One would think that in a First Past the Post election and a bloody-minded preference for one particular party there is no room for tactical voting considerations. On the contrary, that would depend upon what one considers a good result at said election and what one's long term vision for their country happens to be.
There are two objectives that a typical SNP member will no doubt be considering and each need to be viewed in isolation.
The first result is the maximisation of the number of SNP MPs at Westminster with as many as 20 being the aim stated by leader Alex Salmond, an aim that I personally still believe is achievable despite recent supposed setbacks. A strong base of SNP MPs could argue Scotland's case in the UK Parliament but it is debatable how strong a case for independence this would represent.
The second potential result from the 2010 General Election is the minimisation of the number of Tory MPs in Scotland. A realisation of Peter Lynch's 'Doomsday Max' scenario as discussed on this blog a fortnight ago would arguably offer up an ideal platform for the SNP to advance its arguments that Scotland should govern itself.
The rationale would be that winning a mere handful (or less) of Scottish Tory MPs north of the border while they form a Government in London down south would exacerbate the already awkward constitutional arrangement that we have where a distinctly non-Tory nation is governed by a party that it has already largely rejected at the ballot box.
Of course, achieving one result will simultaneously assist with the achievment of the other (Mike Weir winning Angus in one of twenty SNP seats will deny Alberto Costa winning it for the Tories, for example). However, not all of the 59 seats are a simple SNP vs Tory head-to-head. Note that I am perhaps spoiled in that the SNP are clear challengers in Edinburgh North & Leith and my vote for Calum Cashley will not be a wasted one.
So, inspired somewhat by Professor Harvie's comments at a recent independence debate where the SNP MSP said that a lack of Tory representation north of the border had a significant part to play in the Nationalists winning independence on behalf of Scotland, I decided to look at where SNP supporters may be wishing to cast their vote to increase the chances of 'Doomsday Max'.
For anyone out there who is interested in voting considerations that could result in minimising Scottish Tory MPs, as opposed to maximising SNP MPs, here are the Conservative target seats and the tactical voting that I think could apply:
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale
2005 result:
David Mundell (Conservatives) - 16,141
Labour - 14,403
Lib Dem - 9,046
SNP - 4,075
Ok, so technically this isn't a target seat as it is the one seat that the Tories already represent but I don't see the SNP winning DC&T from 4th here so consideration for tactically voting for Labour's Claudia Beamish could be applied.
Perth & North Perthshire
2005 result:
Pete Wishart (SNP) - 15,469
Conservatives - 13,948
Labour - 8,601
Lib Dems - 7,403
An easy decision here. Voting for Pete to hold his seat will obviously ensure the Tories are held at bay in 2nd place. Tactical Voting from 2005 Labour and Lib Dem voters could be interesting with an expectation (and the recent Bearsden by-election backs this up) that more votes would go to the SNP than to the Tories.
Angus
2005 result:
Mike Weir (SNP) - 12,840
Conservatives - 11,239
Labour - 6,850
Lib Dem - 6,660
Virtually a carbon copy of Perth (above) and needless to say there are no tactical voting implications here from a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective.
Interestingly, Rev Scott Rennie stood for the Lib Dems in 2005. I didn't realise the man who was at the centre of the recent storm over homosexuals in the Church had been a candidate before.
Dumfries & Galloway
2005 result:
Russell Brown (Labour) - 20,924
Conservatives - 18,002
SNP - 6,182
Lib Dems - 4,259
A clear tactical voting consideration here is to vote Labour to stave off the Tory challenge.
Edinburgh South
2005 result:
Nigel Griffiths (Labour) - 14,188
Lib Dems - 13,783
Conservatives - 10,291
SNP - 2,635
Going by the 2005 figures the SNP do not have a realistic chance of challenging for this seat. It is difficult to say if Nigel Griffiths will come to embody 'trousers down, majority up' in 2010 so it's not easy to see who the main competition for the Tories are here.
I've been told Fred MacKintosh was a very popular councillor and, consequently, a vote for the Lib Dems may be a worthwhile consideration from a tactical voting perspective.
The Tories are ranked 11/8 favourites according to the bookies with the Lib Dems second at 6/4 (and Labour out at 7/2) which backs up the suggestion to plump for Fred if the personal objective is to stop the Conservatives.
