Sunday, April 10, 2022

BMG poll is a big wake-up call to independence supporters: we can't afford to muck around at the local elections by not ranking all pro-indy candidates

The last set of Scottish local elections five years ago heralded a downturn in the SNP's fortunes and a boost for both the Tories and Labour, which was followed up in the general election shortly afterwards by the loss of 21 of the SNP's 56 seats, leading to an independence referendum being kicked into the long grass.  We're fortunate this time that the local elections are self-contained and not the first part of a two-act drama, because there is some polling evidence that history may be repeating itself to some extent - ie. the SNP may be dipping and Labour may be recovering, although luckily the Tories are going backwards on this occasion.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election (BMG / Herald):

SNP 38%
Labour 24%
Conservatives 18%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Greens 4%

I haven't included percentage changes, because it looks to me as if there's a 10-point drop in the SNP's vote since the last BMG poll a year ago, and yet the BMG spokesman in the Herald piece says it's only a 6-point drop.  I'm not sure of the explanation for the discrepancy, but either way it's a substantial shift and takes the SNP back down to roughly the share of support they had at the 2017 general election.  The hope must be that margin of error effects are exaggerating the slippage - and indeed the recent Survation poll reported a much smaller drop in SNP support for Westminster.  

Nevertheless, this is a massive wake-up call for any independence supporter who is more interested in fighting the SNP or Alba at the local elections, rather than our real opponents in the unionist parties.  It's imperative that pro-independence voters give their top rankings in the ballot to all of the pro-indy candidates in their ward.  You can guarantee that Tory supporters won't be mucking around by only ranking one candidate or by spoiling their ballot papers.  We would be mad to let the unionists start with an in-built advantage.

There are also independence numbers in the poll, which are identical to the results of the recent YouGov and Survation polls - 

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 47%
No 53%

*  *  *

To catch up with my Scot Goes Popcast interview with Alba candidate Lisa Keogh, please click HERE (video version) or HERE (audio only).

Friday, April 8, 2022

Question about the local election voting system: "Should I rank all (or most) of the candidates?" Answer: YES, especially if you want to stop the Tories

In the wake of my April Fool (which alarmingly about 10-20% of people took seriously, even though I thought I had made it self-evidently absurd), I was planning to write a genuine guide to how the Single Transferable Vote system for the local council election works.  That's been slightly overtaken by the insanity of certain leaflets that have been dropping through people's doors recently, but there is one specific question that several people have asked me and that I feel I should respond to. In a nutshell, it's...

"I know I should rank all of the pro-independence candidates in my ward, but should I rank all (or most) of the other candidates as well?"

The answer is yes, and I'll explain why.  Suppose I lived in a ward which returns three councillors.  Suppose also that the SNP were putting up two candidates (a typical number in a three-seat ward where the SNP are strong), Labour were putting up one, Alba one, the Greens one, the Tories one, the Liberal Democrats one, and there was also one inoffensive independent candidate with no apparent stance on the constitutional question.  I would probably rank the candidates as follows -

1) Alba
2) SNP
3) SNP 
4) Green
5) Inoffensive Independent
6) Liberal Democrats
7) Labour
8) Conservatives

Most of those decisions are no-brainers.  I have the SNP ahead of the Greens because, at least on paper, independence is the SNP's number one objective, whereas for the Greens it's a somewhat lower priority.  The inoffensive independent is ranked below all of the pro-independence candidates, but ahead of all the unionist candidates, on the logic that a non-unionist is usually preferable to a unionist.  The Tories are ranked last because they're obviously the most objectionable party in all sorts of ways, and more specifically because it's important to reject their "muscular unionism" as emphatically as possible.  The only real dilemma is whether to have Labour ahead of the Lib Dems or vice versa, but I've given the Lib Dems the nod on the theory that Labour poses the greatest medium-term threat to the hegemony of pro-independence parties in Scottish politics.  It's worth giving Labour a ranking to help bury the Tories, but I'm inclined to think every other party apart from the Tories should be ranked ahead of Labour.

