Snp 1+2?

[StevieC]

Had thought about posting this on the Scottish Independence thread, but felt it maybe needed a thread to itself given the controversy surrounding it.

So much confusion around the best “tactic” to send an undeniable message to Westminster, following the Holyrood election.

The Scottish voting system, talk of a new Indy party, the Greens, List votes .. it’s easy to see why there might be a bit of confusion amongst the Independence supporters.

[SHODAN]

Both votes SNP is pointless now as they obliterate the constituency seats meaning they pick up almost no list ones. My second vote will be Green this time around.

[Ozyhibby]

Going Green on my second vote this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allmodcons]

Both votes SNP is pointless now as they obliterate the constituency seats meaning they pick up almost no list ones. My second vote will be Green this time around.


Going Green on my second vote this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does not make sense to vote for any party who are unlikely to get 5% of the list vote in the region in which you are casting your vote.

As an example, some 'extreme' Nationalists are advocating 2nd vote IFS Party when there is absolutely no chance of them getting anything like 5% of the list vote meaning any vote cast for them will be a wasted vote.

Be very careful how you play this.

[lord bunberry]

It does not make sense to vote for any party who are unlikely to get 5% of the list vote in the region in which you are casting your vote.

As an example, some 'extreme' Nationalists are advocating 2nd vote IFS Party when there is absolutely no chance of them getting anything like 5% of the list vote meaning any vote cast for them will be a wasted vote.

Be very careful how you play this.
I agree, none of these new independence parties will get to the 5% mark. I’ll be checking from the previous election to see where my second vote goes. The SSP seem to be making a bit of a comeback in certain areas, so they will be a more viable choice for some and the Greens for most of the other areas.

[Future17]

I agree, none of these new independence parties will get to the 5% mark. I’ll be checking from the previous election to see where my second vote goes. The SSP seem to be making a bit of a comeback in certain areas, so they will be a more viable choice for some and the Greens for most of the other areas.

They're certainly making a comeback at the East End of Princes St; I can hear them (for what feels like) all day.

[lord bunberry]

They're certainly making a comeback at the East End of Princes St; I can hear them (for what feels like) all day.
They’re a vocal bunch that’s for sure. :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201214/6ec1ed42152dc5ab654a13bee00fce12.jpg

Looking at the list seats for Lothian, the SNP came in at 36% of the vote but got zero seats out of it due to their dominance in the constituency vote. It’s well worth pro Indy voters looking at the greens for their 2nd vote.
The greens came in at 10% of the vote and got two seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

It does not make sense to vote for any party who are unlikely to get 5% of the list vote in the region in which you are casting your vote.

As an example, some 'extreme' Nationalists are advocating 2nd vote IFS Party when there is absolutely no chance of them getting anything like 5% of the list vote meaning any vote cast for them will be a wasted vote.

Be very careful how you play this.

I voted SNP in Central Scotland in 2016 and the Tories/Labour won all the list seats. The Greens picked one up in Mid/Fife (my new region) and the SNP none so that's where it'll be going this time.

[lord bunberry]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201214/6ec1ed42152dc5ab654a13bee00fce12.jpg

Looking at the list seats for Lothian, the SNP came in at 36% of the vote but got zero seats out of it due to their dominance in the constituency vote. It’s well worth pro Indy voters looking at the greens for their 2nd vote.
The greens came in at 10% of the vote and got two seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:agree: That’s where my second vote will be going after seeing that.

[Onceinawhile]

I'll be voting Green 2nd vote as I always do.

[marinello59]

Are the list and regional ballot two separate pieces of paper?

[JeMeSouviens]

Are the list and regional ballot two separate pieces of paper?

Yes.

[marinello59]

Yes.

Thanks. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

What would be wrong about Greens first and either them or SNP second?

[Ozyhibby]

What would be wrong about Greens first and either them or SNP second?

Nothing but it’s likely to be a losing vote. SNP will dominate constituency votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Nothing but it’s likely to be a losing vote. SNP will dominate constituency votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what happens when people don't have the courage of their conviction.

[CloudSquall]

If I was in Scotland it would be SNP one and two as I'm not a fan of the Greens.

I'd give the SSP a vote on the list if they were in with a chance to get seats but that isn't very likely.

I had a look at the new Independence Party talked about on Twitter but outside of the Wings Over Scotland Twitter group it's not going anywhere IMO.

[Callyballybe]

Could someone help clarify this situation, I'm slightly confused. If someone was to vote SNP 1 + 2, and the party do well on the constituency vote. Why would they potentially then do badly on the list vote?

[Ozyhibby]

Could someone help clarify this situation, I'm slightly confused. If someone was to vote SNP 1 + 2, and the party do well on the constituency vote. Why would they potentially then do badly on the list vote?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zt4hv4j/revision/1

Have fun.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StevieC]

Could someone help clarify this situation, I'm slightly confused. If someone was to vote SNP 1 + 2, and the party do well on the constituency vote. Why would they potentially then do badly on the list vote?

