How will the Greens' inclusion in the TV debates affect the other parties?

Although inclusive leaders' debates are undoubtedly the fairest outcome, I can't help feeling that the broadcasters have copped out somewhat. Past precedents and the logic that previously justified those precedents should have led us to three-cornered (and indeed all-female) debates this year between Nicola Sturgeon, Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson. Willie Rennie should have been excluded because the Liberal Democrats have fewer MSPs than the Greens did going into the 2007 election, when Robin Harper didn't receive an invitation to the debates. The Liberal Democrats also received a lower percentage of the list vote in 2011 than the Greens did in 2003. Rennie can't even pray in aid his party's results in recent non-Holyrood elections, because they were reduced to fringe party status in the 2012 local elections and the 2015 UK general election, and were completely wiped out in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Nor is it the case that one solitary Westminster MP is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card - if it was, George Galloway would have been involved in the UK debates last year.

Consciously or unconsciously, I would guess what's happened here is that the broadcasters couldn't even conceive of excluding the Lib Dems, so they've brought the Greens in to give themselves cover for what would otherwise be the unjustifiable presence of Rennie. If the Lib Dems' support hadn't collapsed, we'd be looking at the traditional four-way debates and Patrick Harvie wouldn't have had any hope of a look-in. You might think that what we've ended up with is the right outcome and it doesn't really matter how we got here, but I'd say it does - there has to be some kind of objective criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The starting-point can't be "party X has to be included, no matter how little support they have, so we'll shape the rules to justify that outcome". Nor can it be (as it was in 2010) : "party X has to be excluded, no matter how popular they are". If the Greens have earned a place as of right in the 2016 debates, they must have more than earned a place in the 2007 debates - so where were they? If, on the other hand, the Greens fell short of the threshold in 2007, then both the Lib Dems and the Greens must have fallen even further short of the threshold this time - so what are Willie Rennie and Patrick Harvie doing there?

For better or worse, though, Harvie has secured his place, and that could have an impact on the prospects of the other parties. Here's how I think it could work out...

SNP : Bad news. Nicola Sturgeon could well need list seats to retain her overall majority, and she'll be fishing in the same pond as the Greens for some of her list votes.

Labour : Bad news. Labour are going to be mostly (perhaps even totally) dependent on list seats for their representation, so even if they lose fewer left-wing votes to the Greens than the SNP do, it could actually cost them a greater number of seats.

Conservatives : Unclear, but possibly good news. There are only so many list seats available, so a good Green showing could in theory harm the Tories. But it could also help them relative to Labour's performance, which may be all they really care about at this stage.

Liberal Democrats : Bad news. It's completely irrational, because the Lib Dems and Greens don't have a huge amount in common, but the same type of voter often seems to be attracted to both parties. The Lib Dems' status as the fourth-largest party could therefore be seriously threatened by Patrick Harvie being seen to be on an equal footing with Willie Rennie.

RISE and Solidarity : Unmitigated disaster. Harvie's inclusion will make the Greens look like the only credible radical left option on the list.

Having said all that, there's no guarantee that the Greens will actually make a telling breakthrough on the back of this. It's hard to see that Natalie Bennett's inclusion in the UK debates last year helped the Greens all that much. This is a golden opportunity for Patrick Harvie, but no more than that for now - it remains to be seen whether he will take full advantage of it.

* * *

Is our old friend Mike "can't be arsed" Smithson the least self-aware political commentator in Britain? He returned to a familiar theme today -

"The Corbynistas are more than ready to use the term “Red Tories” to describe those in their party who oppose them. This is bull***t. The real Red Tories are those whose actions will lead to another Conservative majority and they are, of course the followers of Corbyn and McDonnell."

Smithson, of course, is the man who penned a rare editorial in May 2010 begging his party (the Lib Dems) to go into coalition with the Tories, in order to avoid the terrible "mistake" of keeping Labour in power. Well, they successfully avoided that "mistake", and were rewarded with near-extinction five years later. Yeah, Mike, with a track record like that, good luck with your efforts to brand Labour's most left-wing leadership in history as "the real Red Tories".

