether you decide to continue replying with insults, childish name-calling and abuse - but if you do so, I will continue to reply politely but robustly. Maddening, isn't it?
Gavin, I read your Wings post, and Im not in your field, but if Id received that to review, Id have recommended a rejection.
DeleteYou started with a result, and worked backwards, adjusting the assumptions to make the data fit your desired conclusions. You just casually chuck in assumptions like they're established fact when in fact they should all be justified much better, and then you gloss over inconvenient facts. It just seems like bad science to me.
Gavin, stop being snippy and sarcastic. it just makes you look petty and devalues your case. Argue the point without personal remarks. This is an interesting subject and could be debated seriously without heat. In academic debate as in boxing, losing your temper is fatal.
DeleteWhy is it that no one can express an opinion any more without being abused. This is a growing trend throughout the independence movement, probably fostered and promoted by unionists. Do we never learn? I see us arguing ourselves into another loss of an independence referendum and that will be it FOR EVER. Grow up for goodness sake. Accept other opinions and ignore what you don't accept without being offensive!
ReplyDeleteAgree 100%
DeleteApparently the aim is to have a second pro-indy party that "picks up the list vote". But Wings & co. don't seem to be registering the fact that there already is quite a successful second pro-indy party, namely the Greens. So if that's the aim, why aren't Wings & co. telling everyone to vote Green on the list? This would have far more chance of doing what they say they want to do than starting a new party.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be something to do with toilets.
DeleteThe Greens are calling the co-founder of Stonewall a 'transphobe'.
DeleteIt's not a good look.
(a) because the Greens are awful
Delete(b) because the Greens have had 20 years to prove their potential and have still barely managed to scrape more MSPs than you can count on one hand. Possibly because of (a).
The Greens may well be awful, but (b) would seem to be evidence of what a long and hard process it is to get a political party to a place where it can win even a handful of seats, especially when the political space you're operating in has a number of alternatives (SNP as the main party, with the Greens, RISE, SSP, and Solidarity there for left-wing, pro-indy people who don't like the SNP for whatever reason).
DeletePut another way, what makes proponents of a Wings party think that it would manage to do as well as the Greens, never mind better?
And the so-called founder of the 'Wings' party IS a transphobe, a much, much worse look.
DeleteMoreover both Patrick Harvey and I happen to BE members of the LGBTQ community. If we feel it is appropriate to argue with another member of our community that is our right. So keep your nose out of it.
DeleteJames,
ReplyDelete"Polite notice: Any comments posted on this thread by Wings supporters saying "boooring", "yawn", "give it a rest", "get to f***, d***wad", etc, etc, etc, will be deleted. Mr Barrie asked questions, demanded that I answer them, and I have done as he demanded. Neither he nor anyone else can have any complaints about this post."
I seriously wish you had seen the light on your right to delete, or actually ban folk had happened a long time ago.
There is a huge - tsunami style - difference between disagreement and attempted destruction.
I think Mr Barrie’s analysis falls down on a very basic scientific level:
ReplyDeleteHe tries to make detailed predictions based on ‘grainy’ and incomplete data several years ahead of the event.
It’s a common fallacy that presumes working harder and harder on data can always somehow produce an answer.
Trying to get detail out of this data using modelling simply produces something that tells you more about the analyst’s views than the reality.
Taken to an extreme it ends up being a Rorschach test.
The scientific answer is:
‘with the data we have (or are likely to ever have) we simply can’t predict what might happen’
James, I might just concede your rule of thumb of a 5% threshold below which only damage is done ...but only since I’m in a good mood.
*Data insufficient. Please try again when you have exact data on all vote results*
*Happy to produce detailed best strategy once all results declared*
You missed the point where I used *current* polling data and current voting intention?
DeleteYou missed the bit where I said we'd track this over time and appraise with polling to better inform the accuract and robustness of this?
Interesting.
No, he didn't miss either of those things. He's making the point that sufficient data will only be available *after* the election - by which point it will be too late to do anything with it.
DeleteGavin, you're missing the point entirely; no matter how much polling you do, it could produce a false positive which would support your work and that's the danger. Wings are never ever going to scoop up a third of the SNPs list vote. To believe that they will is folly.
DeleteNot gonna lie Scott, when I first saw that Stewart had mentioned this idea, my first thought was "I'll wait to see what Scot Goes Pop says". I will always read Wings just as I read your blog, Talking Up Scotland, WGD, Lalland's Peat Worrier, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, Stewart needs to stop chasing this but I get the impression that he can be very determined and undeterred when someone whom has vastly more experience in understanding polling tells him that its a bad idea.