There is probably a website somewhere that will explain this better, but I’ll give it a try ..

The list votes are divided by the number of constituency seats +1.
So in a 9 seat constituency, if the SNP sweep up (as the polls are predicting) then the number of list votes (SNP2) is divided by 10.
Let’s say, for example, they get 100,000 constituency votes (which secures the constituency seats) and 100,000 list votes. The constituency votes are simply FPTP so once constituency seats are sorted they are removed and we move to the list votes. List votes for parties winning constituency seats are divided by the number of constituency seats won +1. So in the example above the 100,000 SNP list votes are divided by 10, leaving 10,000 list votes to be counted.

There are 8 regions in Scotland and there are 7 list seats available In each region. For the purposes of this let’s say that the list votes are as follows
SNP 100,000 Tory 66,000 Labour 40,000 Greens 24,000 LibDem 10,000

The SNP win all 9 constituency seats, so their list votes drop to 10,000

That means that the Tories get the first list seat with 66,000 votes.
They now have one list seat, so the next calculation divides that by 1+1 leaving 33,000 list seats.

Labour gets the next list seat with 40,000, and then that is divided by 1+1 leaving 20,000.

The Tories then get a 2nd list seat with 33,000, and now that they have 2 list seats it’s divided by 2+1 leaving 11,000.

The Greens get the 4th and are then left with 12,000

Labour’s 20,000 gets them the 5th, their 2nd seat, and are then left with 6,600

The Greens get the 6th, and are left with 4,600

The Tories still have 11,000 votes left so they get the 7th and final seat.

So with 7 regional list seats available, the Tories get 3, Labour 2, Greens 2

The SNP, despite have 100,000 list/regional votes get no list seats because of their constituency seats. The LibDems also miss out on a list seat.

I hope I’ve got that right.

[1875godsgift]

There is probably a website somewhere that will explain this better, but I’ll give it a try ..

The list votes are divided by the number of constituency seats +1.
So in a 9 seat constituency, if the SNP sweep up (as the polls are predicting) then the number of list votes (SNP2) is divided by 10.
Let’s say, for example, they get 100,000 constituency votes (which secures the constituency seats) and 100,000 list votes. The constituency votes are simply FPTP so once constituency seats are sorted they are removed and we move to the list votes. List votes for parties winning constituency seats are divided by the number of constituency seats won +1. So in the example above the 100,000 SNP list votes are divided by 10, leaving 10,000 list votes to be counted.

There are 8 regions in Scotland and there are 7 list seats available In each region. For the purposes of this let’s say that the list votes are as follows
SNP 100,000 Tory 66,000 Labour 40,000 Greens 24,000 LibDem 10,000

The SNP win all 9 constituency seats, so their list votes drop to 10,000

That means that the Tories get the first list seat with 66,000 votes.
They now have one list seat, so the next calculation divides that by 1+1 leaving 33,000 list seats.

Labour gets the next list seat with 40,000, and then that is divided by 1+1 leaving 20,000.

The Tories then get a 2nd list seat with 33,000, and now that they have 2 list seats it’s divided by 2+1 leaving 11,000.

The Greens get the 4th and are then left with 12,000

Labour’s 20,000 gets them the 5th, their 2nd seat, and are then left with 6,600

The Greens get the 6th, and are left with 4,600

The Tories still have 11,000 votes left so they get the 7th and final seat.

So with 7 regional list seats available, the Tories get 3, Labour 2, Greens 2

The SNP, despite have 100,000 list/regional votes get no list seats because of their constituency seats. The LibDems also miss out on a list seat.

I hope I’ve got that right.


Who the **** came up with all that? Surely there's a simpler way of voting?

[StevieC]

Who the **** came up with all that?

Victor D'Hondt


Surely there's a simpler way of voting?

Yes, FPTP .. but its not proportional.

[Frazerbob]

Who the **** came up with all that? Surely there's a simpler way of voting?

It’s designed to ensure no party gains a overall majority in the Parliament, supposedly making it a fairer representation of public opinion and ensuring a proportional representation of votes. Despite this, the SNP have in the past and are predicted next year, to have a majority. (9-10 seats was the latest forecast I read a few weeks ago).

[Keith_M]

It’s designed to ensure no party gains a overall majority in the Parliament, supposedly making it a fairer representation of public opinion and ensuring a proportional representation of votes. Despite this, the SNP have in the past and are predicted next year, to have a majority. (9-10 seats was the latest forecast I read a few weeks ago).


So how come Westminster didn't adopt it but they decided it was good for the devolved parliaments?

A suspicious person might suspect their motivation was to artificially restrict the power of Holyrood, but it backfired somewhat when the SNP gained a majority.

[Hibs Class]

So how come Westminster didn't adopt it but they decided it was good for the devolved parliaments?