Would it be terribly unkind of me to point out that it was the Labour right that lost the last two elections to the Tories, not the Labour left? And if the heirs to Blair and Brown couldn't even "be arsed" (to use Smithson's favourite phrase) to put up a remotely credible candidate for leader after last year's defeat, that's ultimately their own responsibility, not Jeremy Corbyn's. It's occurred to me more than once that Bernie Sanders' biggest problem at the moment is that he isn't running against Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall.

Why it's important to have an overall SNP majority, and not just a pro-independence majority

I've just noticed that Adam Ramsay penned a response to the "tactical voting on the list" debate a few days ago.  It's a more nuanced piece than we've previously seen from him on the same subject, but it still made me smile, because it essentially argues : "The debate is about politics, not maths. It's about whether you care more about an SNP majority, or about maximising the number of pro-independence MSPs."  You probably don't need me to point out the glorious irony that the 'political' choice Adam is presenting us with is an entirely bogus one based on bogus maths - or rather on a conveniently selective presentation of the array of mathematical possibilities.

The reality is that switching from SNP to Green on the list could in theory help to either increase or reduce the overall number of pro-independence MSPs - and so could switching from Green to SNP.  As the better "tactical" option is unknowable in advance, why wouldn't anyone simply vote for their first-choice party?  (The situation with RISE is different, as polling evidence suggests they have very little chance of winning any seats at all - so if maximising pro-independence representation is all you care about, all list votes for RISE are likely to be "wasted".  The same is true of Solidarity in seven out of eight regions.)

However, let's humour Adam and pretend for the sake of argument that we are making a straight choice between an SNP majority and a greater number of pro-indy MSPs (we really, really aren't).  Based on that assumption, he poses this question -

"why is it so vital that the SNP get a majority, rather than simply an overwhelming plurality, with Sturgeon reliant on support from parties to her left? I’ve yet to hear a good answer."

Let me make some suggestions -

1)  Momentum.  If the SNP lose their majority against all expectations, it will be a psychological setback for the cause of independence, and the unionist establishment and press will have a field day.  A mini-example from the past is the 2003 election, when a slight increase in the overall number of pro-independence MSPs was obscured by the SNP's big losses, which was all the media cared about.

2) Mandate.  We don't know exactly what the SNP's manifesto will say about the possibility of a second referendum or about more powers, but whatever wording is used will receive a clear mandate if the SNP win an overall majority in their own right.  That mandate can then be used to apply moral pressure on Westminster.  It will be much harder to do that if there is a more complex pro-independence mandate consisting of multiple parties with different (and perhaps conflicting) wordings in their manifestos.

3) Trust.  Let's be honest - many SNP members and supporters simply don't trust the Greens to always be "on their side" on the constitution when it matters most.  Whether that's justified is open to debate, but it's less than five years since there was an anti-independence Green MSP in the Scottish Parliament, and it was only last year that Caroline Lucas voted against Full Fiscal Autonomy in the House of Commons, apparently in deference to Scottish Green Party policy.

Adam goes on to make the broader point that support for independence is more likely to increase if the public see a range of pro-independence parties in parliament disagreeing with each other on bread-and-butter issues, but agreeing on the constitutional question.  I think there's a grain of truth in that, but the problem is that it's unclear whether the radical left parties can bring anything new to the table - their popular support is limited, and most people are probably already fully aware that they were on the Yes side.  Far, far more useful would be to see the Tories eclipsed (or at least seriously challenged) by a centre-right pro-independence party - but clearly that isn't going to happen any time soon.

YouGov survey puts SNP in pole position for European elections

There have been so many different polls over the last few weeks that it's possible I've lost track somewhere along the line, but I'm fairly sure this is the first time YouGov have interviewed a full-scale sample of Scottish respondents on their European Parliament voting intentions for next month (we've had a few straws in the wind by way of subsamples, but no more than that).

SNP 33%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
UKIP 10%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Others 6%

As for the apportionment of Scotland's six seats in the parliament, that works out as...

