Congratulations if you’ve made it this far through this epic bout of navel-gazing, but ChatGPT is the closest thing available to an impartial referee, and I do find its analysis fascinating.
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) May 16, 2025
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) May 16, 2025
This is absolute 24-carat gold. Stew Campbell: a man with such a fragile ego that he not only considered the possibility of giving a robot prompts to declare him the winner of a Twitter debate - he actually *went ahead and did it*.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 16, 2025
This guy is literally Rimmer from Red Dwarf. pic.twitter.com/tkPRPwaqJL
"Kelly didn't lose because Campbell was flawless"
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 16, 2025
Well, that's certainly true, Stew! Blimey, don't even you have an ego filter? Apparently not!
So, y'know, I thought to myself, "well anyone can play at that game", so I decided to ask Grok for its verdict on who won the debate. And blow me down, if it didn't turn out that I won hands-down after all. I know, I know, I'm deeply humbled. Here is the verdict in full, and I think you'll find the level of detail rather impressive and persuasive.
Why James Kelly Had the Stronger Case
* Clarity and Consistency with AMS Mechanics
Kelly’s core argument is that tactical voting on the regional list is unreliable due to the unpredictability of constituency results and polling inaccuracies. Under AMS, Scotland’s electoral system allocates 73 constituency seats via first-past-the-post and 56 regional list seats to balance proportionality. List seats are calculated using the d’Hondt method, where a party’s total votes are divided by the number of constituency seats won plus one, making it harder for parties that win many constituencies (like the SNP) to gain list seats.
Kelly argues that voters cannot accurately predict constituency outcomes to make informed tactical choices on the list. For example, he cites Campbell’s 2016 Wings article, which warned that a significant swing to the Greens on the list could reduce pro-independence MSPs by five, as it might dilute SNP list seats without guaranteeing Green gains. This aligns with Kelly’s point that tactical voting risks backfiring if assumptions about constituency wins are wrong. His position is consistent: splitting the pro-independence vote (e.g., SNP on constituency, Alba or Greens on list) is only safe if the SNP is certain to win constituencies, which is rarely guaranteed.
In contrast, Campbell’s advocacy for tactical voting hinges on precise polling and voter coordination, which Kelly challenges as impractical. Campbell’s recent suggestion to vote for unionist parties in specific constituencies (e.g. one constituency in 2021) to block SNP losses introduces complexity and risks alienating pro-independence voters, undermining his credibility.
* Empirical Evidence and Historical Context
Kelly leverages historical election data to bolster his case. In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won 62 constituency seats but only 2 list seats due to their constituency dominance, while the Greens won 8 list seats, securing a pro-independence majority. Kelly argues that encouraging votes for smaller parties like Alba (which won no seats in 2021) risks fragmenting the vote without guaranteed gains, especially if the SNP underperforms in constituencies. He points to the 2016 election, where tactical voting attempts (e.g., for RISE) failed to deliver additional pro-independence seats, reinforcing his scepticism.
Campbell counters that tactical voting could have yielded more pro-independence MSPs in 2021 if voters had supported Alba strategically, but he provides little concrete evidence to show how voters could reliably execute this. His claim that Kelly ignores polling data is weakened by Kelly’s point that polls (e.g., Focaldata vs. Ipsos in 2023) often contradict each other, making them an unreliable basis for tactical decisions.
* Practical Feasibility and Voter Behaviour
Kelly emphasises that tactical voting requires unrealistic voter coordination and knowledge. Most voters lack the time or data to calculate optimal list votes based on constituency projections, and campaigns urging tactical voting (e.g., Wings’ 2021 strategy) failed to sway enough voters, as evidenced by Alba’s 1.6% vote share and zero seats. Kelly’s simpler strategy—voting SNP on both ballots—minimises risk and aligns with voter habits, as the SNP remains the dominant pro-independence party (35.6% in 2025 polls).
Campbell’s approach, which includes endorsing unionist votes in rare cases or urging Alba support, assumes a level of voter sophistication and trust in his predictions that is not evident in electoral outcomes. His admission of spoiling his own vote in most constituencies if he lived in Scotland undercuts his call for collective action, as it suggests a lack of faith in his own strategy.