A suspicious person might suspect their motivation was to artificially restrict the power of Holyrood, but it backfired somewhat when the SNP gained a majority.

IIRC one of the conditions the LibDems required when they joined the Conservatives in coalition in 2010 was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. That was held in 2011 but change was rejected.

[Keith_M]

IIRC one of the conditions the LibDems required when they joined the Conservatives in coalition in 2010 was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. That was held in 2011 but change was rejected.


What a surprise.

[Moulin Yarns]

What a surprise.

There was a referendum, so the people decided.

68% voted against on a 42% turnout.

[CropleyWasGod]

It’s designed to ensure no party gains a overall majority in the Parliament, supposedly making it a fairer representation of public opinion and ensuring a proportional representation of votes. Despite this, the SNP have in the past and are predicted next year, to have a majority. (9-10 seats was the latest forecast I read a few weeks ago).

IIRC, there's only been a majority Parliament once in its history.

It's maybe a thread hijack, but I'm in favour of that kind of shared power. It forces parties to work together, and come up with compromises that fairly reflect the will of the overall electorate. The alternative is, as at Westminster, having one party forcing through its agenda when less than half the electorate voted for them.

[Keith_M]

IIRC, there's only been a majority Parliament once in its history.

It's maybe a thread hijack, but I'm in favour of that kind of shared power. It forces parties to work together, and come up with compromises that fairly reflect the will of the overall electorate. The alternative is, as at Westminster, having one party forcing through its agenda when less than half the electorate voted for them.


That's a nice idea, in theory, but have you ever heard of The Bain Principle? There's also a similar clash of ideologies (though more extreme) that lead to the suspension of the Northern Irish Parliament.


I can just imagine Kier Starmer, Bojo and Ian Blackford all sitting round a table in Westminster to decide government policy...

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71WfgiLLqEL._AC_SL1024_.jpg

[Callyballybe]

There is probably a website somewhere that will explain this better, but I’ll give it a try ..

The list votes are divided by the number of constituency seats +1.
So in a 9 seat constituency, if the SNP sweep up (as the polls are predicting) then the number of list votes (SNP2) is divided by 10.
Let’s say, for example, they get 100,000 constituency votes (which secures the constituency seats) and 100,000 list votes. The constituency votes are simply FPTP so once constituency seats are sorted they are removed and we move to the list votes. List votes for parties winning constituency seats are divided by the number of constituency seats won +1. So in the example above the 100,000 SNP list votes are divided by 10, leaving 10,000 list votes to be counted.

There are 8 regions in Scotland and there are 7 list seats available In each region. For the purposes of this let’s say that the list votes are as follows
SNP 100,000 Tory 66,000 Labour 40,000 Greens 24,000 LibDem 10,000

The SNP win all 9 constituency seats, so their list votes drop to 10,000

That means that the Tories get the first list seat with 66,000 votes.
They now have one list seat, so the next calculation divides that by 1+1 leaving 33,000 list seats.

Labour gets the next list seat with 40,000, and then that is divided by 1+1 leaving 20,000.

The Tories then get a 2nd list seat with 33,000, and now that they have 2 list seats it’s divided by 2+1 leaving 11,000.

The Greens get the 4th and are then left with 12,000

Labour’s 20,000 gets them the 5th, their 2nd seat, and are then left with 6,600

The Greens get the 6th, and are left with 4,600

The Tories still have 11,000 votes left so they get the 7th and final seat.

So with 7 regional list seats available, the Tories get 3, Labour 2, Greens 2

The SNP, despite have 100,000 list/regional votes get no list seats because of their constituency seats. The LibDems also miss out on a list seat.

I hope I’ve got that right.

Many thanks for the explanation Stevie. 👍

I actually quite like that set up. Slightly convoluted yes, but I like the idea that if one party has x amount of constituency MPs, then this is taken into consideration when allocating list MPs for other parties, who may have lost out due to the initial FPTP set up on the constituency vote.

[heretoday]

IIRC one of the conditions the LibDems required when they joined the Conservatives in coalition in 2010 was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. That was held in 2011 but change was rejected.

Nobody realised how potentially important the subject was going to be in subsequent years the lazy devils.

[JeMeSouviens]

There is probably a website somewhere that will explain this better, but I’ll give it a try ..

The list votes are divided by the number of constituency seats +1.
So in a 9 seat constituency, if the SNP sweep up (as the polls are predicting) then the number of list votes (SNP2) is divided by 10.
Let’s say, for example, they get 100,000 constituency votes (which secures the constituency seats) and 100,000 list votes. The constituency votes are simply FPTP so once constituency seats are sorted they are removed and we move to the list votes. List votes for parties winning constituency seats are divided by the number of constituency seats won +1. So in the example above the 100,000 SNP list votes are divided by 10, leaving 10,000 list votes to be counted.