Ochil and South Perthshire
2005 result:
Gordon Banks (Labour) - 14,645
SNP - 13,957
Conservatives - 10,021
Lib Dems - 6,218
An easy one to call here as the only tactical voting can be expected to come from the Lib Dems who would be expected to back the SNP or Labour. From a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective, go with your heart on this one...
Stirling
2005 result:
Anne McGuire (Labour) - 15,729
Conservatives - 10,962
Lib Dems - 9,052
SNP - 5,503
Despite coming 4th in Michael Forsyth's old seat, I honestly still reckon the SNP are the main challengers here. This may be my heart ruling my head as I have family based here but I don't see the Tories getting much further past the 11,000 they got last time and with Bruce Crawford as the local MSP and the SNP controlling the local council, the Nationalist candidate can expect to tear through the field to challenge Ms McGuire.
I don't think this seat merits a tactical vote for those who wish to minimise the number of Scottish Tories. Vote SNP.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk
2005 result:
Michael Moore (Lib Dems) - 18,993
Conservatives - 13,092
Labour - 7,206
SNP - 3,885
This is clearly not one of the SNP's target seats so a tactical vote for Michael Moore is worth considering in the face of the challenge from Tory MSP John Lamont.
Argyll & Bute
2005 result:
Alan Reid (Lib Dems) - 15,786
Conservatives - 10,150
Labour - 9,696
SNP - 6,716
Despite the similarities to Stirling (above) in that the SNP has a very strong MSP for this area, I still think there is a better chance the Tories might pip the flailing Lib Dems to this constituency and, for that reason, a tactical vote for Alan Reid could be worthy of consideration.
Renfrewshire East
2005 result:
Jim Murphy (Labour) - 20,815
Conservatives - 14,158
Lib Dems - 8,659
SNP - 3,245
There are more potentially winnable seats for the Tories but this is a good constituency to finish on given the intriguing prospect of the Scottish Secretary being deposed.
The SNP clearly has too much ground to make up so the question is: Could you vote for Jim Murphy to ensure the Tories win fewer seats?
That's probably a blog post in itself...
There are two objectives that a typical SNP member will no doubt be considering and each need to be viewed in isolation.
The first result is the maximisation of the number of SNP MPs at Westminster with as many as 20 being the aim stated by leader Alex Salmond, an aim that I personally still believe is achievable despite recent supposed setbacks. A strong base of SNP MPs could argue Scotland's case in the UK Parliament but it is debatable how strong a case for independence this would represent.
The second potential result from the 2010 General Election is the minimisation of the number of Tory MPs in Scotland. A realisation of Peter Lynch's 'Doomsday Max' scenario as discussed on this blog a fortnight ago would arguably offer up an ideal platform for the SNP to advance its arguments that Scotland should govern itself.
The rationale would be that winning a mere handful (or less) of Scottish Tory MPs north of the border while they form a Government in London down south would exacerbate the already awkward constitutional arrangement that we have where a distinctly non-Tory nation is governed by a party that it has already largely rejected at the ballot box.
Of course, achieving one result will simultaneously assist with the achievment of the other (Mike Weir winning Angus in one of twenty SNP seats will deny Alberto Costa winning it for the Tories, for example). However, not all of the 59 seats are a simple SNP vs Tory head-to-head. Note that I am perhaps spoiled in that the SNP are clear challengers in Edinburgh North & Leith and my vote for Calum Cashley will not be a wasted one.
So, inspired somewhat by Professor Harvie's comments at a recent independence debate where the SNP MSP said that a lack of Tory representation north of the border had a significant part to play in the Nationalists winning independence on behalf of Scotland, I decided to look at where SNP supporters may be wishing to cast their vote to increase the chances of 'Doomsday Max'.
For anyone out there who is interested in voting considerations that could result in minimising Scottish Tory MPs, as opposed to maximising SNP MPs, here are the Conservative target seats and the tactical voting that I think could apply:
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale
2005 result:
David Mundell (Conservatives) - 16,141
Labour - 14,403
Lib Dem - 9,046
SNP - 4,075
Ok, so technically this isn't a target seat as it is the one seat that the Tories already represent but I don't see the SNP winning DC&T from 4th here so consideration for tactically voting for Labour's Claudia Beamish could be applied.
