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.

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.

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.

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.