Holyrood Elections 2021

[iainmac1]

7 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Assume you are talking H&I ...

I can’t find the numbers breakdown yet. There would be some number crunching required but someone on Twitter said this... but can’t translate to %ages until you can see full figures. 

 

Yeah. Maybe I'm not fully getting this but 47% got 3 seats on list before with the same number on constituencies. Another 25,000 votes seems an awful lot to get to 2 seats which would have surely needed just a few more percent?

 

On another note how far were we away from getting a seat on Lothian list?

[Grim Jim]

1 hour ago, biffer said:

Greens missed out on a second Glasgow seat by 0.3%. 
 

Alba may have cost them the seat.

Mibbee, but the so called 'Independent Green Voice'  (i.e. holocaust deniers and ex. BNP) also stole 2200 from the Scottish Green Party which would have been enough too.  

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

That's quite a stretch. There's no way Alba voters either voted Green previously, or would consider it now. None IMO. To them, the Greens are the uber-woke enemies, even worse than the SNP.

Oh, I don't know about that.

Ahem....

[aaid]

11 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

Yeah. Maybe I'm not fully getting this but 47% got 3 seats on list before with the same number on constituencies. Another 25,000 votes seems an awful lot to get to 2 seats which would have surely needed just a few more percent?

 

On another note how far were we away from getting a seat on Lothian list?

Yes 25000 is right.  The Tories won the second last seat with 15195, so to better that on the last round - so you have two - you need to multiply that by 8 which gives you 121560.

If someone can point me in the direction of the Lothians numbers I'll let you know.

 

[Grim Jim]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

Yes 25000 is right.  The Tories won the second last seat with 15195, so to better that on the last round - so you have two - you need to multiply that by 8 which gives you 121560.

If someone can point me in the direction of the Lothians numbers I'll let you know.

 

You got the list votes by region?   I want to beat you to a spreadsheet, but can't find the figures apart from Central.   Can't beat a good spreadsheet 😋

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, Grim Jim said:

You got the list votes by region?   I want to beat you to a spreadsheet, but can't find the figures apart from Central.   Can't beat a good spreadsheet 😋

I'm ahead of you as I've got half.  The best place to look is the Wikipedia page for the election and then drill down to each region but they haven't all been updated yet.

[AlfieMoon]

35 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

Yeah. Maybe I'm not fully getting this but 47% got 3 seats on list before with the same number on constituencies. Another 25,000 votes seems an awful lot to get to 2 seats which would have surely needed just a few more percent?

 

On another note how far were we away from getting a seat on Lothian list?

Just ran the numbers and they seem accurate. 
 

Tories got the last seat on 15,194 which was there original 25.4% divided down to 6.35% for each seat they won with each round of allocations. 
 

SNP would have needed 50.9% list vote (an additional 25k votes) to get a second seat on list. 

[AlfieMoon]

I’m being defeated in the spreadsheet race I see! 😂

[aaid]

37 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

Yeah. Maybe I'm not fully getting this but 47% got 3 seats on list before with the same number on constituencies. Another 25,000 votes seems an awful lot to get to 2 seats which would have surely needed just a few more percent?

 

On another note how far were we away from getting a seat on Lothian list?

Got them now.  To pick up a list seat in Lothians, SNP would've needed another 58458 votes.

[iainmac1]

52 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Out of curiosity,Could a green walk across Parliament to the snp? 

I don't see why not, Andy Whightman became an independent.

[Toepoke]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

if the sno dint push on with a referendum,, they will be toast

Musicians for independence!

 

[iainmac1]

17 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Just ran the numbers and they seem accurate. 
 

Tories got the last seat on 15,194 which was there original 25.4% divided down to 6.35% for each seat they won with each round of allocations. 
 

SNP would have needed 50.9% list vote (an additional 25k votes) to get a second seat on list. 

How on earth did they get 3 seats before with just 47.5%!?

[duncan II]

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'd rather vote for the greens who had a better chance of list seats for that reason.

Alba exist to feed one mans ego. Nothing else.

You keep repeating this. You continue to be wrong.

[biffer]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

The greens are a con party, hijacking votes from independence supporters 

There’s your problem right there. Independence isn’t your priority, because the other green policies put you off. If it was truly about Indy, you wouldn’t care about their other policies. 
 

Alba is starting to look like a home for right wing ethnic nationalists.

[King Of Paisley]

1 hour ago, kumnio said:

I like Salmond a hell of a lot, but he has to go, because the public dont. 

Alba is full of toxic lunatics, now I know that you think the SNP are the same, and some are, but it’s a tiny minority compared to a possible majority of Alba. 

It’s ridiculous what has happened to him, and we should be grateful to have had him, but it’s over. 

Your last sentence reminds me of Muhammad Ali’s last stand against Larry Holmes in 1981. A once great figure taking too many punches and retiring on his stool.

Salmond needs to accept its done for him. It’s over. And where does this leave McAskill and Hanvey?

[hampden_loon2878]

13 minutes ago, biffer said:

There’s your problem right there. Independence isn’t your priority, because the other green policies put you off. If it was truly about Indy, you wouldn’t care about their other policies. 
 

Alba is starting to look like a home for right wing ethnic nationalists.

Aye am sure, awa and bile yer heed 

[AlfieMoon]

17 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

How on earth did they get 3 seats before with just 47.5%!?

Mainly because of 2 factors: 

1) Tories have trebled there number of votes vs 2011. 

2) Greens are now picking up a seat which they didn’t in 2011. Partly due to SNP second votes but only an extra 8k from where they were in 2011. 
 