Perth & North Perthshire
2005 result:
Pete Wishart (SNP) - 15,469
Conservatives - 13,948
Labour - 8,601
Lib Dems - 7,403
An easy decision here. Voting for Pete to hold his seat will obviously ensure the Tories are held at bay in 2nd place. Tactical Voting from 2005 Labour and Lib Dem voters could be interesting with an expectation (and the recent Bearsden by-election backs this up) that more votes would go to the SNP than to the Tories.
Angus
2005 result:
Mike Weir (SNP) - 12,840
Conservatives - 11,239
Labour - 6,850
Lib Dem - 6,660
Virtually a carbon copy of Perth (above) and needless to say there are no tactical voting implications here from a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective.
Interestingly, Rev Scott Rennie stood for the Lib Dems in 2005. I didn't realise the man who was at the centre of the recent storm over homosexuals in the Church had been a candidate before.
Dumfries & Galloway
2005 result:
Russell Brown (Labour) - 20,924
Conservatives - 18,002
SNP - 6,182
Lib Dems - 4,259
A clear tactical voting consideration here is to vote Labour to stave off the Tory challenge.
Edinburgh South
2005 result:
Nigel Griffiths (Labour) - 14,188
Lib Dems - 13,783
Conservatives - 10,291
SNP - 2,635
Going by the 2005 figures the SNP do not have a realistic chance of challenging for this seat. It is difficult to say if Nigel Griffiths will come to embody 'trousers down, majority up' in 2010 so it's not easy to see who the main competition for the Tories are here.
I've been told Fred MacKintosh was a very popular councillor and, consequently, a vote for the Lib Dems may be a worthwhile consideration from a tactical voting perspective.
The Tories are ranked 11/8 favourites according to the bookies with the Lib Dems second at 6/4 (and Labour out at 7/2) which backs up the suggestion to plump for Fred if the personal objective is to stop the Conservatives.
Ochil and South Perthshire
2005 result:
Gordon Banks (Labour) - 14,645
SNP - 13,957
Conservatives - 10,021
Lib Dems - 6,218
An easy one to call here as the only tactical voting can be expected to come from the Lib Dems who would be expected to back the SNP or Labour. From a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective, go with your heart on this one...
Stirling
2005 result:
Anne McGuire (Labour) - 15,729
Conservatives - 10,962
Lib Dems - 9,052
SNP - 5,503
Despite coming 4th in Michael Forsyth's old seat, I honestly still reckon the SNP are the main challengers here. This may be my heart ruling my head as I have family based here but I don't see the Tories getting much further past the 11,000 they got last time and with Bruce Crawford as the local MSP and the SNP controlling the local council, the Nationalist candidate can expect to tear through the field to challenge Ms McGuire.
I don't think this seat merits a tactical vote for those who wish to minimise the number of Scottish Tories. Vote SNP.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk
2005 result:
Michael Moore (Lib Dems) - 18,993
Conservatives - 13,092
Labour - 7,206
SNP - 3,885
This is clearly not one of the SNP's target seats so a tactical vote for Michael Moore is worth considering in the face of the challenge from Tory MSP John Lamont.
Argyll & Bute
2005 result:
Alan Reid (Lib Dems) - 15,786
Conservatives - 10,150
Labour - 9,696
SNP - 6,716
Despite the similarities to Stirling (above) in that the SNP has a very strong MSP for this area, I still think there is a better chance the Tories might pip the flailing Lib Dems to this constituency and, for that reason, a tactical vote for Alan Reid could be worthy of consideration.
Renfrewshire East
2005 result:
Jim Murphy (Labour) - 20,815
Conservatives - 14,158
Lib Dems - 8,659
SNP - 3,245
There are more potentially winnable seats for the Tories but this is a good constituency to finish on given the intriguing prospect of the Scottish Secretary being deposed.
The SNP clearly has too much ground to make up so the question is: Could you vote for Jim Murphy to ensure the Tories win fewer seats?
That's probably a blog post in itself...
(Note that the official Tory target is to win 4 seats as noted in the Scotland on Sunday yesterday. And thanks to North to Leith for the excellent photo)
49 comments:
Its worth remembering that we (the SNP) did pretty badly in 2005 winning only 18% or so and all the polls shows us doing much better in a GE. So I'd increase our vote in most seats by 40% or so.
I wouldn't get too hung up about minimising the number of Tory seats.
Even if they meet their target, 4 seats out of 59 gives no more legitimacy to a Tory government elected across the UK than 0 out of 59.