There are 8 regions in Scotland and there are 7 list seats available In each region. For the purposes of this let’s say that the list votes are as follows
SNP 100,000 Tory 66,000 Labour 40,000 Greens 24,000 LibDem 10,000

The SNP win all 9 constituency seats, so their list votes drop to 10,000

That means that the Tories get the first list seat with 66,000 votes.
They now have one list seat, so the next calculation divides that by 1+1 leaving 33,000 list seats.

Labour gets the next list seat with 40,000, and then that is divided by 1+1 leaving 20,000.

The Tories then get a 2nd list seat with 33,000, and now that they have 2 list seats it’s divided by 2+1 leaving 11,000.

The Greens get the 4th and are then left with 12,000

Labour’s 20,000 gets them the 5th, their 2nd seat, and are then left with 6,600

The Greens get the 6th, and are left with 4,600

The Tories still have 11,000 votes left so they get the 7th and final seat.

So with 7 regional list seats available, the Tories get 3, Labour 2, Greens 2

The SNP, despite have 100,000 list/regional votes get no list seats because of their constituency seats. The LibDems also miss out on a list seat.

I hope I’ve got that right.

Good explanation.

It might also be worth pointing out that in your example the SNP got 56% of the total seats on 42% of the vote.

Pro-indy got 69% of the total seats on 52% of the vote.

[JeMeSouviens]

IIRC one of the conditions the LibDems required when they joined the Conservatives in coalition in 2010 was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. That was held in 2011 but change was rejected.

The change that was rejected was nothing like proper PR.

All it would have done was change the way first past the post worked in the same set of Westminster constituencies that we already have. The proposal was that a candidate wouldn't win a seat without 50%+ support. So you rank candidates in each constituency and if nobody got 50%+ first preference, then you knock out the lowest ranked candidates and redistribute their votes until someone gets 50%+.

Someone did an analysis at the time of the referendum on it and discovered that very few results would actually change.

[allmodcons]

What would be wrong about Greens first and either them or SNP second?

The Greens don't put up many candidates on the constituency list. I think they may only have stood candidates in 2 seats in 2016.

From a purely independence perspective a vote for them on the constituency list is a complete waste. The vote they secured in Edinburgh Central allowed Ruth Davidson to win that seat in 2016. Again, in the context of Independence, They really should stand any for any lus

[allmodcons]

What would be wrong about Greens first and either them or SNP second?

The Greens don't put up many candidates on the constituency list. I think they may only have stood candidates in 2 seats in 2016.

From a purely independence perspective a vote for them on the constituency list is a complete waste. The vote they secured in Edinburgh Central allowed Ruth Davidson to win that seat in 2016. Again, in the context of Independence, they really should not stand for any list seats. Very poor strategy imo.

[lord bunberry]

What would be wrong about Greens first and either them or SNP second?
The reason most people will be voting Green second is that they don’t want to waste their vote on the SNP. It’s about having a pro independence majority rather than support for the Greens.

[Moulin Yarns]

The Greens don't put up many candidates on the constituency list. I think they may only have stood candidates in 2 seats in 2016.

From a purely independence perspective a vote for them on the constituency list is a complete waste. The vote they secured in Edinburgh Central allowed Ruth Davidson to win that seat in 2016. Again, in the context of Independence, They really should stand any for any lus

That's at the same level of daft as the SNP brought Thatcherism to the country.

[StevieC]

The Greens don't put up many candidates on the constituency list. I think they may only have stood candidates in 2 seats in 2016.

From a purely independence perspective a vote for them on the constituency list is a complete waste. The vote they secured in Edinburgh Central allowed Ruth Davidson to win that seat in 2016. Again, in the context of Independence, they really should not stand for any list seats. Very poor strategy imo.

That's just nonsense.
Care to elaborate on how they allowed Ruth Davidson in, when list seats are allocated by region, not constituency, and are allocated by the parties themselves.

And why is it bad for Independence for a pro-Independence party to stand for list seats that the SNP have very little chance of winning?

[Keith_M]

The reason most people will be voting Green second is that they don’t want to waste their vote on the SNP. It’s about having a pro independence majority rather than support for the Greens.


My missus votes Green because it's her favourite colour.

Why they gave women the vote I'll never know.

:rolleyes:

[marinello59]

My missus votes Green because it's her favourite colour.

Why they gave women the vote I'll never know.

:rolleyes:

I hope she she’s that. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

That's just nonsense.
Care to elaborate on how they allowed Ruth Davidson in, when list seats are allocated by region, not constituency, and are allocated by the parties themselves.

And why is it bad for Independence for a pro-Independence party to stand for list seats that the SNP have very little chance of winning?

Ruth Davidson won the Edinburgh Central constituency. Although had she lost that she'd have got in on the list anyway, so it makes next to no difference in the grand scheme.

All in all, tactical voting doesn't really work in the Holyrood system. It's pointless in the constituencies (where it does work) because it will largely be balanced out by the list vote and it's fraught with danger in the list vote, because if sufficient tactical votes don't go with yours you might end up actually costing your favoured party a seat.