SNP 3
Labour 2
Conservatives 1

It's possible to look at these findings in either a 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' sort of way. On the one hand YouGov are agreeing with ICM and Survation that the SNP have the lead in the popular vote and are in line to finally take that elusive third seat. But on the other hand YouGov differ from the other pollsters in suggesting that the SNP's position is fairly precarious. It's well within the margin of error that Labour could win the popular vote, and that either Labour or UKIP could snatch the one seat that is generally assumed to be hanging in the balance. (If UKIP are in with a shout of outpolling the Tories there could actually be two seats in the balance.)

I'm inclined to look on the sunny side of life on this occasion, though. In recent times YouGov have established a reputation not only as a No-friendly pollster, but also as the BPC pollster that tends to show the worst position for the SNP at Holyrood. That being the case, it wouldn't have surprised me if YouGov had contradicted ICM and Survation to the point of actually giving Labour the outright lead in this poll. The fact that hasn't happened must surely increase the likelihood that the SNP do indeed have a genuine lead on the ground.

The jury is still out on how big that lead is, though, and these new numbers will hopefully underline the importance of natural SNP supporters not mucking around with misconceived 'tactical voting' for the Greens. Unfortunately, it does now look as if UKIP and their repulsive lead candidate David Coburn are in with a fighting chance of nicking a Scottish seat, but if they are ultimately prevented from doing so it will be either the SNP or Labour who save the day. The Greens are absolutely nowhere in this race, and their campaign tactic of framing the election as a straight choice between themselves and UKIP for the final seat looks ever more disreputable by the minute. To put it more bluntly, the grossly misleading Green campaign could easily end up being directly responsible for a UKIP breakthrough.

Patrick Harvie is undoubtedly one of the Yes campaign's greatest assets, but it's hard not to sigh in despair at the double standard he's displayed over the last couple of days. He's demanded that Christians for Independence return their donation from Brian Souter, not so much on the grounds of Souter's views on homosexuality, but on the grounds that Souter tried to subvert democracy with a "sham referendum" on Section 28. Well, I didn't approve of that referendum any more than Harvie did, and I followed the advice not to return my ballot paper. But there was nothing illegal about what Souter did - in fact, leaving aside the distasteful nature of the views that motivated it, I'd have to concede it was a fairly clever campaigning wheeze. Certainly no more or less objectionable than the Greens hoodwinking people into thinking that the Holyrood regional list vote is some kind of "second preference" vote, or than the Greens fibbing about being the only party capable of stopping UKIP. All of these tactics are underhand and exasperating, but not illegitimate, and none of them are sufficiently dreadful as to require the perpetrators to be excommunicated from the entire democratic process, as Harvie seems to think Souter should be.

* * *

In the European Parliament, the SNP sit in the left-wing Green/European Free Alliance group, and the Tories sit in the rebel right-wing group they largely created themselves, the ECR. The current predictions are that the two groups will be tied for overall fifth place, with 41 seats apiece. So the exact breakdown of seats in Scotland could conceivably have a much wider significance than we realise.

Green Yes

I must admit that, until I saw the mention of it on Wings over Scotland yesterday, I wasn't aware that the Green Yes campaign was running a fundraiser on Indiegogo.  I've decided to do my ecumenical deed for the morning by making a modest donation.  It doesn't feel like such an unnatural thing to do - although as things stand I would always vote for the SNP over the Greens, it's probably fair to say that the Greens are somewhat closer to my own views on some constitutional matters relating to an independent Scotland, such as opposition to NATO membership and support for an elected Head of State.  It's not inconceivable, therefore, that if independence is achieved next year, I might then switch to voting Green in an attempt to 'complete the journey'.  (Admittedly I discovered a few months ago that at least some high-profile Green members have a chillingly intolerant attitude towards any dissent on gender politics, so that's one factor that might put me off.)  I certainly wouldn't switch to voting Green if there was a No vote, because there's not much point in arguing the toss over NATO membership or the monarchy unless you're taking the fastest possible route to independence.  Scotland sure as hell won't be leaving NATO or abolishing the monarchy as part of the United Kingdom, and although independence would revert to being a longer-term objective in the event of a No vote, the timescale would only get longer still if natural supporters desert the SNP.