Personally, I am of the view that a Labour Government having to implement swingeing cuts as a result of their utter incompentence as stewards of the economy is more likely to generate an appetite for Independence than any Tory government would.
Why?
Because a Labour Westminster Government running a programme of savage cuts means that the only two ways out of the mess are Independence with the SNP or a different flavour of Unionism (and one which has been tried before) with the Tories.
If a Tory government is elected the waters will get very muddied; it will allow Labour to present itself as a defender of Scotland against a London Tory Government and an Edinburgh SNP Government and it will allow the Tories to blame the previous Labour governemnt for the mess.
Sadly, where waters are muddied, no radical choices are ever made.
"I've been told Fred MacKintosh is a very popular councillor "
I don`t think he was all that popular...and he is no longer a councillor.
Generally agree with what you are saying Jeff, but as Anonymous at 2.18 pm saya there's not much real difference between 0 and 4 seats for the Tories.
So why not hit Labour where it hurts and get rid of Murphy.
Not to hear that robot voice for a while would be great, so vote Tory and let them win the seat. (The alternative of voting for Murphy is not one I could accept).
I think there is an imperative to minimise the number of Tory MP's as much as we can. We want to make it as far as possible a Tory free zone, so that when, if the Tories are elected, we can with legitimacy say you have *no mandate* - none at all - to impose your economic policies on us.
And as much as I understand the position that says there is no difference between Labour and Tory - at this point in time there is. If you look at how the SNP want to fight the recession, and if you see how Labour are fighting the recession, then there is a squabble about accelerated spending - there is *no* squabble about the overall way to do it.
The Tories will take that concensus and rip it up and impose cuts which will make the early eighties look like a walk in the park.
I really do think that in order to position us as Scots to reject that, we need as few Tories elected as possible.
It's sometimes said that Nats should wish for Labour to retain East Renfrewshire simply so that Murphy fades into obscurity as a shadow cabinet member, rather than coming to Holyrood where he would be a more credible FM-in-waiting than the current LOLISP. I think there's something in that.
I disagree with you Jeff about Dumfries & Galloway: I'd vote SNP in that seat. The Tories are almost certainly going to win it anyway, so we may as well try to get into a good 2nd place and push labour to 3rd.
I think that it is more likely to be Lib Dem (rather than SNP) tactical voters who decide the fate of Jim Murphy MP. There were about 9000 LD voters in East Renfrewshire in 2005. That figure is going to utterly collapse this time, and far more 2005 LD voters will go Murphy than go Cook.
That is a good thing for the SNP: keep Skeletor neutralised on the backbench Opposition benches at Westminster. It'll crush his soul. (Do Skeletors have souls?)
Scotland has different tactical voting patterns all over the country and is not limited to anti-Tory tactical voting. e.g anti-Labour tactical voting in East Dunbartonshire. Look at the figures the Tories and SNP received in 2005.
I saw Jim Murphy on Buchanan Street today, he had been in John Lewis.
I'm sure hearing that will enrich everyone's day.
He is, in all seriousness, frighteningly thin though. It can't be healthy.
I'd vote SNP regardless of where I live because in psychological terms the national share of the vote is just as important as seats. But I'm not sure I'd agree there's no difference at all between the Tories getting zero and four seats. Zero (or one) would mean that they couldn't man the Scotland Office with Scottish MPs, which would be hugely embarrassing for them.
"Personally, I am of the view that a Labour Government having to implement swingeing cuts as a result of their utter incompentence as stewards of the economy is more likely to generate an appetite for Independence than any Tory government would."
I'd agree.
The SNP are underestimating Labour's ability to link the iTories to the SNP.
"I saw Jim Murphy on Buchanan Street today, he had been in John Lewis."
He'd make a cracking Grinch.
I agree with James Kelly. If they could not put a Scottish Secretary and Minister of State in the Scotland Office, this would surely indicate a lack of legitimacy.
English MPs overseeing our affairs?
Of course, they could always do what Brown has done when faced with a deficit of talent, and appoint to the Lords (Mandleson, Adonis, all the peers in Mandleson's department) but that would look pretty undemocratic too.
I take the point, however, that 4 MPs out of 59 would make them look pretty unelected too.
There are a couple of Scottish MPs in English constituencies that the Tories would use. I don't think that this is going to be such a great problem for them. Maybe they would invite a tory MSP?
Anon:
It's still pretty pathetic having to do that (didn't they have to under John Major, when they had 0 MPs). A member representing an English consituency and yet Secretary of State for Scotland?
