Saturday, February 17, 2024

Could the independence movement possibly avoid the slow-motion version of shooting itself in the foot in the Western Isles?

Although the Find Out Now MRP poll the other day was unusually - and some would say unrealistically - positive for the SNP, one dark cloud it still showed on the horizon was the projection that Labour would narrowly gain Na h-Eileanan an Iar.  There's something rather poignant about that, because traditionally the Western Isles (as the constituency used to be known) was a seat the SNP often won even when they were doing badly nationally, rather than the other way around.  Indeed, the only reason we can say there has been continuous pro-independence representation in the House of Commons since the Hamilton by-election in 1967 is that the SNP gained the Western Isles in the 1970 general election while they were in the process of losing Hamilton back to Labour.  It was also one of only two seats they retained anywhere in Scotland during the wilderness years between 1979 and 1987.  Although they eventually lost it when Donald Stewart retired in 1987, they took it back with Angus MacNeil in 2005, at a time when they were only winning six seats nationally.  They held it in 2010 in a similarly unpromising national context.

For clarity, here is the exact projection for Na h-Eileanan an Iar from Find Out Now - 

Labour 40%
SNP 38%
Conservatives 10%
Greens 4%
Liberal Democrats 3%
Others 5%

So on the face of it, all is not yet lost, and it's a very tight race.  But the problem is that these numbers are not fully factoring in the division in the pro-independence camp, with Angus MacNeil now standing as an independent candidate (albeit loosely allied to Alba under the Scotland United banner), and the SNP idiotically insisting on splitting the Yes vote by standing against him.  The 5% for 'others' is unusually high compared to most other constituencies, so it can be assumed that a lot of that is support for MacNeil - however that will just be the tip of the iceberg.  MRP constituency projections work by 'topping up'  the answers of respondents from the constituency itself with answers of respondents from elsewhere, and assuming they would vote the same way irrespective of where they live - which of course is a bogus assumption in this particular case.  So the 38% for the SNP can be assumed to be significantly inflated due to the involvement of respondents from outside the constituency - but even to the extent that it's based on interviews inside the constituency, a lot of those people may not know or may have forgotten that Angus MacNeil is no longer the SNP candidate.

Given the importance of the personal vote in the Western Isles, it's actually pretty likely that Mr MacNeil will be the leading pro-independence candidate at the election and will thus be the only person with any chance of stopping Labour.  But if the SNP insist on standing, they're bound to attract non-trivial support too.  If we assume the pro-independence vote in the constituency is around 45%, and if it splits at around 27% for Mr MacNeil, 14% for the SNP, and 4% for the Greens, that's going to hand the seat on a silver platter to Labour's Torcuil Crichton, who based on past precedent might then hold the seat for the rest of his life, or until he decides to retire (or until independence if that comes first).

Before it's too late, the SNP have got to swallow their pride and give Mr MacNeil a free run.  They don't need to actively campaign for him - but just don't get in his way.

73 comments:

  1. No chance of the SNP doing the right thing. It's party first, as it has been since 2014. They'll split the vote, lose the seat and blame Angus for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely. It’s not rational, it’s the Godfather. Lose respect (aka fear) and lose it all. A single seat is nothing compared to losing grip on the whole party.

      Delete
    2. Or more pithily: you f*** with us, we f*** with you.

      Sorry Western Isles, this is family business.

      Delete
    3. Can’t see any other result than a labour win in that seat. Happy to be proven wrong. I think the Lab majority could be substantial. The media will love this one - the ferries fiasco offers the perfect hook for single issue reporting that ignore complexity and nuance, not least the simple fact of a split Indy vote.