If he sticks to doing what he does best and you doing what you do best (which you have), I think most fans of both of you would be happy.
In all honesty, I would like the SG to set up a Media Commission in Indy Scotland that ensures that we don't get fake news and bullshit - Stewart would be the perfect candidate to take up such a position.
I'm with you there, sir or madam Unknown, on establishing a Scottish media commission, as an impartial adjudicator and bulwark against fake news and meeja excrement of all kinds.
DeleteDebunking lies and identifying partisan bias and spin are supposed to be one of the functions of the fourth estate (and the fifth!). In particular, it is one of the duties of an independent, impartial public service broadcaster, and independent media in general - oh, wait...
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteAs a scientist myself, I am with you in your pragmatic and scientific approach to polling data. I do however wish you to speculate on what you think about a situation where SNP might be polling in the regions of 40-50%. In such a case of consistently high polling what would be your threshold for agreeing that it would be safe to allow a list-only independence party free reign to push the list vote?
The 2016 election campaign demonstrates why there isn't really such a threshold. The SNP were polling at a phenomenally high level, probably the highest level that could ever realistically be expected, and yet that position did not prove to be secure. The SNP vote dipped significantly as polling day approached. When Mr Barrie talks about updating his analysis as time goes on, I wonder how late his final word would be? Even a week before the election would be far too early. If things change dramatically on the eve of polling, as they sometimes do, are we expected to believe that RevStu will run a post saying "CHANGE OF PLAN: DON'T VOTE FOR US AFTER ALL"? Ah hae ma doots.
DeleteThe question should be at what level of SNP support would an emergency clandestine plan be hatched within the 3 main unionist parties to collaborate by standing paper candidates and underfunding them at constituency level to give the best placed amongst them the best chance at getting a particular seat.
DeleteIf the SNP support is bellow 50% then tactical voting has a chance. Especially if a strategic decision is made to finally bring Salmond to trial or cast it up again if it's been.cast
In extremis between them they could gain a majority of seats before it even got to the AMS stages. Certainly they'd have nothing to lose as they'd still have a chance then.
They might not be able to stop an SNP/Green majority as things stand but if they're being sneaky they'd either encourage or create one or more pro indy parties and as it got nearer to polling day promote the ones most likely to gain traction. If the Wings Party seem to be getting a suspiciously easy time that'll be why. Not to say a more plausible RISE wouldn't be created. Or for extra fun an outright republican party allied to Sinn Fein.
Question 2 is what happens when people get obsessed. Surely the optimum number of constituency seats is 73? IS there such a thing as the "optimum number of seats" outside the mad, mad, mad world that these guys occupy? While he is obsessing about "optimum seats" and all the rest of the permutations, the MAIN question remains unanswered, and Stu would do everyone a favour by asking it (and possibly putting all this to bed).
ReplyDelete"If the following put forward candidates on the regional ballot, which party would you vote for?"
SNP
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrat
Greens
Brexit Party
Wings Over Scotland
UKIP
Once Stu has asked that question (or similar), then the questions from Mr Barrie will either be relevant ..... or irrelevant.
Alex Birnie
And the question would only be relevant up to a point. If Wings put up a candidate because of one or two particular issues then it might 'trigger' other pro-indy people with hobby-horses to stand under some other banner.
DeleteJames, I never find your blog boooring, and it never makes me yawn.
ReplyDeleteDoes not stop you crawling.
DeleteI would suggest that if you want to witness "crawling" and sycophancy then a good place to start would be the comments under any of Stu Campbell's posts on WoS.
DeleteSometimes some folk are just a waste of time and effort, you have been too nice to them.Leave them to squirm about how unfair it is when you are thick, as they are, I recognise thick being a bit thick myself. Now please read on, when I realised I was a bit thick life became easier unfortunately they have not realised they are daft/thick. When they wake up and realise how daft they are they may stop it and just hang around with their own kind and you wont be bothered again by them.
ReplyDeleteCharles, if you do not wake up you are probably dead as the Nat si mob.
DeleteYou've never been right since Mikey D got into your flat and stole some gipsy creams.
DeleteDid he get into John McTernan's flat as well?
DeleteIt is easy tae get intae the crack of Nat si wummin. A gipsy cream and the drawers are doon.
DeleteSame with Mystic. Give him a gipsy cream and he's anybody's.
DeleteJames, may I suggest that you might want to delete some of the more misogynists comments?
