Holyrood Elections 2021

[aaid]

36 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I think a referendum will happen this Parliament, it has too,,i am however extremely nervous about it,, the unionists will be loading up just now and if there is any dirt to dig up, they will find it and there will have no qualms in using it,,, everything needs to be in order before it comes around 

Lets hope the Tories don't find out about all that secret stuff about "the Murrells" that you know all about then. 

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Lets hope the Tories don't find out about all that secret stuff about "the Murrells" that you know all about then. 

yes you are correct as if there is any truth in it, we are in trouble.. i hope you are right but worry you are wrong

[Toepoke]

21 hours ago, Toepoke said:

On the subject of elections, here's a petition to stop this blatant attempt at disenfranchising the electorate...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576024

I don't say this often but fair play to Ruth Davidson calling the proposal "total bollocks" on Peston last night.

 

[AlfieMoon]

Salmond saying that Alba will stand for council elections next year. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57122986

[hampden_loon2878]

5 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Salmond saying that Alba will stand for council elections next year. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57122986

They are here for the long haul, this will be good for the snp. Competition   helps stop complacency creeping in.. i was in two minds of running for a snp candidate for the locals however my job would not give me the available time to do it right mixed in with a young family.. my heart is somewhat not in it just now either 👎

[aaid]

14 hours ago, AlfieMoon said:

Salmond saying that Alba will stand for council elections next year. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57122986

I'm really struggling to understand how they will be able to make any sort of impact on the council elections.

First off they need to address the reasons why they failed so badly in the Holyrood elections and all the indications are that they aren't seriously engaging in that.

Assuming that they manage to do that to an extent then I think the voting system might act as a barrier.

For the Holyrood elections, Alba's narrative was to suggest that there were almost two elections going on, one for the constituency and one for the list and they and the SNP were effectively fighting in one but not the other so they were not in competition.  Personally I think that's disingenuous guff but as a narrative you can see why some might be attracted to it.

In the council elections, despite the fact that its a proportional system, they are directly in opposition to the SNP both for votes and for seats so that will be a completely different situation.  

Under the Holyrood list, for smaller parties, the challenge is to get enough votes - typically between 5% and 6% - to enable you to pick up a seat on the final round.   You are in play right up to the final round.

Under STV, however, the challenge is to do the following, maximise the number of seats you win by remaining in the contest as long as you can.

All other things being equal, you would expect SNP and Alba to be transfer-friendly to each other, i.e. SNP voters will transfer to Alba and vice versa.

You would expect that Alba wouldn't look to stand more than one candidate in each ward, so they wouldn't have to worry about splitting their own vote.

However, they would be splitting what was previously the SNP vote - since we don't really see any evidence of support for Alba outwith SNP voters - and so they run the risk of either the SNP, Alba or both being knocked out before meeting quota.

[ParisInAKilt]

If Alba are gonna be a proper party then they should stand for seats as much as possible and let the voters decide, if that takes votes away from the SNP, so be it

[aaid]

45 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

If Alba are gonna be a proper party then they should stand for seats as much as possible and let the voters decide, if that takes votes away from the SNP, so be it

Totally agree with you, but that's not how they are presenting themselves is it.

[AlfieMoon]

 

6 hours ago, aaid said:

I'm really struggling to understand how they will be able to make any sort of impact on the council elections.

First off they need to address the reasons why they failed so badly in the Holyrood elections and all the indications are that they aren't seriously engaging in that.

Assuming that they manage to do that to an extent then I think the voting system might act as a barrier.

For the Holyrood elections, Alba's narrative was to suggest that there were almost two elections going on, one for the constituency and one for the list and they and the SNP were effectively fighting in one but not the other so they were not in competition.  Personally I think that's disingenuous guff but as a narrative you can see why some might be attracted to it.

In the council elections, despite the fact that its a proportional system, they are directly in opposition to the SNP both for votes and for seats so that will be a completely different situation.  

Under the Holyrood list, for smaller parties, the challenge is to get enough votes - typically between 5% and 6% - to enable you to pick up a seat on the final round.   You are in play right up to the final round.