      Delete
  2. Recent polling data situates the Alba party at a negligible threshold, while concurrently placing the SNP as having virtually all the support of those voting for nationalist parties (with the exception of the Green Party). It would be unwarranted to entertain the notion that the SNP should acquiesce in any deal to stand aside in seats. In the case of Na h-Eileanan an Iar it is important to remember that the incumbent representation lacks SNP affiliation only due to the defection of the current MP. It is noteworthy that the said parliamentarian secured election under the auspices of the SNP party label, thereby underscoring the intrinsic association of the constituency with the SNP ethos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody actually talks like that. Either Team Humza have employed a teenager with a thesaurus to do their astroturfing, or you're a very subtle parody. I can't work out which.

      Delete
    2. Indubitably noteworthy. His intrinsic qualities bear no scrutiny when seen in the cold, hard objective light of party auspices. Most cromulently.

      Delete
    3. Never mind the flowery language, it's factually false too. Angus didn't defect, he was expelled. He remains an independent not joining any other party so where was he supposed to have defected to?

      Delete
    4. For those who falsely claim he left the SNP voluntarily, a reminder:

      BBC News, 11th August 2023: "MP Angus MacNeil expelled by SNP after chief whip row"

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66470026

      Delete
  3. It is clearly crucial now for the independence movement, we can surely all agree, that we rally around the party trying to topple a sitting, pro-independence MP, and haud our wheesht and all vote SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear hear. Expert analysis. I’m not the same guy, no sir, honest. Settling into the…

      Delete
  4. Dear , dear !
    What waffle!
    I lived and worked in the Western isles till I retired recently . I can assure folk that Angus Brendan does and will have a large personal vote . He will take a huge proportion of the
    Pro indy vote. The ferry situation will have a major impact too.

    It will be madness if the SNP stand against him ; might as well just hand the seat to Crichton ( who is supposed to be Labour but is quite right wing and a raving britnat.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The decision to stand against Angus MacNeil is the biggest single indicator that the SNP has lost all serious interest in indy. It is utterly unfathomable.
    I'm posting this from the Longshanks cafe in Stirling btw.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So let's get this straight. Most people think the SNP will oust the current independence supporting MP and hand the seat to a Britnat. This has to be added to the 'Both Votes SNP' and the 'Vote SNP and no other' policies to show the SNP care nothing for independence but everything for what suits the party and its ruling faction.

    Beats me how anyone faced with the many years of evidence to the contrary thinks the current SNP supports independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's important to provide some context. The departure stemmed from a disciplinary matter. Voters initially elected the incumbent MP as a representative of the SNP, thus indicating their support for the SNP's principles and objectives.

      It would be reasonable, in this important election, to afford voters the opportunity to continue supporting the SNP, despite the incumbent's departure, as they should be considered to have selected an SNP politician in the first place.

      The speculation that the seat may fall to a candidate from Labour is exactly that, speculation. The democratic process affords voters the opportunity to decide which pro-independence candidate is most aligned with their values and priorities.

      The SNP should be given the chance to engage with voters in this constituency who may feel disillusioned by recent events, reaffirming their commitment to the cause of independence and earning back their trust through principled action.

      Moreover, standing aside this time effectively gives up the constituency from the SNP's domain of representation, because it establishes a precedent that internet commentators would recapitulate at subsequent elections; better for SNP and hence for the causes that the SNP supports, to retain the principle of contesting elections in all seats.

      By standing in the constituency, upholding the principles of democracy and allowing for robust debate, the SNP can ensure that the interests of Scotland and its pursuit of independence are safeguarded.

      Delete
    2. It's very much a repeat of their 'strategy' in Rutherglen where they actively campaigned to have Margaret Ferrier, a hard working pro indy MP, ousted for a crime no other MP lost their seat for - and then tried to foist another Sturgeonite do-nothing drone on the voters. It blew up in their faces there and it will do so in the Western Isles too - it's policy based on petty vindictiveness.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 3.04= gobshite

      Delete
    4. If you keep spouting portentous, prattling, purportedly perspicacious pish, perhaps the plebs will believe it’s wine.

      Worked in the SSP, right, anon?