A member who couldn't have got elected in his own country?
Still, they do it in N Ireland, o why not?
I'm in two minds over whether there is such a difference between 0 Tory MPs and 4 Tory MPs. I can see how it is akin to your football team winning 3-0 or 5-0 but at the same time, the enormous fuss that was made over the 1997 'wipeout' would serve Nationalists very well if it was replicated.
Even with just Mundell at the moment at least the Tories have a presense.
So I'm sticking to my Doomsday Max guns; 0 or 1 Tory MP is a goal well worth aiming for if independence is the aim.
As for a Secretary of State for Scotland; I suspect Lord McLetchie is looking good for it and he's not even standing. We know Mundell won't get it and John Lamont is too inexperienced I reckon. I don't see any of the other potential new MPs getting the job.
Overall, I don't think it's 'that' much of a deal who the Tory Sec of State; more the representation.
Mo Mowlam was a great NI Secretary and she wasn't Northern Irish.
Strathturret, I took the SNP's improved showing in the polls into account. There's still seats that even the hardiest member would have to admit have no chance of going yellow.
PS So much to say on Jim Murphy's seat I barely know where to begin!
Stuart, are you that sure that Tories will win D&G?
Labour will get an incumbency factor and Lib Dems (and some SNP) voters from 2005 will surely fall in line with Labour over the Tories.
We saw in Bearsden by-election that Tory won the first round of the STV pretty convincingly but lost it by a significant margin once the Labour and SNP votes were taken into account.
Is Bearsden so different to the borders in terms of voter tendencies?
Heretic..!
Isn't the whole point about the NI Sec, is that they are better off not being from NI so they don't come from one the 'communities', with the inevitable bias that would bring?
I'd say the Scotland Office is a different beast altogether.
Sean:
Surely the NI situation is that neither Labour nor Tories stand over there, so you cvan't have a secretary of state from the province, because the Ulster Unionists or whatever will never form the UK government. All their MPs are from tiny minority parties on a UK scale.
Isn't the Scottish Office simply an offshoot for 'overseeing' what happens in Holyrood.
Brown only reinstated it because the SNP came to power.
Muprhy only sought the position because he saw it as a career opportunity and possibly a second chance to enter devolved politics.
Scrap it now, divert the £12milion it costs towards front line services, it serves no purpose whatsoever, it should be aprt of the Government's efficiency savings that Murphy is so fond of telling us about.
Interesting,
Definately need to factor in the huge changes since the last election. A lot more SNP votes and a lot less everyone else. I agree that Stirling is winnable, a long period of SNP votes suppressed in the 2 horse race with the Tories and Labour there..
I agree though with James Kelly - We need people to stop thinking in Lab v Tory terms and get them to think in union v independence terms.
Typical political parties can chase specific constituencies. The SNP seeks to be a 'national' party and so we need to have as many communities behind us as possible. I think financial prioritisation is a maybe but I wouldn't personally consider tactical voting for any unionist party.
In marketing there's nothing like an uncomplicated and strongly identifiable brand.
'Glen, your embarrassing yourself"
Alec Salmond
Newsnight 14th December 2009
Scotland is screaming out for a proper media.
"So I'm sticking to my Doomsday Max guns; 0 or 1 Tory MP is a goal well worth aiming for if independence is the aim."
Jeff, please, pretty please, get the SNP party to adopt this anti tory voting policy at the next GE, especially in the Tory target seats.
Ta.
Bearsden or the Borders come the next GE, its still FPTP voting on the choice of David Cameron's Tories or another five years of Brown and Labour. Oh, will you be asking the same voters in these seats for their vote tactical or otherwise to keep Labour out of power in Holyrood after they did so in 2007? Think about it!
I totally recommend that SNP supporters vote SNP in Argyll & Bute.
Argyll (I know the seat is not exactly the same) was one of the original 7 SNP gains in February 1974. Most (all?) of the others have already returned to the SNP.
Voting in this seat was distorted for many years partly by the defection, after his defeat, of Iain MacCormack the former SNP MP for Argyll, to the SDP.
With the SNP winning this seat at Holyrood (surely Jim Mather can be regarded as a strrong MSP?), now is the time to push for an SNP gain here.
