Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Thanks. 
 Dumb and lazy question , if the 20% favourable SNP voters all voted Alba on the list,  is there any way of knowing if that would convert into more seats ? 

Back of a fag packet but.

With the SNP polling around 40% on the list, 20% of that equates to 8% of the overall electorate.

With a uniform spread - it won't be but anyway -the 8% would be enough to win one seat in each region, which would give you 8 seats.

It's unlikely to win more than one seat though and probably half of those 8 seats would be at the expense of Greens and SNP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I read both the tamb (although much less frequently these days) and wings and if you want to read pages and pages of personal abuse (a lot of it directed at Stuart Campbell funnily enough) and mindles

No , I will reply. I havent launched anything I have replied to your post.  Its your tone and attitude to the idea that people may not agree that SNP 1 /ALBA 2 is the best option. I am still genuine

You are doing a pretty good job of bullying and intimidating folk yourself. Its not a pantomime to be giving consideration to who you want your vote to go to. 

Posted Images

6 hours ago, aaid said:

Back of a fag packet but.

With the SNP polling around 40% on the list, 20% of that equates to 8% of the overall electorate.

With a uniform spread - it won't be but anyway -the 8% would be enough to win one seat in each region, which would give you 8 seats.

It's unlikely to win more than one seat though and probably half of those 8 seats would be at the expense of Greens and SNP.

👍

You really need a lot more SNP voters to buy into Alba then for any chance of a reasonable increase, not impossible right enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 2:28 PM, TDYER63 said:

Is Alex Salmonds popularity rating broken down into pro indy / unionist at all ? Minus 71 looks bad but its more important to know what the pro indy rating is . 

15% approval amongst SNP support.

More than half of Scots polled also held the view that Mr Salmond was “hindering the cause for Scottish independence”, compared with only 17% who said his contribution was helping the independence movement.

The standout result, however, is for Mr Salmond, who only racks up 10% favourability – with 71% having a negative view of the former SNP leader.

The closest figure to Mr Salmond in terms of unpopularity is Boris Johnson, who is viewed unfavourably by 56% of Scots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if that poll is in anyway close to reality the only thing more wasteful than voting SNP in the list is voting ALBA in the list. In the context of creating a majority of representatives that support Scottish independence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phart said:

15% approval amongst SNP support.

More than half of Scots polled also held the view that Mr Salmond was “hindering the cause for Scottish independence”, compared with only 17% who said his contribution was helping the independence movement.

The standout result, however, is for Mr Salmond, who only racks up 10% favourability – with 71% having a negative view of the former SNP leader.

The closest figure to Mr Salmond in terms of unpopularity is Boris Johnson, who is viewed unfavourably by 56% of Scots.

 

10 hours ago, phart said:

So if that poll is in anyway close to reality the only thing more wasteful than voting SNP in the list is voting ALBA in the list. In the context of creating a majority of representatives that support Scottish independence.

Yes, the more recent  figures you quoted were even worse for AS than the figures aaid quoted from January. And based purely on these you would be mad to waste your vote on Alba.  
But we just dont know how many pro indy supporters would be prepared to hold their nose and vote for Alba if they felt the system would achieve a supermajority. It would take a bit of time to feed the idea through, time I am not sure we have. 
There are a few on here that are willing to gamble with the idea , but tbf I think this board represents a higher than average support for AS . 

Its a minefield of its and buts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

Yes, the more recent  figures you quoted were even worse for AS than the figures aaid quoted from January. And based purely on these you would be mad to waste your vote on Alba.  
But we just dont know how many pro indy supporters would be prepared to hold their nose and vote for Alba if they felt the system would achieve a supermajority. It would take a bit of time to feed the idea through, time I am not sure we have. 
There are a few on here that are willing to gamble with the idea , but tbf I think this board represents a higher than average support for AS . 

Its a minefield of its and buts. 

Och stop exaggerating. It's hardly a minefield. Nobody has started blowing up ballot boxes yet. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

Yes, the more recent  figures you quoted were even worse for AS than the figures aaid quoted from January. And based purely on these you would be mad to waste your vote on Alba.  
But we just dont know how many pro indy supporters would be prepared to hold their nose and vote for Alba if they felt the system would achieve a supermajority. It would take a bit of time to feed the idea through, time I am not sure we have. 
There are a few on here that are willing to gamble with the idea , but tbf I think this board represents a higher than average support for AS . 

Its a minefield of its and buts. 

I'm voting Green again probably so not even something I have to worry about. I stopped worrying about the party politics of the SNP ages ago. I'll vote yes when we get another referendum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Och stop exaggerating. It's hardly a minefield. Nobody has started blowing up ballot boxes yet. :lol:

😂 well, the Tories might if there is any chance of a supermajority. There must surely be a few sticks of dynamite stashed away in Ruth’s tanks. 

There are just quite a few permutations to consider. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phart said:

6% tips the scales in a few areas.

 

 

I’m not quite sure where those figures come from.
 

Without any extensive analysis, the Greens got seat #4 in Glasgow region in 2016 with 9.4% of the vote. 
 

#5 & 6 - Labour 

#7 - Tories 


So, it would be a Tory seat that they’d be pushing out.
 

