Monday, September 2, 2019

The SNP must make this an independence election

Just a quick blogpost, because the point I want to make can be expressed very simply.  If a snap general election is called this week, as now seems 70-80% probable, I hope the SNP will put independence at the front and centre of their campaign.  I don't mean that they should necessarily seek an outright mandate for independence this time, because of course the McEleny/MacNeil Plan B (which I strongly support) is about what we would do after a Section 30 request is formally rejected, and it looks like there won't be enough time for us to get to that point before a possible election in October.  But what we mustn't do is repeat the mistake of 2017, when we talked about an independence referendum before the campaign started, but then shut up about it during the campaign itself.  That was the worst of all worlds, because the "threat" of Indyref2 gave the unionist parties a target to aim at, while the failure to actively promote Indyref2 meant that independence supporters weren't motivated to go to the polls.  You might remember the post-election research (I think from Ipsos-Mori?) showing that much of the SNP's lost support did not go to the unionist parties - it was caused by abstention.

A full-blooded pro-independence campaign will ensure that committed Yessers do not sit this one out, and it will also mean that there'll be no alibi for the unionist parties if the SNP get a good result - they won't be able to say it wasn't really about independence.  Of course there's a danger it could go the other way if the SNP don't get a good result, but sometimes you have to take a calculated risk when circumstances look particularly favourable, and they certainly do right now.

*  *  *

My jaw dropped to the floor a couple of hours ago when I saw Gavin Barrie on Twitter claim that he had done modelling that showed the worst-case scenario if the Wings party goes ahead is that the SNP would lose two list seats and the Wings party would gain sixteen seats.  He also said that the best-case scenario is that the Wings party would take thirty-two seats, and that there is "no downside".

I'll save you the trouble of getting your calculator out.  There is no modelling that can prove that sixteen seats is the worst-case scenario, because that self-evidently isn't true.  The actual worst-case scenario (and also the most likely one) is that the Wings party will take no seats at all, which means that any votes it takes on the list will make it harder for the SNP (and indeed the Greens) to take list seats, and therefore easier for unionist parties to take list seats.  That's not necessarily to say that the Wings party would gift the unionist parties bonus seats, but there's a very real risk of that.  I gave a hypothetical example in the comments section the other week to illustrate how it could happen, and I'll repeat it here for anyone who missed it.

Scenario A (without Wings party):

Constituency vote -

SNP 37%
Conservatives 27%
Labour 24%
Liberal Democrats 9%

Regional list vote -

SNP 32%
Conservatives 25%
Labour 22%
Greens 8%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Brexit Party 4%

Seats -

SNP 54
Conservatives 33
Labour 28
Greens 9
Liberal Democrats 5

Pro-indy seats: 63
Anti-indy seats: 66

Scenario B (with Wings taking 3% of the list vote away from the SNP):

Constituency vote -

SNP 37%
Conservatives 27%
Labour 24%
Liberal Democrats 9%

Regional list vote -

SNP 29%
Conservatives 25%
Labour 22%
Greens 8%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Brexit Party 4%
Wings 3%

Seats -

SNP 52
Conservatives 34
Labour 29
Greens 9
Liberal Democrats 5

Pro-indy seats: 61
Anti-indy seats: 68

As you can see, with the Wings party intervention there are two more unionist seats than there otherwise would be, and the Tories and Labour are the beneficiaries.  That's just one example of the many that are possible, and it's what Nicola Sturgeon was getting at this morning when she said that people who tried to game the Holyrood voting system could end up achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted.  They'd think they were voting "tactically" to increase the number of pro-indy MSPs, but they could actually be reducing the number of pro-indy MSPs, and in the real worst-case scenario could even cost us the pro-indy majority.

52 comments:

  1. The two vote system should be changed, there's no need for a second vote.
    Vote for constituency and determine list seats from that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be a CATASTROPHE to CRASH out of the UK, and have an independent Scotland with no food, no medicine, and no water. The prospect of a hard referendum vote is frightening. I am delighted to see Boris put a soft prorogue through parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On what planet is this a "soft prorogue"? Isn't this the longest prorogation since the 1940s or something?

      Delete
  3. The Bill that has been put forward by the opposition & Conservatives 'rebels' is very clever in that that it says that if no deal has been agreed by 19th Oct the PM has to write an ask for extension. Even if there is an election Boris remains PM until he is defeated in an election. So this cuts off him calling an election and then setting the date post 31st October because he would still be PM and therefore ask for an extension.

    If the bill passes, then Boris will have to set the date for the election leaving enough time for him to hold election, win and then revoke the bill in the next Parliament, so he does not have to ask for an extension.