Under STV, however, the challenge is to do the following, maximise the number of seats you win by remaining in the contest as long as you can.

All other things being equal, you would expect SNP and Alba to be transfer-friendly to each other, i.e. SNP voters will transfer to Alba and vice versa.

You would expect that Alba wouldn't look to stand more than one candidate in each ward, so they wouldn't have to worry about splitting their own vote.

However, they would be splitting what was previously the SNP vote - since we don't really see any evidence of support for Alba outwith SNP voters - and so they run the risk of either the SNP, Alba or both being knocked out before meeting quota.

I suspect this is partly about repaying the Alba members who defected the SNP recently with a chance to get another councillor gig. 
 

To shut the whole party down after the election failure would be a kick in the teeth for those who would be losing out on positions.

I would’ve thought that STV would have been to Alba’s favour but I don’t fully understand the ins and outs of it. 

[aaid]

17 hours ago, AlfieMoon said:

 

I suspect this is partly about repaying the Alba members who defected the SNP recently with a chance to get another councillor gig. 
 

To shut the whole party down after the election failure would be a kick in the teeth for those who would be losing out on positions.

I would’ve thought that STV would have been to Alba’s favour but I don’t fully understand the ins and outs of it. 

From a voters perspective, STV is very straightforward, you simply rank your choices in order.   The mechanics behind how seats are allocated on the basis of those votes is a lot more complex.

In the Holyrood list system, there are seven MSPs for each region and there are seven rounds at which the party with the highest number of votes at that round will be allocated an MSP but crucially all parties are counted in each round until all MSPs are elected.

Under STV, the number of votes required to win a seat is first calculated, this is number of votes cast divided by the number of seats plus 1.  So if there are 100 votes and three seats available, the quota is 34.

Similar to the list system there will be a number of rounds of vote counting until all the seats are allocated.  However what happens is that at each round one of two things happens.  If one of the candidates reaches quota, then they are elected and any votes over and above the quota are transferred to other candidates.  If no candidate reaches quota however, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and similarly their votes are similarly transferred to other parties.  The actual process and arithmetic behind how the transfers are calculated is pretty complex but not really important in this context.  What is important, is that if you get it wrong, its possible for a candidate, who might be elected on the basis of transfers to be eliminated before they actually receive any as their first preference (FP) votes were not high enough.

As an example.  Lets say the SNP has 50% support with the other 50% split across other parties and they are contesting a 3 seat ward under STV.   With 50% they would certainly expect to win one seat.  They could potentially win two seats depending on transfers from other parties, there is next to no chance they would win all three.

In this case they would likely put up two candidates.  Why not put up three candidates if there's three seats available?  The risk is if you did that then you might split the FPs to thinly and risk two of them being eliminated before transfers happen.

You want to manage your vote so that the FPs for each candidate are spread in a way that one will be elected relatively early on and so the other can get the transfers to bring them home.  How you do that is complex but it relies on strong voter discipline and getting different sets of voter to rank the candidates in the correct order.  An obvious way to do this is at a very local level, so in one part of the ward you will be looking to rank one candidate as #1 - for example, the area they are from - and in another area to rank the other candidate as #1.

As I said before, its likely that Alba would only field one candidate per ward and its pretty obvious that the vast majority of Alba's potential vote would be from people who would've voted for the SNP - they are not peeling off support from other parties to any significant degree, so this in itself will reduce the number of FPs that SNP candidates get.

Say you had a ward in which the SNP fielded two candidates in 2017, even if they only won one, I wouldn't expect that they would change that strategy much in 2022 even if Alba were to stand.   

If you assume that the SNP votes will transfer heavily to Alba and vice versa - and I think as it currently stands that is a big if - then while there is a risk that you could see an SNP candidate being eliminated "early" and letting a Unionist candidate in, I think its much more likely that they are themselves eliminated before they can receive any SNP transfers. 

The way to around this would be to essentially stand as an Independent albeit under the Alba banner.  By that I mean a candidate with a strong local reputation that means people will be minded to vote for them - around 15% of the councillors elected in 2017 were independents.  Do they have enough potential candidates to allow them to do that?