So why isn't ranking the pro-indy candidates enough to properly reject the Tories? Well, it might be, but only if you strike it lucky.  In my hypothetical example above, let's imagine that Alba are eliminated early on - which means that my vote will transfer to whichever SNP candidate I ranked highest. Then let's imagine that the two SNP candidates reach the quota and are duly elected.  That means there is one remaining seat to be filled, and it can only be filled by a non-SNP and non-Alba candidate.  Any surplus votes from the two SNP candidates (ie. the number of votes they exceeded the quota by) will be transferred to other candidates and will help to determine the winner of the final seat.  The upshot is that a portion of my vote will be transferred - but only if I gave a ranking to one of the candidates still in contention.  So if I only ranked pro-indy candidates, I'm banking everything on the Greens doing well enough to have a chance of the final seat.  If the Greens are eliminated, I've effectively abstained on the question of who I want to be the third and final councillor from the ward.

Maybe I'll be fortunate and the final count will come down to a straight fight between the Greens and the Tories.  A portion of my vote will transfer to the Greens, and I'll have done everything I conceivably could to freeze the Tories out.  But really it's up to other voters to decide whether the Greens are in with a shout.  If instead the final count is a straight fight between Labour and Tory, a portion of my vote will only transfer if I gave a ranking to Labour - and if I haven't done that, I've sat on my hands and thus could effectively have helped the Tories win the last seat. 

This is what is so bonkers about the leaflet and letter the SNP have just sent out.  There's no joined-up thinking at all.  The content of the letter makes clear that the priority of the SNP's campaign is not independence, but instead to "send a message to the Tories".  And yet it then goes on to recommend an electoral strategy (only ranking the SNP candidates and abstaining on all other rankings) that is tailor-made to help Tory candidates get elected.  That is not an exaggeration at all.  The SNP have huge influence over where the lower preferences of pro-independence voters go - either they'll help elect pro-indy councillors and non-Tory councillors, or they'll go nowhere and be wasted.  At present, the SNP are urging the latter.  If you think you can make any sense of that whatsoever, you're...well, you're probably drunk.

*  *  *

To catch up with my Scot Goes Popcast interview with Alba candidate Lisa Keogh, please click HERE (video version) or HERE (audio only).

Thursday, April 7, 2022

Urgent message for SNP members and supporters: Please contact party HQ and your local representatives to ask them to sort this out. It's genuinely vital for the cause of independence.

Now, let me deal at the very outset of this blogpost with the objection a cynic may raise, ie. "Kelly's only saying this because he's on the Alba NEC these days". You can categorically be assured that I would be saying exactly the same thing if I was still a member of the SNP.  And here's the proof: during the campaign for the 2017 local elections, when I was still very much inside the SNP, The National asked me to write a lengthy guide to how the voting system works and how independence supporters would be best advised to use their votes.  I was absolutely crystal-clear in my piece that Yessers should rank ALL pro-indy candidates in their ward, regardless of party.  For the majority of people that would have meant using the top rankings for SNP candidates, and then using the next highest ranking for the Greens if there was a Green candidate in their ward.

I gave that advice in the full knowledge that it contradicted the advice that SNP HQ was quietly giving to doorstep campaigners, which we heard anecdotally was that voters should be urged just to rank SNP candidates and nobody else.  I had no qualms at all about advocating the opposite of what my own party wanted, because it was an absolutely open-and-shut case - it was beyond all dispute that what the SNP were saying was stupid, counter-productive, destructive and electorally illiterate.  Their message could only have been devised by people who didn't understand how the STV voting system worked - or perhaps more accurately didn't want to understand how it worked.  I never had any problem with the SNP being a bit tribal when the logic of a given electoral system supported that - for example, "both votes SNP" was a perfectly defensible message for the Holyrood voting system, because under AMS, voting for different parties on the two ballots can have perverse results.  But the STV system used for the local elections is totally different from that: there is literally NO DOWNSIDE to ranking as many of the candidates and parties as you feel able to.  By using your lower preferences on other parties, you literally CANNOT HARM your first choice party in any way, because those lower preferences will NOT EVEN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT unless your first choice candidate is either elected or eliminated.  And if SNP strategists really don't understand that, they need to be politely but firmly told to sit down and shut up by the people who do understand it.