    He and his team are clearly rattled. To feel the need to make a statement in front of number ten, shows they feel things are slipping away from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also just seen that a s24 debate takes priority over any Gov business so the Gov cannot just stop the bill from being debated by tabling a vote for a GE. The Opposition can just block fill any parliamentary time until the bill has passed.

      Delete
    2. It seems to me things are very much going Johnson's way.

      He could soon have the 'remoaners' succeed in 'blocking the brexit result / defying the will of the people' while getting him off the crash out brexit hook.

      That would set him up for a majority in a GE, allowing him to dump N. Ireland and march the UK out of the EU however the fuck he likes.

      Tories are soaring in the polls and they may already have enough for a majority. They look about 12 points clear now, with Lab + Lib both losing support. Only the SNP are riding high.

      Certainly, things look tough for Johnson, but for the Remain side, it's far, far worse.

      Ultimately, to stop brexit, we need another referendum and there looks like little chance of that.

      Delete
    3. Boris iz oor leader we shall not be moved. Not by Libs, Nat sis or Labour we shall not be moved. Democracy will prevail! AYE right.

      Delete
    4. Well, the Leave vote in 16 does not completely correlate to being in favor of a no-deal hard brexit. We also know that Labor looks weak between elections when Corbyn is under attack from his supposed allies, but turns out much stronger when Corbyn is out talking to the people about being for the many, not the few. That message gets buried by the Blairites between elections, but its a winning message when the people get to vote. And the Tory collapse in Scotland is going to cost them 10 or more seats as well.

      At first I was wondering why Boris would want an election just after a no-deal Brexit hit. Then I figured that he was planning to spend a lot of money trying to keep things together for just a few days after Brexit. Long enough to have a vote before everything collapsed. The latest scenario appears to be a pre-Brexit vote. Which on one hand means the Tories can still parade their unicorns. But a no-deal Brexit is in no way backed by a majority from anything I've seen. If it is unicorns versus a coming no-deal crash-out, then I think the unicorns get beaten.

      And I suspect that Boris just lost the support of a lot of any but the hardest of no-deal Brexiters with his latest full-scale, Sommne-style assault on Democracy.

      Delete
    5. The current trend is Boris rocketing, while Corbyn and Swindon are losing support; and Corbyn from a new low.

      http://britainelects.com/

      Boris seems, so far, to have called England perfectly.

      Delete
    6. The 'rebel' alliance may seem clever in the wording of the proposed law, but all Johnson needs to do is resign as PM. We then have 14 days of haggling and when no one can command a majority in the house, a GE 25 days later. As we have no PM for that period, no one can ask the EU for an extension and with the 14 days added onto the campaign we get very close to leaving by default without a deal.

      Delete
    7. Meant to add he could wait a few days before resigning to ensure we leave during the resultant campaign. Or resign immediately, depends which way he has 'gamed' it to his advantage.

      Delete
  4. James, for the umpteenth time (and I don't know why you continue to print the WRONG information), it's Ipsos MORI.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsos_MORI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the uninitiated, Anon here is my stalker who is appalled that I don't capitalise the word "Mori". This has been going on for years. It's a niche sort of obsession.

      Delete
    2. That everyone spells your way. He is the type that doesn't get tickets The Talking Heads cuz they are just " Talking Heads". Just call it I/M ??

      Delete
    3. Maybe he works for IPSOS mori in the marketing dept?

      Delete
  5. Farage confirming that dumping the brackstop is no longer go enough for Brexiters
    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1168594540086878210

    It's no deal or bust for them, Boris is going to have to fight an election being squeezed from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you've gone to the trouble of Scenario B with WoS taking 3% of the list vote, you must have also played with other values than 3%. What is the tipping point? That is, how much of the vote do the WoS candidates need to make a pro-indy increase?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't a fixed number, it would depend on other variables. But it's certainly not 4%, if that's what you're getting at.

      Delete
    2. Not getting at anything, genuinely interested.

      Delete
    3. James, the problem with your scenario is that the Indy majority is lost whichever way it goes, assuming your numbers work out that way. What Rev Stu and co. will say is that it doesn't matter if we lose the indy majority by 3 seats or 7.

      Delete
    4. Instead, how much of the SNP list vote would need to move to Wings in order to swing an Indy majority?

      Delete
    5. "What Rev Stu and co. will say is that it doesn't matter if we lose the indy majority by 3 seats or 7."

      Which is self-evidently a reckless and irresponsible attitude, but nevertheless the example is just that: an illustrative example.