      Delete
  7. For the sake of the independence cause it’s time to get behind the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the SNP gets behind MacNeil, Hanvey and MacAskill, absolutely. Ball’s in their court.

      Delete
    2. One left the party the other two stole peoples money and votes
      The SNP can't afford to have anything to do with any of them, especially since the two that stole votes will be voted out at the general election

      Delete
    3. Anon at 6.32pm - Hanvey stood as an independent in 2019 with zero support from the SNP. So are you a liar or misinformed. If it's poorly informed perhaps you should check what you say before posting.

      Delete
    4. The idea the SNP are going to give over to someone they expelled would make no sense with the slightest questioning and would make their disciplinary process look weak and a sham.

      This Bobby horse is nonsense on stilts and not a goer

      Delete
    5. What you really mean is that doing the right thing would involve a tacit acceptance that the outcome of the disciplinary process was, for want of a better phrase, "nonsense on stilts and not a goer". Maybe it would, but is swallowing your pride and accepting a mistake has been made really a worse outcome than needlessly handing Labour a victory and potentially installing Torcuil Crichton as MP for life?

      Delete
    6. What I really mean is what I've said.
      Could ask McNeill the same question.
      He should have taken his medicine and stayed in the SNP for the better of all.

      Folding for McNeill is a thin end of folding for Alba as well under the same theory. It's about giving Alba a free shot more than anything else, and probably still failing.

      I happen to like McNeill but SNP would look foolish and weak. It means discipline procedure isnt worth a fig which isn't, in the long run, good for a party.

      Delete
    7. The disciplinary procedure is more than a goer, it's happened. Which is more than can be said for the SNP stepping aside for McNeill

      Delete
    8. Don't be silly, Anon, of course it's not a goer. The "disciplinary process" (already regarded as a complete joke, incidentally, it doesn't need to become one) would only have been a viable tactic if there was the remotest chance of a replacement SNP candidate outpolling him, which there isn't. Sorry to have to drag you back to the real world, but there it is.

      Delete
  8. And if the SNP did hold out an olive branch to MacNeil and the Alba 2 it would send a message to all of Scotland that they were putting country afore narrow party interests .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While extending an olive branch to MPs who have defected may appear conciliatory, when considered superficially, it's essential to consider the deeper message such a gesture by the SNP leadership would send to loyal SNP supporters and members.

      Delete
    2. Right, you're a parody, you've got to be a parody. Performance art?

      Delete
    3. Don’t talk to the mime. He can’t hear you. Can’t you see? He’s behind that glass!

      Delete
    4. No, it would say the SNP tolerate a couple of thieves who steal voters money time and votes

      Delete
    5. Well you could say that about any of the current crop of SNP grifters! Stealing our time, money and votes is all they have done for the last 10 years.

      Delete
  9. I know you’re well meaning James, and your argument is indeed sound, but the chances of SNP heeding this warning are zilch. They barely supported McNeil when he was in the SNP, why would they start now? Don’t you feel you are wasting your time offering such advice to the SNP when they are clearly not interested in anything other than their own narrow party advantage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then pointing out that fact is itself an important message.

      Delete
    2. @4:22. Of course they’re not gonna listen to him. Anyone who ever joined Alba There’s a card carrying QAnon/Trumpet/Wings Over Scotland conspiracy theorist as far as they are concerned.

      And their opinion of the MPs in question that will be no better. It’s tribal stuff.

      Delete
    3. You can just picture the losing SNP candidates election night speech when they come third at the count. They’ll be gracious to the gloating and victorious labour candidate, in his butcher’s apron waistcoat, who put up a gentlemanly fight and all the rest of it. He will surely do the Western Isles proud in the imperial parliament. But they’ll take a good dig at Angus McNeil because he’s a wee shite. Never forget!

      Delete
    4. "Anyone who ever joined Alba There’s a card carrying QAnon/Trumpet/Wings Over Scotland conspiracy theorist as far as they are concerned."