Also, it's different with the Greens, who are a real party with their own agenda, but the concept of voting for a "list-only" pro-indy party seems entrirely self defeating to me.

1. We're only going to get an Indyref and Indy itself with a clear majority in support, not by some tactical game.
2. The chicanery involved is likely to turn off soft Nos.
3. The personalities involved are likely to be Stuart Campbell (Wings) who has gone from a bit unhinged with some dodgy views to full on mental anti-SNP deranged and/or Alex Salmond who, although it may not have been criminal, has been a pest to various women and is now pretty toxic to all but a certain strand of indy-ultras.
4. The system is not unfair just because it doesn't return a Westminster style bloated majority on a minority vote. In fact, we should be proud that our parliament has a better system (long term I might prefer a move to STV, but any PR is miles better than FPTP). And it reeks of hypocrisy to complain about it when the SNP has been in favour of PR reform at Westminster for decades.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ruth Davidson won the Edinburgh Central constituency. Although had she lost that she'd have got in on the list anyway, so it makes next to no difference in the grand scheme.

All in all, tactical voting doesn't really work in the Holyrood system. It's pointless in the constituencies (where it does work) because it will largely be balanced out by the list vote and it's fraught with danger in the list vote, because if sufficient tactical votes don't go with yours you might end up actually costing your favoured party a seat.

Also, it's different with the Greens, who are a real party with their own agenda, but the concept of voting for a "list-only" pro-indy party seems entrirely self defeating to me.

1. We're only going to get an Indyref and Indy itself with a clear majority in support, not by some tactical game.
2. The chicanery involved is likely to turn off soft Nos.
3. The personalities involved are likely to be Stuart Campbell (Wings) who has gone from a bit unhinged with some dodgy views to full on mental anti-SNP deranged and/or Alex Salmond who, although it may not have been criminal, has been a pest to various women and is now pretty toxic to all but a certain strand of indy-ultras.
4. The system is not unfair just because it doesn't return a Westminster style bloated majority on a minority vote. In fact, we should be proud that our parliament has a better system (long term I might prefer a move to STV, but any PR is miles better than FPTP). And it reeks of hypocrisy to complain about it when the SNP has been in favour of PR reform at Westminster for decades.

It is interesting that the SNP had the most votes overall, yet didn't get into the seat ahead of Ruth.

https://democraticdashboard.com/scottish-constituency/edinburgh-central
(https://democraticdashboard.com/scottish-constituency/edinburgh-central)

For Edinburgh Central read Tory Central :wink:

[StevieC]

Ruth Davidson won the Edinburgh Central constituency. Although had she lost that she'd have got in on the list anyway, so it makes next to no difference in the grand scheme.

All in all, tactical voting doesn't really work in the Holyrood system.

Ah, I thought she got in via the regional list, my mistake. I wonder why the Greens put someone up, if I remember correctly they had decided not to stand anywhere that was marginal. I know in Perth there was a big stooshie because the Green candidate was initially going to stand, before eventually bowing down to pressure and stepping aside.

From what I can gather, across social media, if the regional vote is given to a pro-Indy party (rather than the SNP) it could see a two thirds pro-Independence majority at Holyrood.

I understand totally how this could put off soft NO’s, but soft NO’s means nothing unless a referendum can be secured. Would a big pro-Independence majority of actual seats provide more pressure on the UK to grant a referendum than 56% of the list vote (with no additional seats)?

[JeMeSouviens]

Ah, I thought she got in via the regional list, my mistake. I wonder why the Greens put someone up, if I remember correctly they had decided not to stand anywhere that was marginal. I know in Perth there was a big stooshie because the Green candidate was initially going to stand, before eventually bowing down to pressure and stepping aside.

From what I can gather, across social media, if the regional vote is given to a pro-Indy party (rather than the SNP) it could see a two thirds pro-Independence majority at Holyrood.

I understand totally how this could put off soft NO’s, but soft NO’s means nothing unless a referendum can be secured. Would a big pro-Independence majority of actual seats provide more pressure on the UK to grant a referendum than 56% of the list vote (with no additional seats)?

In theory, yes. In the real world outside the twitter bubble getting a sufficiently large section of the electorate to both realise that and then actually vote tactically is a very tall order. It might be possible with a big name fronting a "list party", eg. Salmond (but I'd be against that for reasons already stated).

Most of the people advocating the idea assume a pro-Indy part pops up and magically gets 15 or 20% of the vote with no activists campaigning for them. It's just not going to happen. They'd be lucky to get 2%, never mind 20.

On your last point, I don't think a larger number of seats adds anything. We need a pro-Indy majority and I think one backed with a majority of votes would lend greater pressure. Other than that, it's easily ignored and written off as "just because of gaming the system".

[allmodcons]

The Greens don't put up many candidates on the constituency list. I think they may only have stood candidates in 2 seats in 2016.