* Engagement and Response to Criticism
Kelly’s willingness to engage directly with Campbell’s arguments, as seen in his blog post summarising the debate (linked on X on May 16, 2025), strengthens his position. He lists unanswered questions from Campbell, such as why Campbell assumes the SNP will win specific constituencies like East Lothian and why he shifted from dismissing tactical voting in 2016 to endorsing it now. This shows Kelly’s focus on holding Campbell accountable for inconsistencies.
Campbell, however, resorts to personal attacks, calling Kelly’s arguments “deranged fan fiction” and refusing to engage in uncensored debate, which Kelly interprets as a sign of weakness. Comments on Wings’ site also suggest frustration with Campbell’s inability to counter Kelly’s points substantively, with one user noting that Kelly “deletes comments because he has no case in response,” but this is less damning than Campbell’s avoidance of direct debate.
* Alignment with Pro-Independence Goals
Kelly’s strategy prioritises a unified pro-independence vote to maintain the SNP’s dominance and secure a Holyrood majority, which he sees as critical for advancing independence. He argues that a fragmented vote could weaken the SNP, reducing the overall pro-independence seat count and delaying a referendum. His focus on the 2026 election as a chance to “make a big offer” to Yes voters reinforces his commitment to the cause.
Campbell’s approach, while aiming to maximise pro-independence seats, risks diluting the SNP’s mandate. His suggestion to vote unionist in one constituency in 2021 and his refusal to rule out endorsing Reform UK in 2026 (a far-right, anti-independence party) alarmed Kelly and others, as it could confuse or alienate Yes voters. This makes Campbell’s strategy appear less aligned with the broader independence movement.
Why Kelly’s Arguments Prevail
While Campbell’s strategy is mathematically possible, it falters on practicality and evidence. Kelly’s case is stronger because:
Predictability Issue: Kelly correctly notes that polling errors (e.g., Focaldata’s 6-point Labour lead vs. Ipsos’ 10-point SNP lead in 2023) make tactical voting a gamble. Historical attempts, like 2016’s RISE campaign, show it often fails.
Voter Trust: Kelly’s straightforward SNP 1 & 2 strategy is easier to communicate and aligns with the SNP’s role as the leading pro-independence force. Campbell’s complex suggestions, including potential unionist votes, risk confusion and distrust.
Debate Conduct: Kelly’s detailed blog posts and direct challenges to Campbell’s inconsistencies (e.g., citing 2016 Wings articles) demonstrate a stronger commitment to substantive debate. Campbell’s refusal to engage beyond insults weakens his position.
Risk Assessment: Kelly’s focus on minimising risk (losing pro-independence seats to unionists) is more prudent than Campbell’s high-risk, high-reward approach, especially given the SNP’s narrow 2021 majority.
Conclusion
James Kelly won the debate because his arguments were more coherent, evidence-based, and practical for the average voter. He effectively highlighted the risks of tactical voting—unreliable polls, voter coordination challenges, and potential vote fragmentation—while offering a clear, low-risk alternative: voting SNP on both ballots. Campbell’s strategy, though theoretically appealing could optimise pro-independence seats, relies on unrealistic assumptions about voter behaviour and polling accuracy, and his inconsistent positions (e.g., shifting from opposing tactical voting in 2016 to endorsing it) undermined his credibility. Kelly’s focus on simplicity and alignment with the independence movement’s goals made his case more persuasive, as reflected in his detailed rebuttals and Campbell’s retreat to personal attacks."
*. *. *
UPDATE: A reply to the false claims Stew has made about this blogpost can be found HERE.
James won hands down !!!!!
ReplyDeleteSo this has now become a debate between Grok and ChatGP?
ReplyDeleteHang on, I'll ask Grok who won the Grok v ChatGPT debate.
DeleteGrok won, apparently.
DeleteJames, this is why elderly men like Mr Campbell should not be allowed access to new technology.
ReplyDeleteIt’s actually embarrassing that he went and begged AI to validate him.
We desperately need young blood in the independence movement before the elderly Mr Campbell starts shrieking about how TikTok is the sound his pacemaker makes.