How much bad blood would carry over within the local electorate to SNP councillors who defected to Alba is anyone's guess - I wouldn't put money on them being re-elected.   As an example, I had a quick look at Chris McEleny's ward in 2017.  That was a three seat ward and he was elected alongside two independents.   One of the independents had 45% of the FP votes and McEleny was elected on the basis of a small transfer from that candidate.   If the SNP were also to stand - and why wouldn't they - then you could easily see a situation where either they or McEleny or possibly both were eliminated.

 

[exile]

42 minutes ago, aaid said:

From a voters perspective, STV is very straightforward, you simply rank your choices in order.   The mechanics behind how seats are allocated on the basis of those votes is a lot more complex.

In the Holyrood list system, there are seven MSPs for each region and there are seven rounds at which the party with the highest number of votes at that round will be allocated an MSP but crucially all parties are counted in each round until all MSPs are elected.

Under STV, the number of votes required to win a seat is first calculated, this is number of votes cast divided by the number of seats plus 1.  So if there are 100 votes and three seats available, the quota is 34.

Similar to the list system there will be a number of rounds of vote counting until all the seats are allocated.  However what happens is that at each round one of two things happens.  If one of the candidates reaches quota, then they are elected and any votes over and above the quota are transferred to other candidates.  If no candidate reaches quota however, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and similarly their votes are similarly transferred to other parties.  The actual process and arithmetic behind how the transfers are calculated is pretty complex but not really important in this context.  What is important, is that if you get it wrong, its possible for a candidate, who might be elected on the basis of transfers to be eliminated before they actually receive any as their first preference (FP) votes were not high enough.

As an example.  Lets say the SNP has 50% support with the other 50% split across other parties and they are contesting a 3 seat ward under STV.   With 50% they would certainly expect to win one seat.  They could potentially win two seats depending on transfers from other parties, there is next to no chance they would win all three.

In this case they would likely put up two candidates.  Why not put up three candidates if there's three seats available?  The risk is if you did that then you might split the FPs to thinly and risk two of them being eliminated before transfers happen.

You want to manage your vote so that the FPs for each candidate are spread in a way that one will be elected relatively early on and so the other can get the transfers to bring them home.  How you do that is complex but it relies on strong voter discipline and getting different sets of voter to rank the candidates in the correct order.  An obvious way to do this is at a very local level, so in one part of the ward you will be looking to rank one candidate as #1 - for example, the area they are from - and in another area to rank the other candidate as #1.

As I said before, its likely that Alba would only field one candidate per ward and its pretty obvious that the vast majority of Alba's potential vote would be from people who would've voted for the SNP - they are not peeling off support from other parties to any significant degree, so this in itself will reduce the number of FPs that SNP candidates get.

Say you had a ward in which the SNP fielded two candidates in 2017, even if they only won one, I wouldn't expect that they would change that strategy much in 2022 even if Alba were to stand.   

If you assume that the SNP votes will transfer heavily to Alba and vice versa - and I think as it currently stands that is a big if - then while there is a risk that you could see an SNP candidate being eliminated "early" and letting a Unionist candidate in, I think its much more likely that they are themselves eliminated before they can receive any SNP transfers. 

The way to around this would be to essentially stand as an Independent albeit under the Alba banner.  By that I mean a candidate with a strong local reputation that means people will be minded to vote for them - around 15% of the councillors elected in 2017 were independents.  Do they have enough potential candidates to allow them to do that?

How much bad blood would carry over within the local electorate to SNP councillors who defected to Alba is anyone's guess - I wouldn't put money on them being re-elected.   As an example, I had a quick look at Chris McEleny's ward in 2017.  That was a three seat ward and he was elected alongside two independents.   One of the independents had 45% of the FP votes and McEleny was elected on the basis of a small transfer from that candidate.   If the SNP were also to stand - and why wouldn't they - then you could easily see a situation where either they or McEleny or possibly both were eliminated.