      Delete
    6. "Instead, how much of the SNP list vote would need to move to Wings in order to swing an Indy majority?"

      Answer: None. We have a pro-indy majority, and the most recent polling suggests we're on course to keep it.

      Delete
    7. James, I am on the fence between your position and Wings. And I would like to see a valid, polite, debate to help form my opinion. I think you deliberately misconstrued my question above. Instead of giving examples where Wings lose Indy seats i'd like to see what they would need to poll in order to win seats. And then hear you say why this is implausible. How many votes, for example, would it take to achieve 5%? What would be the affect if Wings did not run at all in the Borders, for example. I do think this needs a genuine discussion and not Wings saying it is possible and you saying they'd never get above 4%. These are fairly extreme views on either side.

      Delete
    8. And in your answer above, beginning 'None.' This is untrue. Your scenario gave two results where there was no Indy majority in either. So I repeat my question, how many SNP list votes would Wings need in order to win an Indy majority - based on the figures you use in your scenario?

      Delete
    9. "I think you deliberately misconstrued my question above."

      Sigh. No, I didn't "deliberately" misconstrue it, and if you want a valid, polite debate, you might start by not making unwarranted allegations of that sort. I answered the question you actually asked - you wanted to know how many list votes would need to move from the SNP to Wings to gain a pro-indy majority, and the answer is, quite simply and literally, zero. We already have a pro-indy majority, and no votes at all would need to move. That is a true statement, not an untrue statement. In a nutshell, the Wings party is a proposed solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

      "How many votes, for example, would it take to achieve 5%?"

      I don't understand that question. If you mean "how many votes would it take to achieve 5% of the vote?", then the answer is self-explanatory. If you want the answer in terms of absolute number of votes, that would obviously depend on the turnout. In 2016, 5% of the list vote would have been somewhere in the region of 115,000 votes.

      "What would be the affect if Wings did not run at all in the Borders, for example"

      The fewer regions Wings stands in, the less harm it can cause. There's a danger of harm in every region, and the risk is especially high in the Borders. That's the fullest and most accurate answer that I or anyone else can give you.

      And to point out that a new party with no roots is highly unlikely to top 5% of the vote in its first outing is not an "extreme view" as you put it - it's a statement of the obvious based on countless precedents.

      Delete
  7. Another argument for making this election about independence is that Boris making a no-deal exit from the EU a near certainty would seem to want to increase the votes wanting to separate from such madness. Seems like it is the best possible time to run a campaign based on separation and not letting the Boris' from English elite schools decide Scotland's future for them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://archive.is/xUSgh

    Lord Advocate to intervene in Brexit legal cases

    Scotland's most senior law officer, the Lord Advocate, has applied for permission to intervene in two legal cases aimed at preventing Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament.

    James Wolffe QC, the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government, wants to make representations to hearings at the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the High Court in London.

    If the applications are approved, the Lord Advocate will contend that the UK Government’s prorogation of the Westminster Parliament prevents scrutiny and represents an abuse of executive power.


    If I was English and pro-brexit, I'd be wanting to end the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are ane profoundly sinister person.

      Delete
  9. Latest headline in the National, is there something you haven't been telling us?!? :)
    "James Kelly humiliated as he's demoted in Scottish Labour reshuffle"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do know that's a completely different James Kelly, right?

      Delete
    2. I see opportunities for levity are in short supply in these febrile times! Yes, I know they are different... or are they!?! Very little would surprise me anymore :)

      Delete
  10. How likely is it that the SNP would only achieve 37% in the constituency vote while an unambiguously pro-independence party would gain enough votes on the list to cost the SNP seats without, and this is the main point, gaining list seats themselves?

    There can only be a small range of results between the SNP having such a poor election that the WOS party would prevent a Yes majority and there being an SNP/Green/WOS majority.

    Have you, or anyone else run the entire simulation?

    If there is only a small risk of the putative WOS party failing AND costing seats against the WOS party gaining seats for YES then it makes sense for it to happen.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If there is only a small risk of the putative WOS party failing AND costing seats against the WOS party gaining seats for YES then it makes sense for it to happen."

      Well, it's only a small risk if you think Wings will be getting 0.1% of the vote or something like that. If you think they'll do quite a bit better, say 2%, then it's a substantial risk.

      Delete
  11. This is a REALLY shite article. Gavin has dne a huge amount of modelling on the numbers already and without bothering to actually see any of it, James has leapt on a single comment and posted his mad cherry-picked case again.

    Of course it's TECHNICALLY possible that in theory a Wings party could reduce pro-indy seats. But in any conceivable reality (a) the window of circumstances in which that could happen in absolutely tiny, and (b) in those circumstances we wouldn't be standing.