At least in 2017 the SNP were only peddling their naive strategic advice on the quiet - anecdotally, it appeared that they were only doing it if a voter specifically raised the issue of giving lower preferences to other parties.  But we've learned today that the SNP have been sending out actual LEAFLETS to voters instructing them to "ask friends and family to ONLY vote SNP 1, SNP 2 and for no other party". Whether this is a localised or national message isn't as yet clear, but either way it is breathtakingly idiotic.  What they are effectively saying to people is "please urge your friends and family to ABSTAIN on whether they want pro-independence councillors or unionist councillors"

As explained above, the lower preferences of SNP voters will not be taken into account unless all SNP candidates have been either elected or eliminated.  So if that's what happens, if for example the final seat on the ward comes down to a straight fight between Labour and the Greens, by telling people only to rank the SNP, it means anyone who follows that advice will be sitting out the final choice between anti-indy Labour and pro-indy Green.  By contrast, if the SNP told their supporters to rank all pro-indy candidates, there would be lots more votes for the Greens on the all-important final count, and Labour would be more likely to be defeated.  It's not rocket science - but incredibly the SNP are instructing their supporters to go out and to actively harm the cause of independence.

What is most disgraceful about this is that the leaflets contain an implicit lie.  Because most people don't know how the STV counting system works, they would probably infer from advice to only vote for SNP candidates that using lower preferences on other parties can somehow 'dilute' the impact of higher preferences for the SNP.  That is the polar opposite of the truth, and the SNP should be ashamed of misleading people in that way.

This stuff really matters.  Around one-third of wards in Scotland will have an Alba candidate in May.  I don't know how many candidates the Greens are putting up but it will undoubtedly be a substantial number.  I know some SNP supporters believe Alba are an irrelevance and that it doesn't matter if they rank Alba or not - I firmly believe they're wrong about that, but one thing they cannot seriously dispute is that the Greens have a chance of getting a substantial haul of councillors elected if they receive enough transfers from SNP voters.  How can the SNP justify telling people to abstain on the question of whether their own pro-independence coalition partners should be preferred to unionist parties like the Tories? It makes no sense whatever.

It's no secret that I've been urging Alba supporters who don't want to give second or third preferences to the SNP to change their minds.  Rest assured that I'll continue to do that, but please: we need some sanity on the other side of the fence too.  All pro-indy parties should be encouraging their voters to rank all pro-indy candidates, and at the very least they should not be instructing their voters to do the complete opposite of that.  If you're an SNP member, please get in touch with your party and urge them to reverse this catastrophic strategic blunder before we all needlessly wake up to newly-elected anti-independence Tory and Labour councillors in May.

*  *  *

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader for getting in touch and clarifying that there are 239 Green candidates - meaning the Greens are standing in the majority of wards.  I don't think they're going to be very happy with their coalition partners, because they stand to suffer the most from what the SNP are doing.  Only the unionist parties will benefit.

*  *  *

To catch up with my Scot Goes Popcast interview with Alba candidate Lisa Keogh, please click HERE (video version) or HERE (audio only).

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Alba AHA! New Survation poll reveals Alex Salmond's upstart new pro-independence party is continuing to make headway

So the answer to the question "James, why haven't you covered yesterday's Survation poll yet?" is, of course, that I didn't actually notice there was a Survation poll yesterday. Polls have been so thin on the ground recently that I keep forgetting to check for them, so if anyone could devise some sort of alarm system for me, that would be splendid.  Anyway, this is an interesting one because it contains independence, Westminster, Holyrood, AND local election voting intention numbers - which to the best of my knowledge makes it only the second poll to specifically ask for voting intentions for the 2022 local elections (the previous one was the Panelbase poll I commissioned myself in the autumn).

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Survation, 24th-28th March 2022)

Yes 47% (-1)
No 53% (+1)

The percentage changes are measured from the most recent Survation poll, which was conducted way back at the time of the Holyrood election last spring.  The movement towards No is statistically insignificant, and while we might normally regard a 47/53 split as mildly disappointing, I think in the difficult context of the Ukraine war we just have to be happy that the Yes vote is holding up.  We'll get a better sense of where we stand when the war ends - which will hopefully be very, very soon for the sake of the people suffering on the ground.

While I'm on the subject, I should mention that there's also been another poll on independence with even more recent fieldwork, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the deeply eccentric anti-independence propaganda outfit "These Islands".  Bearing in mind that YouGov's results tend to be on the No-friendly end of the spectrum, it confirms the impression that nothing much has changed.

