Monday, March 29, 2021

When you're in danger of falling between two stools, do you jump up, or down?

I've been totally honest from the outset about this: it's not impossible that the Alba Party intervention in this election could backfire. They could, say, take 2-3% of the vote, which probably wouldn't be enough to win any seats, but could gift SNP list seats to unionist parties.  If we're really unlucky that could swing the balance and deprive us of a pro-indy majority at Holyrood.  That's exactly the same risk that I identified when RISE were pushing the tactical voting idea in 2016, or when the Wings party idea was being floated in 2019.

But here's the thing.  If we're in danger of falling between two stools, ie. with the Alba party strong enough to damage the SNP but not strong enough to win any seats itself, there are TWO ways to avert that danger.  Either we can encourage people to abandon the Alba party and go back to the SNP on the list, or we can decide that the Alba party is too important to fail and make damn sure that it gets over the 6% de facto threshold in each region.

I don't have much doubt that the latter course of action is more viable in this particular case, although it remains to be seen whether we collectively pull it off.

*  *  *

You can catch up with Episode 5 of the Scot Goes Popcast, with special guest Len Pennie (Miss PunnyPennie) HERE.

66 comments:

  1. OR We could encourage folk to abandon the ALBA idea and vote for the Greens.
    They after all are a proven force we've all heard of.
    Lots of SNP people I know are considering voting Green.
    I'd be interested to see the next Holyrood poll, to see if my straw in the wind is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any plan that encourages people to abandon Alba is viable - the new party has got enough momentum behind it to ensure it'll get a significant number of votes. We just have to make sure it's enough.

      Delete
    2. I remember the greens. They're the ones who voted for the tram which has bankrupted Edinburgh? Those Greens?

      The same greens who preach science about Climate Change while denying the truth of human biology?

      The same Greens who support mass-immigration and endless population growth in Scotland? The anti-Environmentalist greens?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I am not convinced that the Greens are pro-independence by passion more a convenience that gathers them more votes than they would otherwise achieve. Spend any time on the various pro-indy sites and you will see that there are plenty of independence supporters. Who are not supporters of the SNP or Greens. For a number of reasons, they do not like Nicola Sturgeon, they do not feel their has been enough of a push for independence , they disagree with the "woke" policies of the SNP and greens { their reasoning not mine }

      I am a lifelong SNP voter and member and both vote SNP has been my mantra and I would never give my second vote to the greens. However I can see some appeal in potentially gaining a larger number of pro-independence MSP's. I think that some are underestimating the appeal and potential support Alex Salmond can get. If they can gather these disparate group of pro indy voters under one roof Alba may do better than some imagine

      Delete
    5. Greens aren't pro Indy. OK they voted Yes in 2014, but we now will not be granted a section 30 and the Greens are unwilling to pursue alternative mechanisms to Indy. Edtablishing a mechanism is key to Indy and if the Greens aren't willing to do that then they aren't a party of Independence.

      Delete
  2. Indeed. I’ve been voting Green (and winning, here in Edinburgh) since the beginning of Holyrood. But I’m a nerd who understands the additional member system. That’s far from common among Scots as a whole!

    A side effect of the media talking up Salmond’s idea (even as they talk him down) is it’s getting into a lot more heads than AMS tactical play has ever entered before. This could actually be a good thing for the Greens. I wouldn’t bet on it quite yet but it’s plausible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've kind of hit the nail on the head here. The thing with AMS is you *literally* don't know til all votes are cast.

      When it comes to distribution of the final seat, regional turnout and the tiniest of margins can swing it one way or another.

      Delete
    2. The Greens ARE soft on independence, they stand candidates in constituencies with out a snowballs chance in hell of winning but enough to drain support and the votes which harms the SNP and arms the unionists against independence supporters. Just ask Ruth Davidson she got in on a couple hundred seats over the SNP where the green candidate came Fourth and only took 13% of the votes, treacherous behaviour by an independence seeking party, this is going to happen again this election in even more seats. I heard 20 but haven't checked, but as Alba aren't directly opposing the SNP in Constituencies only the list I sure as hell am not giving my list vote to a party that opposes and contests seats directly with the SNP .
      SNP 1 Alba 2
      The electorate aren't daft they will see this and they will migrate towards Alba on the list. The greed of the Greens and lack of action regarding independence will come back to bite them.