My only slight doubt about donating was that I knew I'd be contributing to a campaign that will be somewhat critical of the SNP government on certain issues (as we saw from Patrick Harvie on Question Time, for instance), and indeed will be diverging sharply from my own views at times.  But when I reflected on it, I realised that was no bad thing, because a high-profile and sincere Green Yes campaign will drive home the message to voters that the independence movement is genuinely cross-party and diverse.  And I don't think there's any danger at all of a 1979-style 'Berlin Wall' being erected between two rival Yes campaigns who dislike each other more than the real opposition - it looks like Green Yes sees itself as very much a complement to Yes Scotland, rather than a competitor.

I've no doubt that the Greens' support for independence is founded on principle, but it has to be said it's tactically savvy as well.  Win or lose, Patrick Harvie is guaranteed to emerge from the campaign as one of Scotland's highest profile politicians, because he will be appearing constantly on TV as the most senior non-SNP parliamentarian supporting independence (unless of course an MP or MSP from Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories is smart enough to seize that mantle from him, which is perfectly possible).

To read more about the Green Yes fundraising drive or to donate to it, click HERE.

*  *  *

There was a provocative article on the BBC website a few years ago that characterised the division on the island of Cyprus as being almost 'autistic' in nature, with each side seemingly finding it utterly impossible to perceive the situation through the other's eyes, even as an idle thought-experiment.  For some reason, that analogy popped into my head when I heard about the nature of John Major's latest thrilling foray into the Scottish constitutional debate.  He described Scottish independence as "folly on a grand scale", which he elaborated on by setting out a number of reasons why he felt it would be a terrible idea from the point of view of the London political class, such as the likelihood of diminished influence for the UK overseas, and a possible loss of permanent member status on the UN Security Council.  As an argument against Scottish independence, that's the rough equivalent of a husband trying to persuade his wife to stay in the following manner -

HUSBAND : If you leave it'll be a disaster!  I'll lose access to your income!  I'll have no-one on my arm at parties!  I'll have to do all my own cooking!  My mother will lose all respect for me!

WIFE : OK, and what will I lose?

HUSBAND : Sorry?  I don't quite follow?

In any case, I've always felt that the 'concern' about rUK's Security Council status is a massive red herring.  When Russia replaced the Soviet Union at the UN in the early 1990s, it had effectively lost 40% of the population of the old state, and a huge chunk of the territory - and yet its assumption of the permanent seat on the Security Council was seamless.  Let's face it, if membership of the Security Council was determined on a fair basis by population size or global influence, the UK would have been booted off decades ago - but it doesn't work like that, and unfortunately there's no particular reason to suppose that it will suddenly start working like that just because Scotland has become an independent country.  It's a colonial relic, not a representative body.

Political Betting guest post on the Yes campaign

I happened to mention on PB yesterday that I was vaguely planning to write a blogpost on the reported 'divisions' within the Yes campaign, and someone challenged me to submit it to Mike Smithson as a potential guest post instead. You can see the results HERE.

As a disclaimer, I should point out that James Mackenzie has just told me that I've got the Greens' position all wrong (although I probably would have been disappointed if he hadn't). If that's correct, it might be because the Greens' use of language on this subject is so frustratingly elliptical at times. James claims the Greens' objections have nothing whatever to do with 'policy' - but am I the only person who can recall Patrick Harvie insisting that the Yes campaign needed to inspire people with a much more radical prospectus for independence?

Are the Greens determined to be so difficult to love?

What is it with the Scottish Greens of late? Like many nationalists, I feel they reflect my views more closely than any party other than the SNP itself. But they're becoming very, very hard to love. You might recall that a few weeks ago I took issue with James Mackenzie on Twitter after he said this -

"Shame on the @thesnp for putting Salmond on ballots he's not contesting."

That was, to put it mildly, a touch sanctimonious - he was criticising the SNP for 'misleading' the electorate, even though they were acting entirely within the rules to amplify the vital importance of the list vote, and even though the Greens themselves were about to embark once again on a grossly misleading '2nd Vote Green' campaign, designed (albeit deniably) to give the false impression that the all-important regional list ballot is some kind of second preference vote. When I tackled him on the latter issue, James fell back on a series of obviously well-rehearsed technical arguments, ie. it can be called the second vote because others have called it that, it must be the second vote because by the nature of the AMS system it has to be counted second, etc, etc.