      God's sake, I don't know how many times I have to criticise Campbell before the penny drops with them that I'm not a "Wings Over Scotland conspiracy theorist".

      Delete
    5. Indeed! But you're either with us or you're with the Bathisists, to borrow a phrase…

      Delete
    6. The QAnon folk and the folk *still* wearing masks aren't as far apart as they think they are. Both think they're so much smarter than the rest of the world. You do get the impression a proportion of Alba would be Trump supporters in US.

      Delete
    7. Salmond and Kenny are great politicians who want the best for Scotland. But some of the hangers on of the party would make Mike Pence weep

      Delete
    8. The "folk *still* wearing masks", ie. sensible people who mind their own business and simply try to prevent themselves and their families from needlessly catching respiratory infections, includes me. I was at the Alba conference in October in an FFP3 mask, and if there were any other mask-wearers there it must have been only one or two. So if you think Alba is some sort of hotbed of "still mask-wearing", which would be a wonderful thing by the way, you couldn't be more wrong.

      Delete
    9. I wore them like everyone else sensible at the time. If the world started wearing masks constantly forever with no pandemic that would be a terrible thing in my view. As it is now, it doesn't bother me but it is an identifier of oddball status, which is what Alba are trying to avoid.

      Delete
    10. Oh gosh yes, it would be *simply frightful* to take an easy step to stop or slow the spread of respiratory infections and save countless lives.

      What a mind-bogglingly idiotic comment - although it's perhaps surpassed in stupidity by your bizarre attempts to smear Alba as the 'mask-wearing party' when I've already pointed out to you the undeniable truth that practically nobody in Alba is wearing masks anymore.

      Delete
    11. In response to the abusive comment I've just deleted: no, I don't think everyone is an idiot apart from me. You are in fact mercifully rare. The belief that the responsible act of wearing a mask during an ongoing pandemic renders one an "oddball" is an extreme form of stupidity, yes, but it's also an uncommon one.

      Delete
    12. You start to realise the movement is full of oddballs. These folk would be in the tea party. Cutting about in 2024 with a mask on is undeniably strange to the vast majority of most people. You must think they're all idiotic would be killers, how frightful it must be for you walking among such awful people

      Delete
  10. What percentage speak Gaelic in the constituency?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 52.3% in the 2011 census. I'm not sure if we have the updated numbers from the new census yet.

      Delete
  11. 3 local candidates, Thomson a new councillor from Eriskay. For Crichton it might matter how much he used his position at the Record to advance local interests, considering he was the Westminster guy and moved to London for it. And local issues are not just ferries, just to name another couple it's planes and medical for those not on Lewis or Harris.

    Brian Wilson used his column in the Record in the 80s to push for local issues like electrification of the trains to Ayr, Ardrossan and Largs. He got elected to kick out the useless Tory John Corrie, but also because of his efforts using his public platform. What has Crichton done for his prospective constituency? Genuine question, I have no idea. But I'd guess (more than guess I get there most years) that the people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar would.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If the SNP were not to challenge defecting incumbent candidates in the next general election, it could pose significant risks. By not contesting these seats, the SNP might inadvertently strengthen their opponents, potentially jeopardizing the party's overall electoral strategy and weakening their position. This approach could also lead to disillusionment among loyal SNP supporters, who may feel abandoned or disheartened by the party's lack of assertiveness in defending its interests and principles. The initiative could also establish a precedent, to which commentators would make reference in subsequent contests, tĥereby introducing an obstacle onto the pathway to regaining of the affected seats in subsequent elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My absence of concurrence with your thesis evades illusion most obsequiously, sir.

      Delete
    2. Aye, thou thesis art both bold and garrulous, but I must demit from acquiescence, with much contrition!

      Delete
    3. Again, Mr MacNeil was expelled from the SNP, he didn't "defect" as you falsely claim, so your "bold and garrulous thesis" is based on a bogus premise.