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (YouGov, 29th-31st March 2022)

Yes 47% (-)
No 53% (-)

Now let's move on to the Holyrood numbers from the Survation poll - and because this is the first Scottish poll conducted by Survation since last May's election, there are no percentage changes for this one.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot voting intentions (Survation):

SNP 46%
Labour 25%
Conservatives 20%
Liberal Democrats 7%

Scottish Parliament regional list voting intentions (Survation):

SNP 34%
Labour 23%
Conservatives 19%
Greens 11%
Liberal Democrats 8%
Alba 2%

That's the fourth poll in a row, across all firms, to have Alba on 2%, which is a marked improvement on the situation towards the end of last year when most polls were showing Alba on 1% or zero (although admittedly there were two Panelbase polls that didn't even offer Alba as an option).  So the hopes from certain quarters that Alba might be in the process of completely fizzling out appear to have been based on wishful thinking.  The SNP's low-ish 34% showing on the list, which is similar to what ComRes have been reporting recently, will perhaps raise a few eyebrows, but as I always say, the list results from both Survation and ComRes have to be taken with a pinch of salt because of the way the question is worded.  What probably is more significant is the comparatively good showing for Labour on both ballots.  If Labour do start to emerge as the main anti-independence challenger to the SNP, that may not be entirely optimal for the independence movement, because we'd probably prefer to frame the choice as being straightforwardly between Tory rule and independence.

Scottish voting intentions for next Westminster general election (Survation):

SNP 45% (-3)
Labour 27% (+7)
Conservatives 19% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-1)

Again, Labour's figure is a cause for concern here - it's higher than they managed in their mini-comeback year of 2017.  On a more positive note, the Tories on this showing would be heading for calamity.

Local elections first preference voting intentions (Survation):

SNP 44%
Labour 23%
Conservatives 18%
Liberal Democrats 6%
Greens 3%
Alba 1%
Independent Candidates 1%

I must say I feel slightly vindicated by this, because the local election results from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll were criticised at the time on the basis that the SNP were clearly being overestimated, and that "if only there had been a generic independent candidate option", the supposed flaw in the poll would have been easily solved.  The Survation poll demonstrates that's a load of nonsense, because even with a generic independent option added, you still get an unrealistically low figure for the independents, and an unrealistically high figure for the SNP.  The reality is that unless a poll somehow lists the actual names of independent candidates standing in the individual respondent's ward, it will never accurately capture the support for non-party candidates.

The format of the Survation poll is different from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, because instead of asking respondents which parties they'll give any sort of ranking to, it asks specifically for second preference and third preference votes. But the good news for Alba supporters is that the combined 7% of respondents who plan to give Alba one of their top three preferences is higher than the 6% in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll who planned to give Alba any ranking at all.

Percentages of respondents who will give one of their top three rankings to each party:

SNP 56%
Labour 52%
Greens 37%
Liberal Democrats 31%
Conservatives 27%
Alba 7%
Independent Candidates 7%

I'm not sure this question format is ideal, though, because I doubt if most respondents were bearing in mind that in some wards it's possible to give your top two or even your top three preferences to candidates from the same party.

There's also a supplementary question that purports to find massive public support for proportional representation...

Proportional Representation is the collective name given to electoral systems which ensure that the proportion of seats a party receives in Parliament closely reflects the proportion of votes they received from voters. To what extent do you support or oppose such a system for elections to the UK Parliament?

TOTAL SUPPORT: 56%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 11%

I suppose we supporters of proportional representation can draw some technical satisfaction from the fact that a particularly favourable question wording can produce a good outcome, but I'm not sure what it proves in the real world.  If there was ever a referendum on switching to PR for Westminster, we all know the choice would instead be framed in terms of the importance of "decisive outcomes" and of maintaining the constituency link, and also the supposed danger of a small party (rather than the voters) deciding who to "put into government".

Final thought: I'm bemused by commentary on this poll that breathlessly refers to approval for "the SNP-Green cooperation government".  As Orwellian language goes, that's right up there with "special military operation".  Let's call a spade a spade: what we have is an SNP-Green coalition government, within which the junior coalition partner has negotiated some special exemptions (very similar in principle, incidentally, to the special exemption the Liberal Democrats negotiated for themselves in the 2010 Westminster coalition with the Tories).

*  *  *

To catch up with the my Scot Goes Popcast interview with Alba candidate Lisa Keogh, please click HERE (video version) or HERE (audio only).

Friday, April 1, 2022

STV for dummies

So no, this is not a reference to Scottish Television dumbing down even further, it's about the other STV, the Single Transferable Vote system which will be used to elect our local councillors in just over a month from now. Several people have asked me if I'll be writing another "idiot's guide" as I did in 2017, because STV has a reputation for being far more fiendishly complicated than just about any other electoral system.  However, that does it a disservice.  The real complexity is actually at the counting end of the system - as a voter, it should be relatively simple to use.  So here's my step-by-step guide to using STV, all the way from deciding your voting choices in advance of polling day, through to how to actually cast your ballot in the polling station.