Well, that would be fine - these are handy excuses for sacrificing clarity for voters in favour of a perfectly legitimate vote-maximising strategy. (Rod Crosby of Political Betting recently directly me to a piece of academic research that showed many people wrongly believed the 'second vote' label was indicative of a second preference vote, so there can be no real doubt that the Greens' sloganising fuels that confusion.) But the double-standard in doing that and at the same time going into apoplexy over the SNP using a legitimate description on the ballot paper designed to maximise their own vote is plain for all to see. Basically, James was on very, very weak ground, and that became increasingly obvious towards the end of the exchange as he tried to deflect attention from the central issue by asking why I was being so "confrontational" (opening by saying "shame on the SNP" isn't confrontational, James?) and then haughtily announcing that he was far too busy running an election campaign to worry himself with all this nonsense.

Anyway, a near carbon copy of that exchange occurred again today - the only difference this time being that James initiated it, before hurriedly realising yet again that a discussion in which he is unable to come up with credible answers to awkward questions is way beneath his dignity...

Me (speaking to one-man Scottish Labour Twitter presence Duncan Hothersall) : No, I'm asking you why Labour didn't legislate to stop it happening if they felt it was so 'wrong'?

James Mackenzie : Gould said names of candidates not standing in that region were misleading.

Me : You're on thin ground here, James, when your party has been peddling this misleading '2nd Vote Green' wheeze for weeks.

James Mackenzie : You do understand that's what your own Scottish Government calls it?

Me : Actually, I've heard the SNP refer to it as the first vote a few times. Which is handed over first?

James Mackenzie : Logically, you have to count constituencies first. That's AMS. So that's why SG, EC, UK Govt. etc all use that description.

Me : Is that an indication that the list vote is handed over first? I'm just wondering because you didn't answer the question.

James Mackenzie : There isn't an agreed order for polling place staff to hand over ballot papers as far as I know. Is that what you're asking?

Me : Yes it is.

James Mackenzie : I think they get handed all together. But it would indeed make sense to put the first vote first.

Me : By 'first' you mean constituency, ie. the less important one?

Me : So why call it '2nd vote' if there isn't an agreed order? Bit misleading, no?

James Mackenzie : We just covered that. The Scottish Government call it that because you logically count it second.

Me : I've already pointed out that the SNP have referred to it as a first vote. Logical, because it's the more important one.

James Mackenzie : I'm honestly not going to waste time debating this today. I'd take it up with the next Scottish Govt, whoever that may be.

Me : Shame on the Greens for running away from answering for their own misleading tactics...

Note - that parting shot was intended as a 'tribute tweet' in the style of James, before anyone accuses me of being "confrontational" again...

A Green masterclass in evasion and double-standards

The SNP today confirmed that it would again be using the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' description on the regional list ballot paper, although in accordance with the changed rules it will follow the words 'Scottish National Party'. This is an eminently sensible step given that the SNP are much more reliant than Labour on list seats, and in 1999 and 2003 lost many of their natural voters following widespread confusion over the function of the list vote - due in no small part to grossly misleading campaigns on behalf of smaller parties such as '2nd Vote Green', which deliberately gave the impression that the list vote was some kind of second preference. 'AS 4 FM' neatly emphasises the fact - and it is a fact - that it's the list vote that essentially determines who forms the government.

Naturally, the Greens in particular aren't best pleased about this development, as it makes it somewhat tougher for them to enjoy a repeat of 2003, when they won seven list seats partly on the back of the confusion their slogan had helped to sow. Given this track record, though, you'd think they wouldn't be foolish enough to brazenly criticise the SNP for using a 'slogan' that 'misleads voters'. You'd be wrong. See this tweet from James Mackenzie of Better Nation fame (that's "Mackenzie without a capitalised 'K'" - why does that chide remind me so much of Big Brother's Chantelle Houghton?) -

Shame on the @thesnp for putting Salmond on ballots he's not contesting. Gould report associated that with 75% of spoilt 2007 ballots.