      Delete
    4. Regardless of whether Mr. MacNeil's departure stemmed from a disciplinary matter, or left voluntarily, the core argument remains unchanged. The focus is on the potential consequences for the SNP if they choose not to contest seats held by former SNP members. Whether he left voluntarily or was expelled, the impact on the electoral strategy and potential disillusionment among SNP supporters remains relevant. While the distinction between "expelled" and "defected" is linguistically relevant, it doesn't alter the substance of the argument. The key issue is that there are seats previously held by SNP members that the party is not contesting, and the potential risks associated with that decision. The argument highlights the potential risks of not contesting certain seats, regardless of the circumstances under which Mr. MacNeil left the party. The concern is about inadvertently strengthening opponents, potential disillusionment among supporters, and setting a precedent that could affect future elections. These concerns remain valid regardless of the specific reasons for Mr. MacNeil's departure.
      Additionally, the argument isn't solely about Mr. MacNeil but about the broader implications for the SNP's electoral strategy. Even if Mr. MacNeil's case is specific, the broader strategy of not contesting certain seats has implications beyond his individual situation. Lastly, the argument about setting a precedent and introducing obstacles in future contests stands irrespective of the circumstances of Mr. MacNeil's departure. The concern is about the potential long-term effects on the SNP's ability to regain affected seats in subsequent elections, which remains relevant regardless of the specific details of individual cases. In essence, the core argument about the potential risks and consequences of the SNP's electoral strategy remains valid regardless of whether he was expelled or left voluntarily.

      Delete
    5. Felicitations, thy panoptical verberance consecrates the tutelage, but I must yet resist and abet your sibial aberrations.

      Delete
    6. As must we all. I didn't want my tutelage consecrated anyway. Bloody cheek.

      Delete
    7. I agree with the original anonymous comment here about precedents. More eloquently put than I could do.
      It's crap there is infighting within the movement but you can't just throw your whole disciplinary process out the window because the MP is popular enough to split the vote

      Delete
    8. All this stuff shows is that the SNP is more interested in how it does as a party than Scottish independence. It just strengthens my will not to vote SNP. The word missing from anon's long post at 12.08pm is independence. It's been missing from the SNP for many years now - since Nov 2014.

      Delete
    9. "but you can't just throw your whole disciplinary process out the window because the MP is popular enough to split the vote"

      You can when that gradiosely titled "disciplinary pricess" was a kangaroo court that would have shamed a banana republic. Best just to quietly admit to yourself that a mistake was made and try to limit the damage.

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon12.48. You are jist opening yer mouth tae let yer belly rumble . Nae doot the biggest thing ye'll ever dee is in yer breeks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Or macneills swallows his and gives the SNP a free run


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angus MacNeil was voted in as an MP in 2005 for the 1st time, one of 6 SNP MPs, there having been just 4 in 2001.

      Brendan O'Hara who he supposedly had an argument with over voting, was voted in as an MP in 2015 for the 1st time - one of 56.

      McNeil gets suspended for 1 week, not O'Hara.

      Meanwhile, Stephen Flynn, elected in 2015 for the 1st time, one of I can't be bothered, DID NOT VOTE in Hanvey's Bill. But he wasn't suspended by the SNP.

      Naughty boy Angus, go to your room.

      What a load of pathetic nonsense by the supposedly democratic SNP, with disciplinary committees elected by delegates, not members, with the power of suspension over MPs voted for by their constituents. Genghis Kahn would be so impressed.

      Delete
  16. The only positive I can see is that at least the SNP are standing a local candidate, councillor Susan Thomson.
    If they had sent another indentikit blue hair fresh off the production line at Stirling Uni, that would have been another whole level of pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree that SNP have chosen a good candidate.

      Delete
    2. They did that 20 years ago, and then kicked him in the nuts.

      Delete