From a purely independence perspective a vote for them on the constituency list is a complete waste. The vote they secured in Edinburgh Central allowed Ruth Davidson to win that seat in 2016. Again, in the context of Independence, they really should not stand for any list seats. Very poor strategy imo.


That's at the same level of daft as the SNP brought Thatcherism to the country.


That's just nonsense.
Care to elaborate on how they allowed Ruth Davidson in, when list seats are allocated by region, not constituency, and are allocated by the parties themselves.

And why is it bad for Independence for a pro-Independence party to stand for list seats that the SNP have very little chance of winning?

I said quite clearly that the vote they secured in Edinburgh Central (i.e. - the constituency) allowed RD to win the 'seat'. I know she would have gotten in on the list anyway but she would not have won the constituency and the kudos that goes with that if the Greens had not put up a candidate.

You are completely misinterpreting my post. Maybe I should not have used the term list but can assure you I was talking 100% about the Greens standing candidates in constituencies.

Go check the vote allocation in Edinburgh Central 2016.

[Moulin Yarns]

I said quite clearly that the vote they secured in Edinburgh Central (i.e. - the constituency) allowed RD to win the 'seat'. I know she would have gotten in on the list anyway but she would not have won the constituency and the kudos that goes with that if the Greens had not put up a candidate.

You are completely misinterpreting my post. Maybe I should not have used the term list but can assure you I was talking 100% about the Greens standing candidates in constituencies.

Go check the vote allocation in Edinburgh Central 2016.

Tell you what, maybe the SNP should have stood down in favour of the co convener of the Scottish greens.

[Moulin Yarns]

I said quite clearly that the vote they secured in Edinburgh Central (i.e. - the constituency) allowed RD to win the 'seat'. I know she would have gotten in on the list anyway but she would not have won the constituency and the kudos that goes with that if the Greens had not put up a candidate.

You are completely misinterpreting my post. Maybe I should not have used the term list but can assure you I was talking 100% about the Greens standing candidates in constituencies.

Go check the vote allocation in Edinburgh Central 2016.

Did you notice the swing for Ruth was the same as the one against the libdem, that explains why she got in.

[allmodcons]

Tell you what, maybe the SNP should have stood down in favour of the co convener of the Scottish greens.

Maybe they should have but that doesn't justify the tripe you posted in response to my initial comments.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of the 4644 votes Alison Johnstone garnered would otherwise have gone to the SNP candidate and stopped Ruth Davidson from winning the constituency and yet your response to the point I was making was to call me daft :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe they should have but that doesn't justify the tripe you posted in response to my initial comments.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of the 4644 votes Alison Johnstone garnered would otherwise have gone to the SNP candidate and stopped Ruth Davidson from winning the constituency and yet your response to the point I was making was to call me daft :confused:

Not if the SNP had stood down. See, that's the problem. Nobody wants to give way.

And I didn't call you daft, the rhetoric is daft.

[allmodcons]

Did you notice the swing for Ruth was the same as the one against the libdem, that explains why she got in.

Forget the deflection, are you seriously disputing the point I made that if the Greens hadn't stood the majority of their vote would not have gone SNP thereby giving the SNP the seat.

[allmodcons]

Not if the SNP had stood down. See, that's the problem. Nobody wants to give way.

And I didn't call you daft, the rhetoric is daft.

I am seriously considering voting Green on the list but the tripe you are spouting might lose them that vote :greengrin

The Greens should stick to the list like they do in the vast majority of seats.

How many constituency candidates did they stand in 2016? Was it 2?

[allmodcons]

Not if the SNP had stood down. See, that's the problem. Nobody wants to give way.

And I didn't call you daft, the rhetoric is daft.

Explain to me how the rhetoric is daft?

[marinello59]

I am seriously considering voting Green on the list but the tripe you are spouting might lose them that vote :greengrin

The Greens should stick to the list like they do in the vast majority of seats.

How many constituency candidates did they stand in 2016? Was it 2?

I’d like to see the Greens stand in every constituency. It’s only finances that stops them.

[allmodcons]

I’d like to see the Greens stand in every constituency. It’s only finances that stops them.

Maybe so but, referring back to my initial e-mail where I stated from a "purely Independence perspective", all they'd do is split the Nationalist vote and allow what happened in Edinburgh Central in 2016 to happen elsewhere.

I get that they have different policies to that of the SNP but my understanding of this thread is that it's about how do we maximise Independence seats across the constituencies and regional list vote.

[Pretty Boy]

I'm totally torn about how to vote at the next election.

On the one hand I find the status quo unsustainable and fully support an independent Scotland as part of a wider European community. I realise I will be told, with some justification, that not voting or voting for anyone other than the SNP or Greens is a vote for said status quo. On the other hand I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the SNP and to a lesser extent the Greens. The biggest problem in Scotland currently is the lack of a credible opposition.