1) STV is a preferential system, which allows you to rank as many of the candidates as you wish in order of preference - and if you want to maximise the impact of your vote, it's vital to rank as many of them as you can bear to (the "vote till you boak" principle).  That being the case, it's far more important than in other types of election to know how many candidates are standing in your ward, who they are, and what party - if any - they're standing for.  So find the name of your ward (which can often be the toughest part of the process!) and search online for the full list of candidates.

2) Look carefully to see whether each candidate is a Red Code or a Blue Code candidate.  Blue Code candidates are relatively rare these days, but it's important to identify them because the quotient that applies to them is different.

3) If a candidate is Blue Code, they are required by Electoral Commission rules to incorporate a QR code into their election literature.  So when they send you a leaflet, scan the code and it will take you to a website setting out the quotient.  Alternatively, you can search for it manually.

4) On polling day, take your polling card to a polling station and hand it to staff - either that or just tell them your name and address.  (Thankfully, the Tories don't control this election and there will be no ID requirement.) 

5) The staff will then give you a ballot slip.  It will be colour coded if there are both Red Code and Blue Code candidates in your ward.  If there are only Red Code candidates, it will be white.

6) Take your ballot paper to a booth, and start by applying the quotient to all Red Code candidates.

7) If there are Blue Code Candidates, apply the Blue Code quotient separately.  The colour coding should assist you here, but to ensure your preferences for Blue Code candidates are correctly counted, you must ensure that each quotient is applied accurately.

8) Indicate your insistence.

9) Fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

10) Leave the polling station.

11) As an extra precaution to ensure that no mistakes have been made, re-scan the QR code, and if the quotient has been correctly applied, you should be taken to a page displaying a green "W" and a magenta "7".  

12) Excise the coupon.

And that's it, you're done. 

Thursday, March 31, 2022

I can no longer defend the Scottish Government's approach to Covid - we're all the way back to "let it rip" and "take it on the chin"

Friday, March 25, 2022

Lisa Keogh, candidate for the Alba Party in the Arbroath West, Letham & Friockheim ward, is today's guest on the Scot Goes Popcast

For Episode 15 of the Popcast, I'm joined by Lisa Keogh, who is standing for election to Angus Council at the Scottish local elections in early May. She'll already be well known to many of you, because she made UK-wide headlines last year after Abertay University took disciplinary action against her for simply expressing gender critical views in an online seminar. She was eventually exonerated, but not before her final exams were badly disrupted by an investigation that needlessly dragged on for weeks. In the podcast, she discusses... 

* The events of the fateful seminar.

* How "the process was the punishment", even though she was cleared.

* How vexatious disciplinary action of this type is intended to scare people into self-censorship.

* The importance of upholding free speech, even when you find someone's views alien and offensive.

* Her misgivings about Facebook's decision to change its rules and allow violent speech in relation to the Ukraine war.

* Why tackling poverty and "standing up for the little guy" will be her number one priority in the election campaign.

* The challenges of explaining the Single Transferable Vote electoral system to voters.

You can listen to the episode as a traditional podcast via the embedded Soundcloud player below, or via the direct Soundcloud link, or you can watch it in video form via the embedded YouTube player.  The Popcast is also available on Stitcher and Spotify.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

VIDEO: My appearance on TweetStreet Occupied Scotland

You can watch my guest appearance on the regular TweetStreet Occupied Scotland YouTube show via the embedded player below.  We covered quite a few topics - the prospects for an independence referendum next year, Alba's improved showing in the latest opinion polls, the comparisons that can be drawn between Scotland and Ukraine, the importance of Scotland actually tackling Covid rather than "living with it", and naturally the endlessly fascinating subject of Peter A Bell.

 

You'll be beside yourselves with excitement to learn that I also recorded Episode 15 of the Scot Goes Popcast earlier today with a special guest, so that will be on its way as soon as I iron out a few gremlins.