      Delete
  3. "Alba party is too important to fail and make damn sure that it gets over the 6% de facto threshold in each region"

    How though? No good me voting Alba, that won't help here in the South of Scotland unless something changes radically. Posting comments on blogs won't change anything either; it's just for the geeks.

    I also support independence, not specifically the SNP, and have never tried to persuade people to vote for any party or even indy, just told them why I back indy and I think it's the best future for Scotland. Pointed them in the right direct and tried to answer questions...

    And I'll be honest; as much as I respected Alex Salmond ahead of 2014, and solidly stood up for him ahead of the trial, I'm really in two minds now. In his testimony at the committee I really feel he tried to mislead me to hurt the SNP, and now I see the apparent reasons why; this new party. If Sturgeon had been forced to resign, he could enter stage right to Alba fanfare? Hmmm.

    I think my judgement served me well ahead of both Salmond's trial (x2) and Hamilton / the committee outcomes.

    I quite like some of those that have 'defected' and understand their aims. TBH, I like other candidates more than Salmond. I think he'd make a better campaign figurehead; it looks like he can't give up the power he held. Which, in turn, may have made him weak to the attention it brought.

    But I guess it's easier for me as I have great SNP candidates on the constituency and list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No good me voting Alba, that won't help here in the South of Scotland unless something changes radically."

      Why not? That statement doesn't make sense unless you somehow know that Alba are polling below 5-6% in the South.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't the advice before that we should be both votes SNP in South Scotland because they didn't and probably won't get all constituency seats?

      This is getting too confusing. We now have independence parties fighting against each other and, for me, it's only about indy.

      I really wish the SNP had waited for indy before going for controversial policies, feels like it's all falling apart right at the time we need it not to.

      Delete
    3. "Wasn't the advice before that we should be both votes SNP in South Scotland because they didn't and probably won't get all constituency seats?"

      No. The only thing I've said that could potentially have been misinterpreted that way is that it was particularly important that ISP and AFI didn't stand in the South - although I didn't think they should have been standing anywhere.

      If the Alba Party reach 6% of the vote in the South, they'll be just as capable of winning a list seat as the SNP.

      Delete
    4. I'm in the South of Scotland. I was discussing this with others in our Yes group and my opinion, which was shared, is that both the SNP and Alba have a more than credible chance of taking one or more list seats here. Therefore neither can possibly be described as a wasted vote and either is likely to contribute to electing an MSP. Therefore members should feel free to choose which party to vote for according to their own political views.

      I'll be voting Alba on the list. However the interesting, and paradoxical effect of Alba is to make me reconsider my intention to spoil my constituency paper with the words "Women's rights are human rights" in a spirit of general hopelessness. Since Alba are in with a chance of a list seat, which could be jeopardised if the SNP loses a constituency, it makes sense to hold my nose and vote SNP in the constituency after all. (Previously I intended to vote ISP on the list, without any hope that they would get enough votes to be allocated a seat.)

      Delete
    5. Agreed Rolfe, mirrors my position for South, on both papers.

      Delete
    6. "If the Alba Party reach 6% of the vote in the South, they'll be just as capable of winning a list seat as the SNP."

      Yes, but it will be much more likely that in the South it will be at the SNP's expense rather than a unionist party.

      It was predictable, but we're heading down the rabbit hole with this now. Saying exactly the opposite as in previous elections and expecting everyone to just buy it, just ain't credible. It's emperor's new clothes stuff.

      Delete
    7. I'd like the SNP in government. While Christine Grahame should win my constituency, I can be pretty sure the SNP will not take a number of these in the region, so my SNP PR list vote will be needed to help ensure SNP voter across the borders are represented.

      The SNP share was 38% last time. It would take 13% of these swapping to Alba to get a seat (5%) and at the expense of the SNP.

      Of course I can't be 100% sure about Christine Grahame either, so if I do want the SNP in government, again my best best is SNP-SNP.

      I just don't have a spare vote to risk. This isn't a game.

      Delete
    8. I didn't realise we were in the same constituency, SS.