 

This seems to make sense. Yet James Kelly is arguing that Alba won't harm the SNP vote because if their candidate is eliminated then their vote would transfer to the SNP (assuming they put SNP 2nd). However, Kelly's argument doesn't seem to account for the scenario where the lack of votes for a SNP candidate on first or second references could eliminate an SNP candidate before they get the benefit of the transferred vote?

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/05/heres-good-news-if-you-vote-alba-or.html

It's hard to tell these days, how much Kelly's analysis is objective, or spinning for Alba. 

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

This seems to make sense. Yet James Kelly is arguing that Alba won't harm the SNP vote because if their candidate is eliminated then their vote would transfer to the SNP (assuming they put SNP 2nd). However, Kelly's argument doesn't seem to account for the scenario where the lack of votes for a SNP candidate on first or second references could eliminate an SNP candidate before they get the benefit of the transferred vote?

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/05/heres-good-news-if-you-vote-alba-or.html

It's hard to tell these days, how much Kelly's analysis is objective, or spinning for Alba. 

I read this before I wrote my post, Kelly is spinning for Alba here.  He's correct in what he's saying, however he is -most likely - deliberately glossing over or completely ignoring the parts which don't support his argument.  He's also fundamentally wrong in suggesting that you can vote for both the SNP and Alba at the same time.   One of the advantages of STV is that every vote counts* towards a candidate being elected, a vote cannot count more than once.

*technically you could argue that the votes for the last candidate or candidates to be eliminated don't go towards a candidate being elected.

[exile]

Maybe the independence movement could do with (1) more grassroots forums on future Scotland (i.e. locally based, but focused on future of nation) and (2) more strategic studies on defence, foreign affairs, the economy, currency, etc. (i.e. alternatives beyond what the Scottish Government is offering).

To me those would be higher priorities for the Yes movement (including new pro-indy parties whose main aim is to expedite independence), than sinking their effort and energy into setting up party machinery to fight for the right to make up the numbers in 'county hall'.

[exile]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

I read this before I wrote my post, Kelly is spinning for Alba here.  He's correct in what he's saying, however he is -most likely - deliberately glossing over or completely ignoring the parts which don't support his argument.  He's also fundamentally wrong in suggesting that you can vote for both the SNP and Alba at the same time.   One of the advantages of STV is that every vote counts* towards a candidate being elected, a vote cannot count more than once.

*technically you could argue that the votes for the last candidate or candidates to be eliminated don't go towards a candidate being elected.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I just thought it worth highlighting the differences because Kelly appears to be claiming his version is definitively correct, and an antidote to disinformation.  But the system as you describe it makes more sense to me, that there must be a material difference in whether you put SNP or Alba first. It's not simply the case that as long as you put 'any indy' candidate above 'all unionists', you'll get the best possible, or best equal, outcome for independence parties. 

[hampden_loon2878]

Hislop and ewing removed from their cabinet posts, big moves,, i was actually very disappointed with ewing tbh as i though he was going to do well but was very lack lustered,, fairlie in his post would be a good shout although maybe a bit to soon. 
 

i also see spears has been moved into a position in the back ground,, the biggest waste of space in politics and is the perfect example of career driven “politician” 

[aaid]

3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Hislop and ewing removed from their cabinet posts, big moves,, i was actually very disappointed with ewing tbh as i though he was going to do well but was very lack lustered,, fairlie in his post would be a good shout although maybe a bit to soon. 
 

i also see spears has been moved into a position in the back ground,, the biggest waste of space in politics and is the perfect example of career driven “politician” 

N Sturgeon - FM J Swinney - DFM & Covid recovery K Forbes - Finance S-A Somerville - Education H Yousaf - Health M Gougeon - Rural Affairs S Robison - Social justice/housing/local govt A Robertson - Constitution/culture M Matheson - Net Zero/transport K Brown - Justice

Kate Forbes portfolio has been widened to cover Economy, looks like the rest of Fiona Hyslop's portfolio has been rolled up with Mike Russell's and given to Robertson - I suspect his main focus will be in preparing the ground for a referendum.