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Alba absolutely *can* help to achieve independence - but not in monastic isolation from other pro-indy parties

I've been receiving a barrage of queries in recent days, on two slightly contradictory fronts.  Firstly, there's the national treasure and my number one fan Peter A Bell, who claims not to understand what role Alba can possibly play in bringing about independence, and secondly there's a small smattering of Alba supporters who say they don't understand why giving second, third and fourth preference votes to other independence-supporting parties (or even first preference votes in wards where Alba isn't standing) is so important in the council elections in May.  I was going to split my responses into two posts, but as we're dealing with essentially two sides of the same coin, it might make more sense to cover both issues in a single post.

Let's start with our old friend Peter.  "Alba will never be in government!" he bellows.  "Only the SNP can be the vehicle for independence!  Alba will never replace the SNP!  What role do they even think they have to play?  What possible value can there be in voting for Alba, rather than voting for the SNP and trying to influence Nicola Sturgeon?"  The answer to those questions is, of course, elementary and extremely obvious, and if I didn't know Peter better I'd assume he was just pretending not to understand - but, given the nature of the man, I must at least concede the possibility that he's so locked into black-and-white thinking that he genuinely can't see the wood for the trees.

There are, let's be honest, a few utopianists among the Alba membership who believe that, with a lot of hard work, it may be possible to replace the SNP as the leading pro-independence party within a very short time-frame, just as Sinn Féin very suddenly replaced the more gradualist Irish Parliamentary Party at the 1918 general election, precipitating Irish independence.  That, however, is very much a minority belief within the party.  It's unlikely to happen because the prevailing circumstances just aren't conducive to it.  But that's fine, because Alba doesn't need to become the largest party or even get anywhere close to that.  All it has to do is gain a significant enough percentage of support - which could be as little as 4% or 5% of the vote - to force the SNP to start looking over its shoulder and consider what it needs to do to get those votes back, or to prevent any further slippage.  Almost inevitably, any action taken would have to involve greater radicalism and urgency on independence.  And as soon as we have a Scottish Government that is coaxed into serious action to bring independence about, Alba's primary objective is achieved.

There is nothing remotely novel about the concept of a smaller party achieving its objectives indirectly by applying pressure to a larger party.  Here are a few examples - 

* In the mid-1970s, the Labour government performed a U-turn on its opposition to devolution as a result of the panic caused by relatively modest seat losses to the SNP.  It then spent a large chunk of the 1974-79 parliament making a serious (albeit ultimately failed) attempt to legislate for a Scottish Assembly.

* In the 1980s, Labour moved rapidly to the right as a result of losing a significant chunk of its more moderate traditional vote to the breakaway Social Democratic Party (SDP).  

* Bizarrely, the process that eventually led to Britain leaving the European Union was set in train by rather minor concerns among the Tory leadership that UKIP might pose a threat in the odd by-election.  They imagined they could hold a referendum without any real danger of a Leave victory, and thus neutralise the UKIP problem in a risk-free way.  UKIP was thus able to completely achieve its founding objective without ever holding more than two seats in the House of Commons.

Peter has been around long enough to have witnessed all of those examples.  Why he has been unable or unwilling to process the lesson of them is something only he can explain.

Now let's turn to the importance of Alba supporters giving second, third and fourth preference votes to candidates from other pro-independence parties.  The objections I've heard to that are rather scattergun, which suggests that what's really going on is that a small number of people don't want to give SNP candidates a preference for emotional reasons, and are working backwards to try to come up with any justification for that, even though they must know deep down that it would be deeply harmful to the independence cause.  The claim that "local elections have got hee-haw to do with independence" rings particularly hollow, although if anyone genuinely believes that, they are being astoundingly naive.  

Think back to why we actually needed an Alba Party in the first place.  It goes back to the SNP leadership's catastrophic loss of nerve in the first half of 2017, when they announced an independence referendum would be held and then totally backtracked within a matter of months.  Everyone remembers the role played in that process by the 2017 general election (in which, let's not forget, the SNP actually won a majority), but it didn't start there.  A few weeks before the general election, the SNP underperformed expectations badly in the local elections.  At the start of the count, Professor John Curtice speculated that they might end up with around 40% of the vote, and suggested that would be mildly disappointing for them.  In the end, to everyone's surprise, they took just 32% of the vote, which represented no progress at all since the pre-indyref elections in 2012.  That was eagerly interpreted by the media as a public rejection of Nicola Sturgeon's desire for a second referendum, and thus set a destructive narrative which fed into the general election campaign and ultimately led to the referendum being ditched.