I then entered into a brief exchange with him on the subject. As ever, it confirmed my belief that it's utterly impossible to make serious points within 140 characters, but neverthless the obfuscation and evasion from James is clear enough. Spot just how many times he tries to change the subject from the issue of the Greens' double-standard. (My favourite bit is when he falls back on the distraction technique of demanding to know why I'm being so "confrontational" - somewhat ironic for a man who opened with the words "Shame on the SNP"!) Generally speaking, people who have a convincing answer to a straight question will simply give it...

Me : Oh, come off it, James. Are you worried people will be reminded their list vote isn't some kind of second preference?

James Mackenzie : Have you read the Gould report? 75% of the problems were associated with sloganisation, and Salmond promised no repeats.

Me : Yes, I have read the Gould Report, and the 'sloganisation' bit was utter garbage.

Me : You need have no worry of Salmond causing a repeat, because 'AS 4 FM' was never a factor - it was the single ballot paper.

James Mackenzie : US election observers agreed. Misleading, meant people elected who shouldn't have been and vice versa.

Me : And the '2nd Vote Green' campaign in 1999 and 2003 wasn't misleading? Didn't lead to people being elected on false assumption?

Me : That was the misunderstanding that 'AS 4 FM' sought to correct, and it did so very successfully.

James Mackenzie : I'm afraid I'm with Gould on this.

Me : Now, why doesn't that surprise me? No comment on the question I asked about the grossly misleading 2nd Vote Green wheeze?

Me : Without such jiggery-pokery there wouldn't have been the need to clear up the confusion about importance of list vote.

James Mackenzie : You have to count the first vote first, to elect constituencies before you go AMS. It wasn't us who dubbed it the second vote.

Me : James, simple question - were Greens elected in 03 who wouldn't have been had 2nd vote not been misinterpreted as 2nd pref?

James Mackenzie : We said second vote. Your premise is flawed. Why so confrontational?

Me : James, why so evasive?

Me : And 'confrontational'? This is just a tad rich from the man who went into apoplexy over the tax powers non-issue!

James Mackenzie : That's a policy concern. We were the only party talking about using it. Still no idea why SNP let powers lapse.

Me : James, this is a total double-standard. Your party had no responsibility for the confusion it caused in 03?

Me : In fact, I suspect you know it's a double-standard, otherwise you wouldn't be evading the question like crazy.

James Mackenzie : We described the 2nd vote the same way the media did, as the 2nd vote.

Me : So you play a straight bat. It was OK because it was in the rules, even though it caused confusion.

Me : That's fine, but it does mean you're on incredibly weak ground attacking the SNP on 'AS 4 FM'.

James Mackenzie : Thanks for your views, but that's enough back-and-forth for now. I've got an election campaign to get on with.

Me : I would say thankyou for your answers, but...well, thanks for the virtuoso display of spin anyway!

So, to the very limited extent that James was interested in providing an answer, it seems his defence is that it wasn't the Greens' responsibility if their sloganising was misleading, because they were using terminology that others were using. In other words, they acted within the rules to frame a slogan that would maximise their vote and garner seats that would otherwise have been beyond their reach, putting party interest ahead of clarity for voters. And it worked - brilliantly. I have no complaint about that, but it's going to be a tad difficult for the Greens to now sanctimoniously talk about the "shameful irresponsibility" of another party's perfectly legitimate "sloganising", when their own adherence to the bottom line of self-interest in previous elections has been plain for all to see.

SNP ingenuity risks repeat of Daily Record sanctimony shambles

You know that the SNP must be on to an effective strategy when the upstanding moral guardians at the Daily Record start taking a public-spirited interest in the niceties of electoral law. Apparently, despite the belief that the London parties had rigged the rules for this May's election to ensure that the SNP couldn't repeat their rather effective "Alex Salmond for First Minister" party description on the list ballot paper (while of course still allowing the London parties to depart from their own legal names), the Electoral Commission has ruled that it will be permitted after all, so long as it is preceded by the words "Scottish National Party". Even though the SNP have yet to make a final decision, the Record had little difficulty persuading Patrick Harvie to join in with their prolonged hissy-fit on the matter -

"The SNP are ready to risk the integrity of the vote again and put their self-interest ahead of the democratic will of the Scottish people.