One of my biggest concerns is the failure of the SNPs land reform policies. The jewel in the crown when these were announced back in 2010 was that 1 million acres of land in Scotland would be brought into community ownership by this year. As of the last count this was just under 53% complete with a disproportionate amount of that land being in the Highlands. The reasons why this is important are well documented and it's an area which has the potential to be genuinely redistributive. Further as climate change becomes an ever more pressing matter the continuing monopoly on landholding among a small elite ensures the continuation of poor land management, a resistance to rewilding and both the continued destruction of and failure to reintroduce native flora and fauna. Bringing land into common ownership allows it to be used for the befit of Scotland environmentally and economically and it's success would have been a real feather in the cap for both the green and socialist credentials of the SNP. Of course land reform has been an area of frustration long before the SNP came to power but as the incumbent party it is their responsibility currently. Conversations I have had with a few grassroots SNP members suggest a certain frustration than the party has become a bit too comfortable in govt and has lost the edge that defined the early years. I'm not sure how widespread that view is and whether it matters when the overriding issue continued to be independence. I suppose it's hardly a shock if a government that has been in place so long become a bit stale.

When it comes down to it there is every chance I will still somewhat grudgingly put my X in the SNP box again for the constituency vote. My biggest regret over the last few years at Holyrood is the demise of the SSP. I remember being in the public gallery a few years ago when nursery nurses were on strike and watching Tommy Sheridan tear strips of the then FM about his handling of the pay dispute. I would love to see a resurgent socialist presence in Holyrood. The collapse of their vote, much of it self inflicted, between 2003 and 2007 was mirrored by the Greens and only the latter recovered. Whilst there is merit in a majority government for Scotland I do think a couple of smaller parties holding a few more seats and forcing compromise and cooperation would be good for us as a country. The recent action on period poverty shows genuinely good things can be achieved when people can work together.

That's quite a long winded way to say I don't know but probably SNP 1 and A N other 2.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm totally torn about how to vote at the next election.

On the one hand I find the status quo unsustainable and fully support an independent Scotland as part of a wider European community. I realise I will be told, with some justification, that not voting or voting for anyone other than the SNP or Greens is a vote for said status quo. On the other hand I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the SNP and to a lesser extent the Greens. The biggest problem in Scotland currently is the lack of a credible opposition.

One of my biggest concerns is the failure of the SNPs land reform policies. The jewel in the crown when these were announced back in 2010 was that 1 million acres of land in Scotland would be brought into community ownership by this year. As of the last count this was just under 53% complete with a disproportionate amount of that land being in the Highlands. The reasons why this is important are well documented and it's an area which has the potential to be genuinely redistributive. Further as climate change becomes an ever more pressing matter the continuing monopoly on landholding among a small elite ensures the continuation of poor land management, a resistance to rewilding and both the continued destruction of and failure to reintroduce native flora and fauna. Bringing land into common ownership allows it to be used for the befit of Scotland environmentally and economically and it's success would have been a real feather in the cap for both the green and socialist credentials of the SNP. Of course land reform has been an area of frustration long before the SNP came to power but as the incumbent party it is their responsibility currently. Conversations I have had with a few grassroots SNP members suggest a certain frustration than the party has become a bit too comfortable in govt and has lost the edge that defined the early years. I'm not sure how widespread that view is and whether it matters when the overriding issue continued to be independence. I suppose it's hardly a shock if a government that has been in place so long become a bit stale.

When it comes down to it there is every chance I will still somewhat grudgingly put my X in the SNP box again for the constituency vote. My biggest regret over the last few years at Holyrood is the demise of the SSP. I remember being in the public gallery a few years ago when nursery nurses were on strike and watching Tommy Sheridan tear strips of the then FM about his handling of the pay dispute. I would love to see a resurgent socialist presence in Holyrood. The collapse of their vote, much of it self inflicted, between 2003 and 2007 was mirrored by the Greens and only the latter recovered. Whilst there is merit in a majority government for Scotland I do think a couple of smaller parties holding a few more seats and forcing compromise and cooperation would be good for us as a country. The recent action on period poverty shows genuinely good things can be achieved when people can work together.

That's quite a long winded way to say I don't know but probably SNP 1 and A N other 2.

If land reform is important then Andy Wightman of the Greens is your man. He’ll be on the Lothian list.

[CloudSquall]

The 2nd parliament was referred to as the "Rainbow Parliament" due to the number and size of parties elected, even the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party got in on the act :greengrin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Scottish_Parliament

[One Day Soon]

If land reform is important then Andy Wightman of the Greens is your man. He’ll be on the Lothian list.


I've made clear my view that the Greens are pretty much undistinguishable from the SNP. I regard them as a client party of the SNP in fact. I won't rehearse the reasons why all over again here.

However, Andy Wightman is a good man - genuinely independent-minded, not a career politician and the kind of intelligent and constructively enquiring mind that the parliament almost completely otherwise lacks.