ReplyDeleteOn topic, you really have probably given the twits who believe that nonsense as much time and space as will do any good. Anyone with a mind to see your point sees it. The ones who have drunk the 'wings party' Kool-Aid aren't going to.
It would be fascinating to see a Wings manifesto.
ReplyDeleteI doubt transgender politics or Hillsborough are, y'know, particularily persuasive. As major electoral issues. And that,it seems to me, to be what he is really about.
A tad sad. For, absent his narrow-mindedness - he has pushed a lot of folk in the direction of independence. Just wish he were a better human being. Sadly, he is not.
He has done so much for independence that I am saddened to see that side of him so clearly on display. The fact is that he is not a better person than that. He is not the first good journalist who was a pretty rotten person though. Sadly by staying on this 'wings party' hobbyhorse he is risking throwing away his influence on exposing the media.
DeleteThei Wings manifesto is exactlythe same as a Nigel Farage manifesto except Wings says I'm on your side with GRA so everybody hate the SNP and vote for me to take back control
ReplyDeleteThe guy's a dog whistling hypocrite
Check the amount of female politicians he's hounded in the past, now he's decided to use Nicola Sturgeon for his latest fundraising tactic
Remember folks, he's off to court again shortly over the Dugdale case that to be fair he should've won but can't see that he lost it because he's an all round obnoxious person who hates women and it looks like the judge saw it that way too
Eventually you get found out, you can't fake it forever
GRA, LGBGT, Transphobia Outside the tiny world of Twitter nobody gives a damn and the more noise all hese people make about it the less attention the real world gives it
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the real world don't know and don't care
Pal, we were fighting for LGBTQ rights before twitter existed. If 'no one cared' we would not have them, because they weren't giving them out. If you don't know about the fight to abolish sodomy laws, to get rid of Clause 28, to equalise the age of consent, to achieve marriage equality, that is your profound ignorance showing.
DeleteGay people live in the real world. We fight for our rights in the real world. You need to leave the fantasy land where you apparently live where we don't even exist.
UKSC just crucified Johnson and the Gov. Unanimous decision:
ReplyDeleteLady Hale: The court is bound to conclude that the decision to advise The Queen to prorogue Parliament WAS UNLAWFUL.
About the only thing that went in the Gov favour is that they did not rule that the Gov deliberately lied to the Queen.
Next thread: "It's showtime!"
DeleteHard to see how Boris survives this. There is no wiggle room, no illegal under Scottish Law legal under English law cop out.
ReplyDeleteUnless he does resign there has got to be a VoC with the opposition parties backing it this time.
Which is what Johnson wanted though. The VoC thing.
DeleteAs for Scottish indy, the whole thing is great. If he resigns, the English (brexit nationalists) will want Scottish independence. If he doesn't, Scots will want independence.
In 2014 the No side said we want Scotland to lead the UK. Today it happened via the Supreme Court. Well done Joanna Cherry.
ReplyDeleteGreat to see Scots law telling England what to do and throwing a huge spanning in their independence works.
ReplyDeleteThis is what union is all about.
It's almost as good as the N. Irish blocking England's brexit with their backstop.
DeleteIt didn't. The ruling made under 'English' law at lower courts has been overturned. English law and Scottish law are the same on this matter
DeleteThen Scots law is is ruling England then. If both laws are equal, both are overruling England.
DeleteNo a higher court has said that a lower court was wrong under English law. Just as a higher Scottish court ruled that that lower Scottish court was wrong under Scottish law . English law is ruling England Scottish law Scotland.
DeleteSo it was only the English ruling that mattered? If so, this is gold dust for independence.
DeleteNo what mattered was that the case was considered judgeable, if it had not been what any court though would not matter.
DeleteOf course if it had not been found judgeable then the UKSC would of been agreeing with a Scottish court.
So the UKSC didn't agree with the Court of Session?
DeleteSeems to me otherwise:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
"Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's."
Seems to me Scottish Law and English law are equally telling England what to do, e.g. Scottish law is telling England what to do, just as I said.
If both rulings had been upheld (illegal in Scotland, ok in England), it would still be illegal as would have been illegal in Scotland. If you are acting as the British government, you must act lawfully in all 3 legal jurisdictions.
So, Scots law has told England what do do. In the end, English law agreed with Scots law.
Didn't most Scots Tories support breaking the law?
ReplyDeleteTime for resignations surely?