It's an interesting point about Northern Ireland, because for the first time in forty years it looks likely there will be Conservative MPs (albeit joint Tory/UUP MPs) elected from NI. I don't know if the Tories are proposing to appoint one of those MPs to the Secretary of State position, but it would obviously be seen as quite a sectarian step if they did.
Now then, Fitalass. If we were to take you literally, what you're earnestly telling us is any recommendations of anti-Tory tactical voting are going to assist...the Conservatives. Translation - she's proper worried. However, mad though it may seem I do agree with her that this is a dangerous road for SNP sympathisers to be going down, although needless to say not for the reason she thinks. As I said earlier, the psychological impact of the share of the vote is so huge that the SNP simply can't afford to be giving up a large chunk of its natural support base, even in hopeless constituencies.
Also, hopeless constituencies don't have to stay hopeless forever. But how does that change happen? Incrementally, over two or three elections. Look at how the Lib Dems gradually crept up from third place in so many seats in the south of England before eventually capturing them over the last three elections. If SNP voters give up on 'hopeless' seats, they're effectively giving up on an investment in the future.
Final point - because the SNP's vote was so low last time round, there's a danger of writing off their chances in the wrong seats. I'm a bit troubled to see Jeff suggesting a tactical Lib Dem vote in Argyll and Bute, for instance. Surely the fact that the SNP hold the equivalent Holyrood seat holds out some reason for genuine hope?
Of course, people could always vote for what they want rather than against what they don't want.
"I'm a bit troubled to see Jeff suggesting a tactical Lib Dem vote in Argyll and Bute, for instance. Surely the fact that the SNP hold the equivalent Holyrood seat holds out some reason for genuine hope?"
LOL, this whole article is telling you to vote Libdem or Labour where the SNP are not in contention to beat the Tories.
"Translation - she's proper worried."
Sorry James, I am totally relaxed about Jeff pushing this strategy in seats like the one I live in. I think that the SNP are more worried about the Tories making regaining a foothold in the wrong places for them, basically areas that the SNP see as fertile voting ground now and in the future.
Bottom line, if the Tories do well, then the SNP are going to suffer, but to wrap that concern in a message that its for the cause of Independence rather than getting rid of this Labour government. Well you can forgive a girl for getting excited, especially when she thinks back to the SNP results in 2007, and that Holyrood election in 2011.
Go for it if you think I am worried about this strategy, if you are right you will prevent the Tories from winning here. If you are wrong....I won't hold it against you.
Jeff,
What percentage of the poll would it take for the SNP to win 30 seats? A majority, I think? And how do we get there?
We should be looking to explain in the clearest possible way that the rest of the UK is going to hold us back for the foreseeable future and that we need to free ourselves from people that merely see us as either footsoldiers for the (non-existent) socialist revolution or the last vestiges of an Empire.
I think we have reasons to be cheerful.
Fitalass - yes, I think we can see just how "relaxed" you are about all this from your utter disinterest in wasting your breath spinning the issue one way or the other. Indeed, the lack of anxiety in your words is so total that it's calling to mind a vivid image from my youth of Val Doonican sitting in his rocking chair, singing a gentle soothing song.
A few footnotes - firstly you seem to have spectacularly failed to spot that I was agreeing with you that this would be a mistaken strategy, albeit for completely different reasons. Secondly, I was simply disagreeing with Jeff's analysis that the SNP are not in contention in Argyll and Bute - I thought I'd made that point abundantly clear, but evidently not. (LOL.) Thirdly, out of pure curiosity, what's the origin of this new "think about it!" catchphrase that you've been using so much of late - perhaps it's borrowed from that notoriously condescending sexual health/anti-drugs TV ad campaign from the mid-1990s?
I can understand nationalists trying to get unionists to vote tactically in favour of an SNP candidate, but the idea that a nationalist should vote tactically for an unionist candidate is beyond my understanding.
Even in the SNP's most hopeless seat a swing of 1% to the SNP advances the national cause and a swing of 1% against the SNP in order to swap one unionist for another harms the national cause.
A nationalist can't possibly vote tactically against the nation and for the union, to suggest that they should even think about it sounds like sacrilege to me.
James, Argyll & Bute is an interesting one and, to be fair, I'm not "suggesting" a tactical vote but merely pointing it out it may be worthy of consideration.
There's a bit of a difference to Holyrood in that voters won't be voting SNP into power, more people are against a Tory govt than were against a Lab Scottish govt and George Lyon wasn't a popular chap come the end. He didn't even top this constituency for the Lib Dems earlier this year.