      I think the thing to realise is that different people are in different places as regards several important considerations, and one in particular. You still believe that Nicola Sturgeon, with absolute unfettered power in Holyrood, will deliver independence. If I agreed with that, I would probably agree with your assessment of how to vote. The problem is that I don't. I have seen the lack of action at times when there was a real chance to advance the independence cause, I have seen the ball being kicked into the long grass after the votes of the faithful have been secured, and I'm not a happy bunny. I am also violently dismayed by the policy directions the party is taking, by the breakdown in accountability to members, and by the cronyism I see which almost amounts to corruption.

      I would grit my teeth and put up with the latter, were it not for the former. I'm not voting for a party whose policies I disagree with, if it's not going to deliver independence.

      I had intended to spoil my constituency vote, as I said, because after Christine Grahame signed that pro-women letter she then backtracked and started toeing the TWAW line. I didn't understand that because she had told us she wasn't going for another term, so what hold did they have on her? Then suddenly we were told she was to be our candidate again and I realised. She wannts the PO job more than she wants to keep men out of women's single-sex spaces. Well sod that.

      I also intended to vote ISP on the list which would have been little more than a spoiled ballot, because I will not cast a list vote that will reward Emma Harper, who is so woke her eyelids are in danger of atrophying, for playing the "I have diabetes" card to leapfrof over Joan and Paul (Paul really does have a disability, but refused to capitalise on it) whom I and the members as a whole voted for.

      And I was intending to do all that precisely because I don't see any prospect whatsoever of independence in my lifetime if we are relying on giving Nicola Sturgeon unfettered power in Holyrood in perpetuity.

      Alba has changed the game. I'm now prepared to vote for Christine because I wouldn't want the loss of her seat to have the knock-on effect of losing a list seat for Alba. And my list vote no longer seems wasted as I believe Alba has a realistic chance of gaining a seat here.

      The fact that you trust the SNP to deliver independence and I don't makes our calculations entirely different, so obviously we won't come to the same conclusions. However, as far as the list vote is concerned, nobody can second-guess the arithmetic after the first seat or two is awarded. All we can do is choose the list party we prefer, which has a realistic chance of getting a seat. In South Scotland both the SNP and Alba are in that category.

      Delete
  4. Frustrated by Arthur's posts. Had to be disciplined on this very type of thing.

    Easy and justifiable digs will be made now.

    Can come back from this but need more good news and no more slip ups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boo hoo! bad man expressed a view held by the majority, but who are too cowed by the thought police to say it.
      South Glasgow has been overwhelmed by Romanian gangs. Specialist subjects, drug dealing and trafficking women for prostitution. Ask your local police if you want their view on the matter.

      Delete
    2. I used to live there and know it better than you do I'm sure. Overwhelmed? It's overwhelmingly a better place to live than most of glasgow, that's for sure.
      Try going to queens park on a sunny day, great place to live.

      Delete
  5. But a party that has a racist anti-vaxxer as a candidate? (Andy Arthur) Not gonna get my vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think a single candidate would ever be enough to put me off a party. If it was I'd never vote for anyone.

      Delete
    2. Get that point, but it just doesn't engender trust (when it's a new party starting from scratch) that they are serious and responsible.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Can someone explain Alba's policy of UDI and their actual goal? This super majority being touted is disingenuous at best, given the fact the SNP will not work with Alex Salmond. At all.


    The alba voters are also voting for UDI, not a section 30 order. SNP won't go with UDI and the alba party won't go with section 30.

    So if the results go SNP minority topped up by alba, we are looking at another election and more infighting etc.

    Vote green on the list, it's easier. And I was SNP on the list prior to Alba and the toxic one entering the fray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The toxic P Harvie and his paedophile award from a paedophile run organisation named after a paedophile? That toxic one?

      Delete
    2. I notice you haven't answered the question though Rev Peejay, why are alba pushing for something the SNP will never go for (and the vast majority of the public) ?

      Would alba go along with a section 30 request even though it's against their policy?

      Delete
    3. I'm sure they would, as long as there's a very tight deadline put on the request, with no reply being taken as a definitive no, allowing us to move on speedily to the alternative.

      Delete
    4. I don't think they would James given the fact their supporters and vocal candidates have indicated that they are not in favour of section 30. They just want to click their fingers and Scotland would be magically independent.

      Do you seriously believe that the voting public will be in favour of UDI?