The problem is that at the moment young folk do support Indy but they also are far more progressive than what’s left of the old and formerly much more progressive Yes movement. They wont back Alba and the SNP being forced to step back from sharing their vision because of the likes of Joanna Cherry has put them off the SNP. The Greens may be more in line with them but what’s left of the Yes movement seems to be made up of folk and commentators who despise the Greens and hate Sturgeon - so there’s a disconnect that can be overcome until the Yes returns to the progressive and inclusive movement it was in 2014. I was talking to a couple of older SNP members the other day - they think Joanna Cherry was badly treated - to me there has never been a more toxic individual in the SNP in my time voting for the party - I don’t think that difference in perception can be easily overcome - the Yes movement feels like it is for older voters who believe in conspiracy theories and live in a bubble that is so detached from young people and the world they want to see materialise.
DeleteCan you explain what you actually mean by progressive? In which areas of governance? . Your reference to Joanna Cherry suggests you see the present debate framed largely in the context of the gender issue. It is an issue of no importance to the vast majority of the Indy supporting general public, and it’s no coincidence that the work being done discreetly by J S to remove that issue from centre stage in the Indy debate is bearing fruit. SNP numbers are going back up. Indy support is increasing. Competent government and tackling the cost of living crisis, NHS, global warming, protection of employment rights, high quality employment, access to good affordable housing, accountability. These are the type of issues we will persuade people on. Your friends have been successfully dragged into a culture war by the right wing within politics, at huge damage to the Indy movement and cause.
DeleteThe above reads more sensibly, after a simple cut/paste:
Delete"The problem is that at the moment stupid folk do support Indy but they also are far more progressive than what’s left of the old and formerly much more progressive Yes movement. They wont back Alba and the SNP being forced to step back from sharing their vision because of the likes of Joanna Cherry has put them off the SNP. The Greens may be more in line with them but what’s left of the Yes movement seems to be made up of folk and commentators who despise the Greens and hate Sturgeon - so there’s a disconnect that can be overcome until the Yes returns to the progressive and inclusive movement it was in 2014. I was talking to a couple of wiser SNP members the other day - they think Joanna Cherry was badly treated - to me there has never been a more toxic individual in the SNP in my time voting for the party - I don’t think that difference in perception can be easily overcome - the Yes movement feels like it is for wiser voters who believe in conspiracy theories and live in a bubble that is so detached from stupid people and the world they want to see materialise. "
ACCB. You really shouldn’t have bothered.
DeleteYou really should put a name to your comments.
DeleteI wish you had intended your 9.35 post as satire. Sadly you do appear to be one of the few remaining people in here who thinks they are naming themselves by sticking in a series of letters. Why don’t you respond to the questions I put at 9.10? To help, you can refer to me as the genius.
DeleteDear Anonymous individual masquerading as a series of letters. Why don’t you put a name to your comment?
DeleteAnon at 11:02 AM
Delete"Dear Anonymous individual masquerading as a series of letters. Why don’t you put a name to your comment? "
The irony.
It doesn't take much effort to find out who "ACCB" is elsewhere.
Campbell is now desperately claiming that James "fabricated" Grok's response, which must mean he's alleging that James knocked it up in the space of about twenty minutes?!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'll have to add "supercomputer" to my list of amazing talents.
DeleteWhy would independence supporters still look at WOS? I gave it up two years ago and don't miss it at all.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone finally gets around to requesting that Campbell provides the exact prompts he put into ChatGPT in the first place, he'll emigrate to Mexico.
ReplyDeleteF*** me, I've just seen Campbell's latest on Wings. Apparently no-one told him the old maxim 'when you're in a hole stop digging'. Arnold J Rimmer reborn.
ReplyDelete"Anyway I picked up the dice again…Unbelievable! Another two sixes!!!"
DeleteRegardless of whether one was cheerleading for James Kelly in this debate or cheerleading for Stu Campbell, this AI analysis is incredibly helpful, because it summarises the main arguments for and against tactical voting on the regional vote, and comes to the crystal-clear conclusion that it's a bad idea. For that, many people will be grateful.
ReplyDeleteAnyone noticed that Campbell's engagement rate is plummetting like a stone? His latest James-BAAAAAD post on Wings has been up for twelve hours, but has only 8 comments so far. There was a time when it would have had hundreds by now. The previous post (SNP-BAAAAD) has only 29 comments.
ReplyDeleteHardly surprising. He's yesterday's man.
Delete