For me, I'd happily vote any snp candidate into a strong 2nd or strong 3rd but I'm not fussed about independence. Those that are should be aware of the golden opportunity that has presented itself and, I think, act accordingly.
Calum, tactical voting can still be voting for what you want. The whole post is predicated on the notion that some Nationalists would prefer to see zero Tory MPs rather than 20 SNP MPs.
As a PPC yourself, I can fully understand why you take a different view.
Strong argument from JPJ2 over Argyll there, I didn't appreciate some of the history and not only do I agree Jim Mather is a "strong" MSP, I'd say he's my favourite.
But then, Jim isn't standing.
Vote SNP. No matter the seats number, winning the popular vaote against Labour is very important.
Interesting points.
From watching elections over the years A&B has always been one I thought that the SNP should be thinking hard about especially given the collapse of the LibDem vote and the massive surge in the SNP vote over the last few years.
I don't think there's any substitute for a positive SNP vote. And I'm a party critic ;)
4 seats? thats a long way down from the 11 quoted before. presonall i think the odds of 2/1 for the tories getting 0 to 3 seats is giving money away. dumfries and galloway, clydesdale,and edinburgh south
I wouldn't go blazing the savings on 2/1 HP. Recent polls have shown some headway and if a Tory vs Labour narrative does take off then there's plenty of gains.
The casual assumption that Scotland don't do Tories will be blown away one of these years.
Sorry Jeff but I think you are wrong on this one. Even though in my own constituency I know the SNP are unlikely to win I would not consider voting for any other party.
I totally agree with our Welsh friend, if you support Scottish nationalism as opposed to British unionism, you should vote that, no matter the odds at the ballot box.
I also think the point made about the total amount of votes cast is a valid one. At the Euro elections the SNP beat Labour by app 100000 votes yet ended up with the same amount of seats. If the SNP gain as many votes across Scotland as Labour in the general election yet end up with considerably fewer seats, it would once again highlight the democratic deficiency in the first past the post system, and just may be the catalyst for proper electoral reform.
Jeff
I also wonder if you have considered the effect on the SNP atavists like myself of such a policy.
Many of us have worked hard to increase the SNP vote, even though in many cases we know we will not win that seat, but we are buoyed by the knowledge that we are helping to increase the parties national vote and standing.
I would always be happy to give extra time and effort to a winnable seat, but not by abandoning my own constituency.
Likewise, there are those seats like Inverclyde where Labour have a solid majority from 2005. Yet even here, Labour are very vulnerable.
We are in with a good chance of winning this year. We have a solid candidate, with a track record of working for the area, and we won the eu elections and a by-election here (council) this year, so I think we can beat David Cairns.
Conventional wisdom would say that we've not a hope based on the 15% swing we'd need. But reality says he's vulnerable and with a well-run campaign we can take the seat. I know this, because I'm a local activist. How many other seats listed here are in the same case? On paper not great, but in reality, wide open?
Math Campbell
Both Aberdeen seats for starters.
Livingston.
Falkirk
Stirling.
We just need to keep getting round the doors.
come now Jeff, you know me better than that, i dont make such sweeping statements. in theory they could win, (and certainly with better funds, ochil, stirling and hawick are winnable) i simply dont think they have the activist base to win.
as for inverclyde, i agree math, got to get wavey davey in the town hall for a sqaure go (or debate if you prfer) and get him justifying his record, rather than letting him put us on the backfoot.
Hi Jeff,
I could never vote for a Unionist party if there was an SNP candidate on the ballot paper. It would feel like a treasonable act.
Regards,
Sorry, but every unionist is as bad as the rest and the Tories are no worse than Labour.
If the Tories get zero seats then they will just import some cretin from the Lords like Forsyth as Scottish Puppet in chief.
A vote for any unionist is a vote AGAINST independence and by taking a Brit-orientated view of politics we are shooting our mutual cause in the head.
Vote independence, always.
Murphy's 'power' is because he is backed by the British PM. Gray has no power because being elected as a Scottish leader means sweet fa in a British party.
However Murphy is no political hero, he's a witless cretin who will hopefully be out on his a*se at the next election.
It's easy to say 'yes Daddy' to Gordon Brown, a lot more difficult to support your country first so I would take any SNP MSP To rip the guy up for bog roll in the SP.
Post a Comment