      You look at polls, I've never seen a question on it but given salmond referred to the gold standard etc, I don't think it's very moral to effectively spring independence on a voter for a Scottish parliament election. And it's why alba will never ever work.

      Delete
    5. Salmond has stated that he would wish to begin negotiations with the UK gov on independence and a section 30 order would be very much part of the negotiation but absolutely not the entirety of it.

      Delete
    6. Err, a section 30 order is now meant to mean that the Scottish parliament can legislate for a referendum, having a referendum is entirely different to having negotiations on independence.

      The SNP and greens way is to request the power to hold a referendum, then if we win it's time for negotiation.

      Alba do not believe in this as they have stated they want immediate negotiations on independence i.e. UDI

      I don't think UDI works with the Scottish public and its the major sticking point with soft no's etc.

      You can't go throwing about that this election we will declare independence if we win, it's fkn ridiculous. And if you don't know why its ridiculous I would ask you to go ask ten people in the street if they think this election is a referendum or parliament election

      Delete
  7. Definitely agree James. We need to try make it work, because those who are committed wouldn’t be persuaded to abandon it anyway.

    I hope we get media coverage, and I hope they have an online media strategy, because it doesn’t look too strong so far.

    I wonder when we can expect any meaningful polling including Alba?

    ReplyDelete
  8. ISP and ILF stepping aside. My this is going to be an exciting election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if it's too early in the morning, but who are ILF?

      Delete
  9. Is there another problem for pro-independence voters - that Alba does receive its ~6% and gets list seats but the greens are knocked down to ~5% and don’t get any? Then it’s just swings and roundabouts.

    I also read an article that if there’s a perception that parties are perceived to be deliberately trying to ‘game’ the system, that more attention will be paid to vote share rather than seats in terms of the strength of a mandate for another referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Then it’s just swings and roundabouts."

      Not really, because the Alba party are stronger on independence than the Greens. It's not very likely to pan out that way anyway, because I doubt if there's really that much overlap between potential Green voters and Alba voters.

      Delete
    2. Have the Greens changed/watered down their position on independence?

      Will be fascinating to see the next wave polls.

      Delete
    3. No, it's just that they've never been as strong on indepedence as parties that were set up for that specific purpose.

      Delete
    4. Ah I see, thanks. Looking forward to tonight’s debate!

      Delete
    5. I believe Robin Harper, the Greens first MSP (and only one for many years) was never pro-independence. I certainly didn’t vote for him all the way back then just as a tactical Indy vote. The party took on independence somewhere around 2003 as I remember. And since then, my own environmentalism and independence interests have been living happily together.

      (Well, until they knifed Wightman…)

      Delete
    6. I just wish one party would stand on a platform for FFA. Whichever party that is (unionist or nationalist), they’d be sure the get a huge chunk of the vote.

      Delete
    7. The SNP support FFA in lieu of indy. It's unionists against it.

      Delete
    8. They should put it in their manifesto then...I’d vote yes in a FFA referendum!

      Delete
    9. But an FFA referendum isn't an option, that ship has sailed. AS wanted it as an option in 2014, knowing full well it would succeed, Cameron refused because he didn't want to concede FFA and was convinced No would win hands down.

      Instead we got a choice between independence or the status quo, which morphed into the conjob Vow; your dream of FFA died there.

      In any case how do you achieve FFA as an option now? Where's the mandate going to come from, who is pushing for it, other than you?

      Delete
    10. I should add that FFA requires us to remain in the Union, therefore it would require a mandate at Westminster; when will that be achieved?

      Delete
  10. James, You miss the point about South Region.
    If ALBA got 6% they might well win a seat but crucially they'd probably cost the SNP one of their two seats.
    That would be a net gain of absolutely ZERO for Indy/YES MSPs.
    Of course the SNP might do better than is forecast in the constituencies but weel-kent local MSPs like Emma Harper and Joan McAlpine would IMO be a greater asset than a pop-up candidate from ALBA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. South is very different to the rest of Scotland. That region has 3 SNP list MSPs. That’s 3X the rest of Scotland COMBINED. I would make an exception there and consider a straight SNP vote on the list. The squeeze is tighter there than anywhere else.