Big promotions for Humza Yousaf and Shirley Ann Somerville and also Marie Gougeon.

One final point - Rhiannon Spears hasn't been "moved into a position in the background".  She's taken up the party role as Women's Convenor which was vacated as the previous incumbent defected to Alba as she was the runner up in the NEC elections.

[scotlad]

9 minutes ago, aaid said:

N Sturgeon - FM J Swinney - DFM & Covid recovery K Forbes - Finance S-A Somerville - Education H Yousaf - Health M Gougeon - Rural Affairs S Robison - Social justice/housing/local govt A Robertson - Constitution/culture M Matheson - Net Zero/transport K Brown - Justice

Kate Forbes portfolio has been widened to cover Economy, looks like the rest of Fiona Hyslop's portfolio has been rolled up with Mike Russell's and given to Robertson - I suspect his main focus will be in preparing the ground for a referendum.

Big promotions for Humza Yousaf and Shirley Ann Somerville and also Marie Gougeon.

One final point - Rhiannon Spears hasn't been "moved into a position in the background".  She's taken up the party role as Women's Convenor which was vacated as the previous incumbent defected to Alba as she was the runner up in the NEC elections.

Shirley-Anne Somerville gets Education?? Dear oh dear. 🤦‍♂️

Surely a fairer way to fill the vacated Women's Convenor role would be to put it to a vote again. No doubt Rhiannon Spears, the SNP's equivalent of Hamilton Accies, would throw her hat in the ring again and if she gets it, then fair enough.

[scotlad]

See to be fair though, apart from the useless Somerville getting education and the ineffectual Robison being reinstated, it's a decent enough cabinet.

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, scotlad said:

 

Surely a fairer way to fill the vacated Women's Convenor role would be to put it to a vote again. No doubt Rhiannon Spears, the SNP's equivalent of Hamilton Accies, would throw her hat in the ring again and if she gets it, then fair enough.

Maybe, although since these positions are elected annually at conference and we're about halfway through the year I'm not sure there's much point in organising another election, also difficult to see how under the party's constitution you could do it anyway.

[TDYER63]

9 minutes ago, scotlad said:

See to be fair though, apart from the useless Somerville getting education and the ineffectual Robison being reinstated, it's a decent enough cabinet.

I dont particularly rate Humza Yousaf , I think health might be too much for him . Though he will be glad he has been papped off Justice after the weekends events...

[Lamia]

I am gobsmacked by the Sommerville appointment. 😳

[Alibi]

37 minutes ago, Lamia said:

I am gobsmacked by the Sommerville appointment. 😳

She's the one who said at a rally somewhere that transwomen are women.  With ignorance like that, she's not really cut out for education.  I'd hazard a guess she's only getting the job because she's one of the Woko Haram mob that Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want to offend.

[ParisInAKilt]

13 minutes ago, Alibi said:

She's the one who said at a rally somewhere that transwomen are women.  With ignorance like that, she's not really cut out for education.  I'd hazard a guess she's only getting the job because she's one of the Woko Haram mob that Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want to offend.

Spears thinks that as well. At least on social media, a lot, to say otherwise would harm your party prospects. 

[Alibi]

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Spears thinks that as well. At least on social media, a lot, to say otherwise would harm your party prospects. 

I wonder how many of the MPs and MSPs actually agree with Somerville.  Apart from Joan Macalpine (who was my local candidate), nobody else seems willing to call this nonsense out; more than that, they seem to be quite happy to enable something that has never been in a manifesto, all under the radar of most of the population.  i first joined the sNP in 1968.  My membership expired a couple of weeks ago and at the moment I doubt I will re-join until the party make it clear that they will uphold the principal aim of the party rather than prioritise a pig-ignorant perversion of biology to keep a bunch of narcissistic weirdoes from bursting into tears.

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

I dont particularly rate Humza Yousaf , I think health might be too much for him . Though he will be glad he has been papped off Justice after the weekends events...

I thought he did okay at Transport, but his ego got the better of him when he got the Justice job.

To be honest, anyone who gets the Health gig has my sympathies; next to education it has to be the hardest job in the cabinet.