    (You can't know all the circumstances in advance, of course, but if our polling showed we were only going to get 2-3% there's no chance we'd be going ahead.)

    James has lost his mind over this. It's a shame. If we're going to get no support and we don't run and therefore do no damage, he'll look stupid. If we get a lot of support and significantly boost pro-indy representation, he'll look stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheesh, typing on an iPad is a trainwreck.

      Delete
    2. Frankly, the chances that you'll significantly increase pro-indy representation are vanishingly small, so I'm unlikely to lose any sleep over the second eventuality. As for the first...well, I suspect you know what my concern is. I'm worried that we're going to see misleading Archie Stirling-type polling that whips up a frenzy among your keenest supporters and makes the momentum towards a Wings party unstoppable...and then when you inevitably end up with a sub-5% vote, then yes, you may indeed end up costing the pro-indy side seats. I accept that's not your intention, but it's not a "technical" or "tiny" risk, it's a very significant danger.

      As for "losing my mind", I'd just note that Gavin responded to this article by calling me a "dishonest c**t" on three separate occasions. You've responded by calling the article "really s***e". However much you may disagree with me, I've remained entirely non-abusive in the exchanges over this, and it would be nice if your side of the argument showed the same courtesy. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

      Delete
  12. There's more than one way to be discourteous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Is the C-word one of them?

      Delete
    2. Obviously. It's one of the more direct and honest ones.

      Delete
    3. For the avoidance of doubt, I am entirely comfortable with my conduct throughout these exchanges. If you're determined to interpret any dissent from your own views as discourtesy, then all I can do is shrug. I'm not the one chucking abuse around.

      Delete
    4. I don't doubt that you are.

      Delete
    5. Jeez, I can't believe you went whining to Twitter and got Gavin suspended. That's pathetic.

      Delete
    6. I didn't "go whining to Twitter". I reported an outrageously abusive tweet, which (among other things) is what the report function is actually there for. In my ten years on Twitter, I have reported perhaps four tweets, so it's not something I do lightly. I know in your world you'd give someone a medal for the 'heroic honesty' of calling someone you disagree with a "c**t", but the rest of us are not obliged to see things in quite the same way.

      Delete
  13. FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noooooo...it's like watching mummy and daddy fight (not saying who's who).

      Delete
  14. You can have an independence election if you want but we've just seen that some people have learned the lessons of the past.

    Mrs Thatcher won 3 elections in a row largely as a reaction to the loony left.
    The lunatics who held ordinary families to ransom while demanding massive pay rises.
    The lunatics who promoted paedophilia as normal
    The lunatics who wanted to disarm in the face of the evil Soviet empire.

    Now we see the trap closing.

    They'll be campaigning against letting perverts into schools. Against sterilising children. Against castrating boys. And it'll work because the overwhelming majority of normal people are not on the side of the "woke".

    Excellent work from whoever read Tacitus and Sun Tzu and has used their enemies obsession against them.

    If The FM isn't forced to back down then every current polling prediction is worthless when leaflets full of those happy smiling children at Pride(TM) parades next to gormless leftard politicians and evil paedos hit the doormats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have been letting perverts into schools since 1918. The Catholic and Anglican Church.

      Delete
    2. Somehow I think brexit is going to largely dominate proceedings.

      Delete
  15. The Holyrood list vote cannot be 'gamed'; only the FPTP constituency vote can be by normal UK general election style 'tactical voting'.

    Party list PR can't be cheated. It's a big porky pie to suggest otherwise. The list vote seat allocation will perfectly match the result proportionally (minus those parties that failed to get 5% in at least one region).

    So, vote for the party you want in cabinet on the regional list, and then, if you want, maybe lend your vote to the party you'd prefer to take the constituency seat if you believe your favourite doesn't have a chance.

    That could be SNP on the constituency and Wings on the list. However, let's not lie to people that the Wings vote is the 'clever tactical vote'. Nope; your tactical vote is the constituency one. Only these can be maximised by tactical viting as FPTP is not proportional.

    ReplyDelete
  16. On a related matter - will the Wings party have any policies? I am an independence supporter but I also like to have some idea of the ideology underpinning the party. For example the Brexit party had associations with politicians from Tom Berwick Labour to Anne Widdicombe Conservative to Kevin Moore formerly BNP. If wings are to stand then they will have to put together some form of manifesto other than - vote list seats for us. I can do that with the greens if I need an alternative to SNP. Bottom line - this is the wrong time to do this. It is not necessary and it has the risk of messing up our biggest chance of gaining independence.

    ReplyDelete