"They must now give a clear pledge to do the right thing, or we risk seeing another screwed-up election."

Translation - this may have cost us seats last time round and we're worried it will do so again. In truth, although the Record are able to pray in aid quotes from the Gould Report claiming that the SNP's "sloganising" had caused "confusion" last time round, the Gould Report was wrong on that point. Simple as that. The confusion on how the list vote worked was there beforehand, and ironically the 'AS 4 FM' wheeze went a small way towards clearing it up for many people, by emphasising that the list vote was in many ways more important than the constituency vote in determining who forms the government. It's not hard to see why Harvie was so unhappy about that development, given that his party had previously benefitted in 1999 and 2003 from a grossly misleading "2nd Vote Green" campaign, which strongly (but of course entirely deniably) implied that the list vote was some kind of second preference.

I saw a commenter on Better Nation the other day who said that he/she was an SNP supporter in Glasgow and was planning to vote for the party on the constituency ballot, but was toying with the idea of switching to the Greens on the list. Given that the SNP's strength in Glasgow is overwhelmingly on the list and a Green vote in the city could potentially make a Labour government more likely, that's a fairly strong indication that confusion about the function of the list vote is still widespread. Leaving the self-serving sanctimony from others to one side, a second outing for 'AS 4 FM' could well have some value.

Green on the constitution?

I had a slightly irritable exchange with James MacKenzie at Better Nation yesterday, both on the queries that have been raised about the new YouGov poll commissioned by his party, and on the possibility that they (the Greens) might enter a coalition with Labour should the latter emerge as the largest party in May. It has to be said that James simply didn't have a defence of the poll's methodology on its own merits, although to be fair other commenters did have a go later on. On the coalition front, the impression I got was that James was trying to present his party as roughly equidistant between Labour and the SNP - while he concedes they are closer to the Nationalists on justice policy, nuclear power and the constitution, he claims they are somewhat closer to Labour on public transport and carbon emission targets. He pointed out (and I accept) that they entered into coalition negotiations with the SNP in good faith four years ago, but that they had subsequently gone on to oppose the government vigorously on the basis that it had turned out to be "a business-as-usual administration on poverty, the economy and the environment".

I'd naturally refute the latter point, but it does raise an interesting issue in relation to any future deal with Labour. James has previously proved very touchy whenever it's been suggested to him that the Greens' support for an independence referendum and/or enhanced powers for Holyrood has been quietly dropped, or isn't much of a priority for them. He even memorably worked himself into a state of apoplexy over the synthetic controversy of the 'lapsed tax powers', asking where the equivalent anger from Nationalist bloggers was - the implication seemed to be that the Greens are now the "true believers" in Scottish self-government. Well, let's see the evidence for that. If coalition with Labour becomes a possibility, will the Greens prioritise constitutional progress in the negotiations? I'd suggest the fairly obvious answer is - no, they will not.

The dogs on the street know what an Iain "the Snarl" Gray-led government will look like on the constitution - it will be, to coin a phrase, a "business-as-usual administration". So whatever (probably minor) concessions the Greens might secure on environmental policy, that's the sort of government they would be supporting. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to put constitutional progress for Scotland on the back-burner for five long years if they so wish, and in some ways it might be considered perfectly natural that a Green party would regard such matters as a relatively low priority. But if that is the case, let's have a bit of honesty about it, and at a minimum let's hear no more nonsense about how they are the true 'guardians of the flame'.

Variety is the spice of life

James at the Two Doctors blog is unhappy with Nationalist complaints about the "conniving English" preventing Scotland from enjoying the benefits of North Sea oil in the 1970s. The grounds for his annoyance is that oil production has peaked, ie. it's the past, and we should instead be talking about renewables, which are the future.

Of course, James is spectacularly (and probably willfully) missing the point on a number of levels. The SNP - it should go without saying - have said absolutely nothing about "the English" (conniving or otherwise). But they are rightly infuriated by the mindset and actions of so many members of the United Kingdom civil service - who by definition are supposed to act in the best interests of the whole UK, Scotland included. It was they who adopted the them and us colonial attitude - we must prevent 'them' from gaining political autonomy so that 'we' (southern England?) don't lose access to the oil funds. And it was they who consciously embarked on a shameless campaign of deception to achieve this goal.