Remember turnout is also up. 

[AlfieMoon]

Interesting side story from Glasgow... 

 

Independent Green Voice took 2210 list votes. That’s over 1/3 of the Lib Dem vote and almost the number to All 4 Unity votes (who got a reasonable amount of airtime). 
 

 

It would be fair to assume that these were misplaced Scottish Green votes. The Glasgow list paper was huge and it took me a bit of consideration to identity and differentiate The Scottish Greens. Reading down the list, the voters obviously arrived at Independent Green Voice before The Scottish Greens. 
 

This probably cost The Scottish Greens a 2nd list vote in Glasgow and I imagine that’s exactly what it was designed to do. 
 

Incidentally, the Independent Green Voice doesn’t seem to be anything of the sort: 

https://theferret.scot/independent-green-voice-candidates-include-ex-bnp/

 

[exile]

Saw this, this should surely be a handy boost:

Combined constituency & list votes, Scottish election:

Independence (SNP, Green, Alba) 2,685,805

Union (Con, Lab, LD, Unity, Reform, Ukip) 2,657,698

[aaid]

19 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

How on earth did they get 3 seats before with just 47.5%!?

Because on the list there's three things that feed into how many seats you get.

How many seats you pick up in the constituencies.
How many votes you get.
How the rest of the votes are distributed across the other parties - including those parties which don't get seats.

If you compare 2011 to 2016 then the constituencies were unchanged - 6 for the SNP and 2 for the Lib Dems. 

In 2011, the SNP got 47.5% and three seats, Labour were on 14.5% and got 2 seats, the Lib Dems got 12.1% but didn't get any list seats because they'd won the other two and the Tories were 4th with 11.6 which was enough to pick up two seats.

You'll notice that doesn't add up to 100%, it adds up to 85.7% which means that there are 14.3% of the vote unaccounted for, which should equate to 2 seats.

That was spread around a number of smaller parties who on their own did not have enough votes to gain a seat.  The largest were the Greens with 5.1% - who must have just missed out, but also 2.0 for Scottish Christian, 1.9% for UKIP, 1.5% for the Pensioners - it all adds up.   So while the SNP had 47.5% of the overall list vote, they actually had 55.4% of the votes that went towards how the seats were allocated, which is why they picked up three list seats, and as I said they must've been pretty close to the Greens for the last one.

Fast forward to 2016.

The SNP vote drops to 39.7%, the Greens goes up to 7.8%, so they get a seat - John Finnie who had won one of the SNP ones in 2007.   The Tories vote goes up to 21.8% so they pick up an additional seat.  Labour drops by a 3% but they still just get enough to get 2.  The big difference though is that with the Greens picking up as seat and with there being much fewer of the smaller parties, the amount of votes which are involved in the allocation of seats goes up to 93.2%.

So while on the surface the SNP's share of the list has dropped from 47.5% to 39.7%, their share of the "list votes that count" drops from 55.4% to 42.6%, hence they drop two seats.   

 

[AlfieMoon]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

Saw this, this should surely be a handy boost:

Combined constituency & list votes, Scottish election:

Independence (SNP, Green, Alba) 2,685,805

Union (Con, Lab, LD, Unity, Reform, Ukip) 2,657,698

This numbers nonsense narrative shouldn’t be given airtime.

‘Bums on seats’ in the parliament and the ability to pass a Bill is what reflects the will of the electorate. 

[Grim Jim]

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm ahead of you as I've got half.  The best place to look is the Wikipedia page for the election and then drill down to each region but they haven't all been updated yet.

Meanwhile, since I have the total list votes for the whole country, I've spreadsheeted that with 56 iterations to see what would happen:

SNP 62 (-2), Tory 28 (-3), labour 22 (-), Green 10 (+2), LibDem 6 (+2), Alba 1 (+1).

And if Alba were not in it and, say half their list votes went to the SNP?   Their seat above would go to the Tories, feck me 😄.

 

 

[exile]

36 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

This numbers nonsense narrative shouldn’t be given airtime.

‘Bums on seats’ in the parliament and the ability to pass a Bill is what reflects the will of the electorate. 

Knowledge is power, what's not to like?

If Unionists are furiously calculating numbers of votes, it's handy to note that it's in vain because it still adds up to a Yes majority.

Anyway I was not thinking of context of the mandate, I was thinking ahead to the referendum. One actual read vote result is surely worth a dozen opinion polls? 

[AlfieMoon]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

Knowledge is power, what's not to like?

If Unionists are furiously calculating numbers of votes, it's handy to note that it's in vain because it still adds up to a Yes majority.

Anyway I was not thinking of context of the mandate, I was thinking ahead to the referendum. One actual read vote result is surely worth a dozen opinion polls? 

I disagree. There are many factors and policies in play at an election and that’s the way it should be. In fact, it would be better if the constitutional issue wasn’t the elephant in the room. But as it is, not all SNP supporters support Indy. Even less so Green. Labour hold a sizeable % of pro-Indy voters and even the Tories and Libs have some. 
 

That’s why it’s a debate not worth justifying in my opinion. 

[exile]

14 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

I disagree. There are many factors and policies in play at an election and that’s the way it should be. In fact, it would be better if the constitutional issue wasn’t the elephant in the room. But as it is, not all SNP supporters support Indy. Even less so Green. Labour hold a sizeable % of pro-Indy voters and even the Tories and Libs have some. 
 

That’s why it’s a debate not worth justifying in my opinion. 

I think it's better to know than not to know.