That, my friends, is what is so spectacularly wrong-headed about the notion that it's "safe" for we as Alba supporters to want the SNP to do badly at the local elections as a kind of "punishment" so they will be "sent a message" about the error of their ways.  In fact, the message they'd receive would be the total opposite of the one you intended to send.  If you want to nudge the SNP towards greater radicalism or to reverse course on women's rights, there is one thing you can do - you can rank Alba first in your ward (if there's an Alba candidate) and the SNP second.  That message will be heard and understood loud and clear.  But if you don't rank the SNP at all, what you are doing in 99% of cases is abstaining on whether you want SNP councillors or unionist councillors.  That means you will effectively be helping Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates to be elected, which will be interpreted by the SNP leadership in one way, and in one way only.  Scotland doesn't want independence.  Scotland doesn't want an independence referendum.  Let's kick it even deeper into the long grass.

If the local elections really weren't about independence, Alba probably wouldn't even be standing in them.  Nor would the SNP, for that matter.  We'd all be voting for the North Lanarkshire Collect Rubbish More Efficiently Party or the Clackmannanshire Keep Our Libraries Open Party.  Everyone can understand that emotions are running high and that there are lots of resentments between the SNP and Alba, but if the objective is to actually achieve independence rather than to settle old scores, we have to engage our heads as well as our hearts, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that we should give our top rankings to all of the pro-independence candidates in each ward.

There's another hard-headed consideration too.  To the best of my knowledge, the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll from last autumn is still the only poll to ask specifically for local council voting intentions.  It found that Alba were in the same ball-park as other smaller parties on the first preference vote - they were on 2%, compared to 4% for the Greens and 6% for the Liberal Democrats.  But when respondents were asked which parties they would give any kind of ranking to at all, Alba only crept up to 6%, while the Lib Dems and Greens both leaped into the low 20s.  That means Alba actually needs to encourage vote transfers more than any other party does.  If Alba were to hopelessly try to achieve independence in splendid monastic isolation (thankfully it won't), that would set an example that SNP supporters might follow - but Alba would be harmed by that far, far more than the SNP would.  We need to encourage committed SNP supporters to give a second, third or fourth preference vote to Alba at every available opportunity.  We would be absolutely idiotic to send completely the opposite message by saying that Alba voters should only rank Alba, which by logical extension would be heard as "SNP voters should only rank the SNP".

Another objection I've heard is that, on moral grounds, we shouldn't give a ranking to a party which tried to put its former leader in jail.  But that strategic question was settled last year, when Alba urged voters to try to bring about a pro-independence supermajority by voting SNP on the constituency ballot and Alba on the list.  "Monastic isolation as revenge for the Alex Salmond trial" was rightly rejected as an approach last year, so it would be a bit odd to suddenly adopt it this year.  

The reality is that it looks like Alba will only be standing in just under one-third of wards across Scotland.  Even where they are standing, they will only have one candidate in multi-member wards that will elect three or four councillors.  Alba can contribute to strong pro-independence representation in our local councils after May - but contribute is the operative word.  Whatever our policy and strategic differences, we need to rank the SNP and Greens too.

*  *  *

Please bear with me as I continue promoting Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive.  Opinion polls are so expensive that since I started commissioning them, fundraising has almost become like painting the Forth Bridge.  If you'd like to help this blog continue for another year, or to help us commission another full-scale poll like the six we've commissioned over the last two years, here are the various options for donating...

Via the Scot Goes Pop polling fundraiser for 2021-22, which I set up in the autumn and is part-funded.

If you prefer to donate directly, that can be done via Paypal or bank transfer:  

My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or email me for my bank details.  (My contact email address is different from my Paypal address, and can be found in the sidebar of the desktop version of the site, or on my Twitter profile.) 

Sunday, March 20, 2022

This is the closest Peter A Bell gets to writing love poetry

I paid one of my occasional visits to Peter A Bell's blog yesterday and discovered that there was another post dedicated to yours truly.  And this one is an absolute BELTER.  Behold...

"I shall start with a couple of confessions. This article isn’t really all about James Kelly. Filling an entire blog post with stuff about him would be a challenge even for someone as famously verbose as myself. I don’t like the guy. That’s my second confession. I’m not prone to instant dislikes. As far as I am aware, I’ve never met the laddie. My dislike for him is, I admit, somewhat irrational...I can’t explain it. Something about the guy just makes my skin crawl. And sometimes you just have to go with your instincts. How’s that for full disclosure?"

*****SWOON*****

   *****SWOON*****

      *****SWOON*****