It may seem an odd thing to say, James, but this actually isn't about the future - it's about the past. You need to understand the past in order to understand how you ended up in your current position, and to learn from that. And I'm seriously confused as to why he thinks it's not possible to take at least take a passing interest in history while still moving forward with a renewable energy programme at the same time. Humans are designed to multi-task - or is James' entire life composed of "wind farms, wind farms, wind farms. No thankyou, mother, I don't want dinner, I must maintain my concentration on wind farms".

Inadequacy of funding led to inadequacy of logic

In a letter published in the Scotsman yesterday, Patrick Harvie set out his definitive explanation of the approach he and Robin Harper took to the budget process. As I stated in an earlier post, I have no problem with the Greens' 'no' vote at the second time of asking, and indeed feel that for them to have voted any other way at that stage would have been illogical. But the letter is primarily concerned with the crucial first vote (or the vote that seemed crucial at the time) when the Greens held the balance. Harvie offers a biting analysis of why he felt the package he was offered was inadequate - but in a sense that's an answer to the wrong question. What he has failed to convincingly explain is how his original 'no' vote has left the Greens in any better position now than they would have been with a 'yes' vote or an abstention.

For we all know that the opposite is in fact the case - the £22 million insulation package originally offered by John Swinney has now been watered down to £15 million. Whatever his understandable frustrations with the negotiations process, Harvie will surely eventually come to reflect that letting his irritation get the better of him at a pivotal moment was not smart politics.

'Others' up 3% in Populus poll

More potentially good news for the SNP in the latest UK-wide Populus survey - the combined figure for parties other than Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats (which is all we have to go on for the moment) now stands at 12%, a three-point increase from the last survey. There is of course no way of telling yet whether this is due to increasing support for the SNP and Plaid Cymru or for UK-wide minor parties like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP, but at the very least it is in line with Saturday's ICM poll in suggesting that the squeeze on the non-Labour/Tory parties we saw in the autumn is now well and truly over. As in ICM, the Liberal Democrats see an increase in their share of the vote, while Labour is down a full five points to 28%.

Full figures -

Conservatives 42% (-1)
Labour 28% (-5)
Liberal Democrats 18% (+3)
Others 12% (+3)

So now begins the interminable wait to see what the Scottish breakdown is - but at least we know there'll be one eventually, which is not the case with ICM. I did have a quick peek at the Populus website on the off chance, but their 'latest poll' link directed me to a 'Fabulous Sex' survey for the News of the World, the fieldwork for which was supposedly carried out between the 23rd and 26th of February 2009. I know that polling is getting quicker, but that's impressive by any standards. Has someone at Populus invented a TARDIS?

The Green 'no' was logical and inevitable

I don't want to fall into the classic AM2/Scottish Unionist trap of according undue significance to the vagaries of 'Cybernat opinion', but I must admit as an SNP supporter I am just a little troubled at the venom being directed at the Greens for voting against the budget. Of course, there's a fair bit of venom coming in the other direction too, but the bottom line is that we need the Greens every bit as much as they need us, so cool heads are called for on all sides.

Whatever we might think about the Greens' decision last Wednesday, once they had voted that way a second 'no' was logical and inevitable - given that they were being presented with a package that was actually slightly inferior to the first time round. But by the same token Green supporters have to recognise that John Swinney's decision to water down the deal was equally inevitable - because the defeat last week forced him to do deals with the other opposition parties, and at the end of the day there is only a fixed sum of money to go round.

How two casting votes scuppered the Scottish budget

Interesting that the Sunday Herald are reporting that Green MSPs Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper disagreed over how they should vote on Wednesday. In circumstances like that a small party would normally decide its position by holding an internal vote, but what do you do if you've only got two MSPs? Harvie votes one way, Harper votes the other, then Harvie has the casting vote as leader. Now that's power...

It certainly looks like Alex Fergusson wasn't the only man with a crucial casting vote on Wednesday.