As JMS has said, if Land Reform is your thing then he is absolutely your candidate. He has been front and centre on that agenda since 1999 and before. I hate to say it because it is a vote for the Greens but he is quality.

[StevieC]

In theory, yes. In the real world outside the twitter bubble getting a sufficiently large section of the electorate to both realise that and then actually vote tactically is a very tall order.

I think you are spot on. There's no doubt that social media and message boards create a bubble, that masks the actual thinking of people outwith that bubble.

I've seen some groups where there has been a comprehensive breakdown of the list voting in 2016, and all the potential outcomes of voting Greens with 2nd vote at 10%,20%,30%,100%. In all cases it showed a 2-4 loss of seats of the SNP, but between 10 and 37 seats gained by the Greens. Even at just 30% it showed 81 pro-Independence seats.

I think you're right though, unless the SNP came out and specifically told supporters to vote for the other Indy party with their 2nd vote (which could set them up for a political backlash) its not going to happen.

The comments against, on the posts I read, were a mixture of the following...
1) You have to vote SNP2 to try and increase the list seats
(Not understanding how list works?)

2) You have to vote SNP2 so that Westminster sees its a majority of list votes for Independence

Would Westminster pay more attention to list votes, not returned as actual seats, than a large number of seats gained by an alternative pro-Independence party? Or put another way, would Westminster view the unionist parties holding their list seats as a win and a lack of appetite for a referendum?

A quick poll in a pro-Independence Facebook group had SNP2 at around 70٪ Green 2 at 20% and A N Other(if one appears) at 10%.

Based on the figures for 2016, that would relate to SNP losing 2 list seats, the Greens picking up an extra 7 seats, and A N Other getting 4 seats.

[JeMeSouviens]

I've made clear my view that the Greens are pretty much undistinguishable from the SNP. I regard them as a client party of the SNP in fact. I won't rehearse the reasons why all over again here.

However, Andy Wightman is a good man - genuinely independent-minded, not a career politician and the kind of intelligent and constructively enquiring mind that the parliament almost completely otherwise lacks.

As JMS has said, if Land Reform is your thing then he is absolutely your candidate. He has been front and centre on that agenda since 1999 and before. I hate to say it because it is a vote for the Greens but he is quality.

https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party

Life comes at us fast. Maybe you could vote for him as an independent? :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

If land reform is important then Andy Wightman of the Greens is your man. He’ll be on the Lothian list.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201218/51a061c9112d72262e7cdfe0df9edcb9.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party

Life comes at us fast. Maybe you could vote for him as an independent? :greengrin

That's such a shame. Good luck Andy.

[One Day Soon]

https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party

Life comes at us fast. Maybe you could vote for him as an independent? :greengrin


It's almost like he read my previous post about him. Bright, brave and a clear thinker with a free mind. I'm not sure he'll stand as an independent but if he does he's all the more worth voting for.

[hibsbollah]

https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party

Life comes at us fast. Maybe you could vote for him as an independent? :greengrin

A friend of a friend of mine. I liked his first book a lot and will be a loss for the Greens. The weaponisation of trans issues mystifies me; it seems to come down to two groups who should be instinctively supportive of each other getting tangled up in a totally avoidable existential blood feud :dunno:

[Ozyhibby]

It's almost like he read my previous post about him. Bright, brave and a clear thinker with a free mind. I'm not sure he'll stand as an independent but if he does he's all the more worth voting for.

I doubt he has the profile to make it as an independent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allmodcons]

https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party

Life comes at us fast. Maybe you could vote for him as an independent? :greengrin

Everything that is wrong with Politics.

I haven't checked, but suspect that Andy Wightman has a good track record of voting with his Party yet, when he decides he wants to vote in favour of an amendment that goes against the party line, is suddenly is confronted with the threat of expulsion.

I get that a party (any party) might want to expel a member who continually votes against them but has it really come to this where, on a single issue, expulsion is threatened and a resignation tendered.

Before anyone starts, I know the SNP are no better (possibly even worse) but it just saddens me to see someone who knows his own mind faced with expulsion or resignation when, in general terms, he is supportive of party policies.

[CropleyWasGod]

A friend of a friend of mine. I liked his first book a lot and will be a loss for the Greens. The weaponisation of trans issues mystifies me; it seems to come down to two groups who should be instinctively supportive of each other getting tangled up in a totally avoidable existential blood feud :dunno:

It happens all over the place. The LGB community is split on trans issues, as is the women's lobby. HIV advocates don't always support sex workers, and neither do the LGBT sector.

It's always been a source of dismay for me that marginalised communities don't support each other on the marginalisation at least.

The voluntary and rights-based sector, in particular, is riven with petty feuds which are often about personal agendas and protecting funding. When these are people who are supposed to be on the same side, it does their particular cause no good at all.


And breathe.

[One Day Soon]

I doubt he has the profile to make it as an independent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It will be a pity and a great loss if he doesn't.