ReplyDeleteSo hopefully we can now suspend the internal indy rammy going on. The UK is utterly done, the chink in the armour is there. While we might disagree on tactics and approaches, now is the time to rally round, we are all ultimately on the same side.
Force the advantage. Dont decend into a UK Labour type civil war. There is an election coming – NOW. Not in 18 mths, how we do that can wait and there is endless debates on how that will occur. For now, its First Past the Post, there is one horse in the race (SNP) to make that happen. We need landslide in Scotland and then its game on.
Rev up the engines, gather your thoughts, plan your campaign – the time is now. There has never been a time like this.
"we are all ultimately on the same side"
DeleteWe're on the same side until we end up in different parties. I take your point about Westminster being FPTP but it remains to be seen if smaller pro-indy parties will intervene in certain constituencies.
Next from Boris I bet: 'The law/judges/parliament are all thwarting the will of the people. The power of these should be curtailed and instead given to the dear leader so he can emancipate the masses, guiding them unto the sunlight uplands of brave new Britannia, GSTQ'.
ReplyDeleteTo show the dangers posed by Wings, you gave a hypothetical example here of how AMS works:
ReplyDeletehttps://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-snp-must-make-this-independence.html
However, with all due respect, I don't believe your example is correct. Your percentages of the regional vote only add up to 96%, so that's wrong, and in Scenario B the SNP has 29% of the regional vote but 40% of the seats, and AMS couldn't possibly give that result. I would adjust it as follows:
Regional vote %: SNP 29%, Others 68%, Wings 3% (total 100%)
Under AMS, this gives the SNP 37 seats, Others 88, and Wings 4.
I know it gives an unfortunate result - no loss of pro-independence seats - but is my calculation correct?
"Your percentages of the regional vote only add up to 96%, so that's wrong"
DeleteNope, that's not wrong, that's intentional.
"but is my calculation correct?"
Nope, it's nuts. How on earth are Wings getting four seats on 3% of the vote?
Christ on a bicycle, what are you saying here?
Delete"My 96% of the regional vote is intentional." AMS takes account of *all* the list votes, not just some of them. Is this an election where 4% of the votes don't exist?
"How are Wings getting 4 seats on 3% of the vote?" 3% of 129 seats = 3.87 seats, or 4 seats with rounding. AMS is proportional.
You also need to explain how 29% of the list vote gives the SNP 40% of the seats, when AMS is proportional.
Stop being an idiot, James.
I've deleted most of the abusive and/or troll comments on this thread, but I'll leave the above one up as a monument to the comical stupidity of the people (and there have been several) who don't understand AMS but who nevertheless try to "explain" it to those who do.
DeleteIf AMS was perfectly proportional, it wouldn't even be theoretically possible to game it. The largest party getting 40% of seats on 29% of the list vote isn't remotely surprising - if you think it is, it's a tell-tale sign you don't understand the system at all.
Even if we didn't have a regional apportionment of seats, there would almost certainly be a national threshold to prevent a party taking seats on 3% of the vote.
And the other 4% of the list vote does exist. So do the other parties who take those votes. You're the one trying to edit them out of existence. Only you can explain why.
Now, I know this is embarrassing for you, but please, learn from the others that have gone before you. Don't double down. Don't keep digging this hole you're in. Educate yourself on the system you're trying to discuss.
Boris has to resign.
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't, then the UK takes another great leap towards dictatorship.
For a PM to shut down parliament illegally, yet still hold the keys to number 10 and the launch codes for the nukes is scary stuff. It shows how vulnerable the UK is to fascism.
Johnson saying that he's right and the judges / law is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMy results for Scenario B show:
ReplyDeleteSNP 37
Con 32
Lab 28
Green 10
Lib Dem 6
Brexit 5
Wings 4
but that's only 122 seats. I'm afraid I don't understand your model, James.
No, it's not "my model" you don't understand - it's AMS itself. How on earth are you getting 4 Wings seats on 3% of the vote? Why are there only 122 seats? My guess is that you think seats are being distributed proportionally on a national basis - am I right? The Holyrood system doesn't work that way. You need at least 5% of the vote in a region to win a seat - sometimes more. Wings would be doing well to win even one seat on 3% of the vote. Zero would be the most likely figure.
DeleteDerek Rogers: I've deleted your latest comment. Your super-confident cluelessness is rather entertaining in a way, but there's a danger you might be misleading the uninitiated with your "I'm an expert" bluff, and there's been enough misinformation on this thread already. (Not least from people who aren't aware of very basic stuff like 3% of the vote not being enough to win list seats.)
ReplyDelete