Maybe they’ve just named the wrong party for Glasgow in terms of who it damages. I’ve not checked any other regions. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AlfieMoon said:

 

I’m not quite sure where those figures come from.
 

Without any extensive analysis, the Greens got seat #4 in Glasgow region in 2016 with 9.4% of the vote. 
 

#5 & 6 - Labour 

#7 - Tories 


So, it would be a Tory seat that they’d be pushing out.
 

Maybe they’ve just named the wrong party for Glasgow in terms of who it damages. I’ve not checked any other regions. 

 

They're modelling the list based on current polling not previous results.  I guess what they are doing is saying what happens if you take Alba out, who would win instead and that's who they are saying are the "losers".

Greens are polling quite a bit higher than they actually achieved in 2016 so they will be "pushed up" the list in these models.

Without seeing the model, I suspect that it would be a second Green seat in Glasgow they were predicting would be "lost".

In 2016, Greens got 6.6% on the list, obviously there was regional variations in that, hence there were three regions they didn't pick up seats in.  Their spread was 4.7% (Central and South) to 10.6% in Lothian.

In Glasgow they got 9.4% - according to the most recent data available - the Survation poll from late last week - that had them at 12%, which would be in the area where they would be picking up two seats - depending on how everything else pans out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, aaid said:

They're modelling the list based on current polling not previous results.  I guess what they are doing is saying what happens if you take Alba out, who would win instead and that's who they are saying are the "losers".

Greens are polling quite a bit higher than they actually achieved in 2016 so they will be "pushed up" the list in these models.

Without seeing the model, I suspect that it would be a second Green seat in Glasgow they were predicting would be "lost".

In 2016, Greens got 6.6% on the list, obviously there was regional variations in that, hence there were three regions they didn't pick up seats in.  Their spread was 4.7% (Central and South) to 10.6% in Lothian.

In Glasgow they got 9.4% - according to the most recent data available - the Survation poll from late last week - that had them at 12%, which would be in the area where they would be picking up two seats - depending on how everything else pans out.

That makes sense. 

Is there likely to be any risk to any SNP seats in Glasgow? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlfieMoon said:

That makes sense. 

Is there likely to be any risk to any SNP seats in Glasgow? 

If they repeat 2016 and win all the constituency seats then I'd say that it's a real stretch for the SNP to pick up any additional list seats.  The problem comes if they lose any.  I'm not talking about Southside, but I could see a set of circumstances in Kelvin that lets Labour come through the middle to pick that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaid said:

If they repeat 2016 and win all the constituency seats then I'd say that it's a real stretch for the SNP to pick up any additional list seats.  The problem comes if they lose any.  I'm not talking about Southside, but I could see a set of circumstances in Kelvin that lets Labour come through the middle to pick that up.

Based on 2016 numbers, would the SNP have picked up a Regional seat if they had lost one of the Constituencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Based on 2016 numbers, would the SNP have picked up a Regional seat if they had lost one of the Constituencies.

Yes - on count 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aaid said:

If they repeat 2016 and win all the constituency seats then I'd say that it's a real stretch for the SNP to pick up any additional list seats.  The problem comes if they lose any.  I'm not talking about Southside, but I could see a set of circumstances in Kelvin that lets Labour come through the middle to pick that up.

That’s my constituency.

Looks like it would need SNP, Green & Tory votes going to Labour for that to occur. There’s a slim chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means very little in the grand scheme of things, but its interesting possibly to me.

Know of 5 SNP voters who voted SNP in 2015 ; for whatever reason didn't vote in 2017 ; but came back to vote SNP in 2019.

These same people are voting in the Angus South constituency - SNP/Graeme Dey and Green on the list. I'm surprised that all of them are going Green. Fingers crossed it gets a Green in and hopefully an Alba MSP too at the expense of a Tory and Lib.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

That’s my constituency.

Looks like it would need SNP, Green & Tory votes going to Labour for that to occur. There’s a slim chance. 

Not necessarily.  In 2016, Sandra White retained the seat with 11,000 votes, Patrick Harvie was second with 7000. Labour third with 6,000, Tories and Lib Dems with 4,500 between them.

Sandra White is standing down so the new SNP candidate is a bit more of an unknown quantity.  Patrick Harvie must fancy his chances of winning the seat.  Say the Greens take 2000 votes from the SNP, they both have ~ 9000.  Tories and Lib Dems vote tactically for Labour and they come through the middle to win the seat.

That is not a prediction, BTW, but it's not a completely ridiculous scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, aaid said:

Not necessarily.  In 2016, Sandra White retained the seat with 11,000 votes, Patrick Harvie was second with 7000. Labour third with 6,000, Tories and Lib Dems with 4,500 between them.

Sandra White is standing down so the new SNP candidate is a bit more of an unknown quantity.  Patrick Harvie must fancy his chances of winning the seat.  Say the Greens take 2000 votes from the SNP, they both have ~ 9000.  Tories and Lib Dems vote tactically for Labour and they come through the middle to win the seat.

That is not a prediction, BTW, but it's not a completely ridiculous scenario.

I see what you are saying but voters would need to be very disciplined to switch from Tory to Labour in great numbers especially if you are an uber-unionist. That is how Douglas Ross is portraying the Tories whilst Sarwar is nowhere near as uber but still pro-union so you see some may not be able to easily make that switch for that reason alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...