      But here in Lothian? The SNP haven’t a chance at a list MSP. The Greens won 2 with 34k list votes last time. The SNP got zilch on 118k. That’s d’Hondt at work! The SNP would have to lose several constituencies. They lost 2 constituencies last time and got bugger all in return despite easily winning the list vote!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election#Lothian

      If the SNP did go into free fall and lose so many seats, we’re beyond being able to do a damn thing to fix it. The Brits would win a majority with ease.

      Delete
    2. So you reckon SNP1 and Greens for the Lothian regional vote?
      I think Lorna Slater would be a real asset to Holyrood and she's a good communicator too.
      I've always said I'd look at the quality of candidates on the party lists although Joe/Sandra public won't be so forensic.

      Delete
    3. @ John Muir, what if the Tories flip the Pentlands & hold Central? Pentlands is a high Tory target & Central is anyone's guess with the students away. One of their list seats would be up for grabs, but if it goes to an alternative Unionist party & Alba squeeze out a Green, indy is one down. You can argue all day about the likelihood, but it's definitely plausible and can't be ruled out for the moment.

      IMO, there's far too much faith being placed in 2016's constituency outcome being repeated or bettered (from a spectacular high); hence the perception that SNP list votes are "wasted" & we can finesse our list votes with impunity. Until I see some credible polling to indicate otherwise, I'll be voting SNP on the list as insurance against a less than hoped for constituency outcome here in the Lothians.

      Now if I were in a region where a sweep, or near sweep, for the SNP is genuinely on the cards, I'd have a completely different perspective. Although I am somewhat at a loss to see Alba's logic, in fielding list candidates, in the South; I'm struggling to see what's to gain & painfully aware of what's to lose. Each region is different, so a one-size-fits-all approach would be best avoided.

      I miss the days when SNP + Margo was a no-brainer.

      Delete
  11. ILF? Could that be Independence Last Friday. Easy to pronounce too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure it's not KLF, but I think it's mean't to be ISP. Where's IfS when you need him.

      Delete
  12. Why are Alex Arthur and Douglas Ross risking a split in the anti-Romani vote?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While this can happen to any party, it's a much greater risk when you throw one together at short notice.

      It's why parties have candidate vetting and local branch elections for selection. Should hopefully weed out problematic folk and ensure the well respected are put forward. Doesn't always work, but it's needed to minimise such things.

      Of course if you are the Tories, you might look for such people. :-)

      Delete
    2. Romani & Romanians ain't synonyms, they refer to entirely different peoples.

      Delete
  13. Meanwhile the narrative is all about the "I" word INDEPENDENCE and how the hell we get there.
    What's not to like. Maybe the backstabbing?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not what I look for in a candidate.

    I've never agreed with this, no matter who does it.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19196854.alba-partys-neale-hanvey-continue-westminster-secures-holyrood-seat/

    Alba Party's Neale Hanvey to continue at Westminster if he secures Holyrood seat

    ReplyDelete
  15. Data from the Express poll -

    SNP 50%
    CON 21%
    LAB 17%
    LD 5%
    GREEN 4%

    List:

    SNP 42%
    CON 21%
    LAB 16%
    GREEN 11%
    LD 5%
    REF. 2%

    Polling 23rd to 26th March (pre-Alba) #FindOutNow

    ReplyDelete
  16. There has been a pro-independence majority at Holyrood for the last five years (although some don't bother to turn up). Fat lot of good it's done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er, yes but there has also been a pandemic to contend with as well as the fallout of Brexit not being known...so why would people vote yes when this stuff is going on? They adopt a wait and see approach...

      Delete
    2. The plague, and Brexit aren't going away. So, presumably it doesn't matter if there is a pro-independence MSP majority....? And what on earth has Brexit got to do with it? An independent Scotland would be out of the EU, anyway.

      The Tories have a majority, and they got voted in with a manifesto pledge of not having more referendums. They would need to be voted out before that changed.

      Delete
    3. Well it matters to voters dear boy, did you speak to any of them?

      Delete
    4. An independent Scotland would be out of the EU, anyway.

      Not much use that unionist argument this time then.

      Delete
    5. Indeed, but my point is that then soft no's want to wait and see what brexit looks like, the recent increase in no vote may actually be because some folk have felt no difference since brexit...forgetting they can't travel etc due to the pandemic and as such haven't had an outside of the EU experience yet.

      Delete