2021 Scottish Parliament Election (Thursday 6th May 2021)

[hughesie27]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

nope. SNP + agree = 48%. conservatives + Labour + Lib Dem’s 52% of the vote.  ( I’ll caveat that by saying there were “others” but not enough to swing the maths. 
 

yet we have a “clear” pro independence majority apparently? And need to reflect the Democratic will of the people 🤷‍♂️ It’s Laughable 

Are you sure that's not based purely on the constituency votes?

[sadj]

Russell Findlay telling us that the SNP arrogantly thought they were getting a majority. What an utter pile of shite. Why can’t any of them just talk about policy. Now telling us Cons have gained seats across Scotland 😒 am I watching a different election?

Edited May 8, 2021 by sadj

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

I haven’t researched in detail. But why do we need to follow anyone? FPTP is outdated and results in a parliament which does not accurately reflect the will of the people. / even a semi FPTP system like we have here. 
 

One vote per person for one party, and every single vote should count. 100% proportional representation. 

 

There are very good reasons for FPTP in constituencies, not least of which is that there's a single representative there for your area that you know you can contact, the vote's been done with their point of view in mind not just the national party.

The system we use is designed to take advantage of that then equalise the result as fairly as possible.

 

If you can find a fair system that doesn't list the benefits I'm honestly all ears

[kingantti1874]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Are you sure that's not based purely on the constituency votes?

to be fair the dial has moved slightly. But SNP + Green still < 50% 

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

I haven’t researched in detail. But why do we need to follow anyone? FPTP is outdated and results in a parliament which does not accurately reflect the will of the people. / even a semi FPTP system like we have here. 
 

One vote per person for one party, and every single vote should count. 100% proportional representation. 

 

It’s a reserved matter. 

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

Russell Findlay telling us that the SNP arrogantly thought they were getting a majority. What an utter pile of shite. Why can’t any of them just talk about policy. Now telling us Cons have gained seats across Scotland 😒 am I watching a different election?

He’ll be talking about lies and uncashed cheques soon.

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

There are very good reasons for FPTP in constituencies, not least of which is that there's a single representative there for your area that you know you can contact, the vote's been done with their point of view in mind not just the national party.

The system we use is designed to take advantage of that then equalise the result as fairly as possible.

 

If you can find a fair system that doesn't list the benefits I'm honestly all ears

im no expert but I’ll look into it. 

 

But we have returned a parliament today which does not accurately reflect the votes which have been cast.
 

We have statements that there is a clear pro independence majority. And that the wishes of the people should be respected.

 

It’s anything but clear 

 

 

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Are you sure that's not based purely on the constituency votes?

 

Indeed it is, but I for one don't have the energy to argue the point with the poster in question. Effectively they are taking the voting numbers purely from the constituency votes and saying that these don't marry up with the overall results that also include the regional votes. Or that's what it looks like anyway given that we do not yet know the results of all the regional votes.

Edited May 8, 2021 by redjambo

[gjcc]

Sick to the back teeth of: Not everyone who voted SNP wants independence, then a few sentences later insinuating that everyone who voted Con, Lab & Lib don’t want one. It’s just ridiculous. 

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

to be fair the dial has moved slightly. But SNP + Green still < 50% 

 

 

Aye, that's only based on First votes.

In 2016 Greens got 0.6% of First votes but over 6% of List votes.

Together with SNP they got just over 47% of total votes. Greens already have 

More than 3 times as many First votes as 2016 based on your image. Suspect their List votes will also be well up.

Edited May 8, 2021 by hughesie27

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

im no expert but I’ll look into it. 

 

But we have returned a parliament today which does not accurately reflect the votes which have been cast.
 

We have statements that there is a clear pro independence majority. And that the wishes of the people should be respected.

 

It’s anything but clear 

 

 

You should write to your MP, this is Westminster's to change. I'm sure they'll listen to the Scottish electorate.

[dobmisterdobster]

7 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

It’s a reserved matter. 

 

Holyrood can change it's electoral system with a two-thirds majority vote.

[sadj]

Just now, Smithee said:

You should write to your MP, this is Westminster's to change. I'm sure they'll listen to the Scottish electorate.

Hahaha and the Welsh. 

[hughesie27]

As much as there was tactical voting from Unionists, there was tactical voting by people 8n Sade SNP seats where and SNP 1 and 2 was a waste of a 2nd vote.

[sadj]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed it is, but I for one don't have the energy to argue the point with the poster in question. Effectively they are taking the voting numbers purely from the constituency votes and saying that these don't marry up with the overall results that also include the regional votes. Or that's what it looks like anyway given that we do not yet know the results of all the regional votes.

Tiring isnt it
 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

As much as there was tactical voting from Unionists, there was tactical voting by people 8n Sade SNP seats where and SNP 1 and 2 was a waste of a 2nd vote.

 

 

[sadj]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

As much as there was tactical voting from Unionists, there was tactical voting by people 8n Sade SNP seats where and SNP 1 and 2 was a waste of a 2nd vote.

No , no , no , all the SNP voters that didnt vote SNP 2 don’t exist. There was no tactical voting on the SNP side don’t be silly

[micole]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You should write to your MP, this is Westminster's to change. I'm sure they'll listen to the Scottish electorate.

And when you do ,just remind them that the Tories only got around 46% of the total votes cast in the 2019 general election, democracy eh....😁

[Footballfirst]

19 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Why did The St get 4 list in NE with a big regional vote plus winning constituency seats. Makes no sense. 

 

SNP 9 constituencies 0 list seats

Tories 1 constituency 4 list seats

Labour 0 constituencies 2 list seats

Greens 0 constituencies 1 list seats

Lib Dems  0 constituencies 0 list seats

 

Based of the relative share of the votes overall, is seems a fair distribution of seats overall.

 

[ri Alban]

17 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

to be fair the dial has moved slightly. But SNP + Green still < 50% 

 

 

Is that regional or constituency % bud. 

 

 

SNP Green and Alba puts pro independent on around 52 % on the regional, I think. 

[kingantti1874]

13 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed it is, but I for one don't have the energy to argue the point with the poster in question. Effectively they are taking the voting numbers purely from the constituency votes and saying that these don't marry up with the overall results that also include the regional votes. Or that's what it looks like anyway given that we do not yet know the results of all the regional votes.

Ok fair enough. I’m sure the full data will be available in good time

Edited May 8, 2021 by kingantti1874

[sadj]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

Ok fair enough. I’m sure the full data will be available on good time

If it helps you understand , the lass from labour on bbc just pointed out that the Labour party is split on independence

Edited May 8, 2021 by sadj

[Gards]

Thanks all for the explanations on the list/regional votes....i think i get it.  The only bit i think is an anomoly is that someone who loses in a constituency vote can still get in through the regional list.  I think I read that a tory candidate in edinburgh west finished 3rd on about 2000 votes yet will still get in through the regional list.  Can't quite get my head around that one - otherwise what's the points of having 'named' people in the constituency vote?  

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, micole said:

And when you do ,just remind them that the Tories only got around 46% of the total votes cast in the 2019 general election, democracy eh....😁

No need to remind me because I agree. We don’t need to compare everything to westminster

[redjambo]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

Ok fair enough. I’m sure the full data will be available on good time

 

Indeed. And you might well have a fair point then, KA. It will be interesting to add up the final figures to see how close to true proportional representation the system got us. Finding a fair system is always going to be a balance between maintaining the idea of proper constituency representation and achieving true PR.

[sadj]

Greens up to 6 i think

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

If it helps you understand , the lass from labour on bbc just pointed out that the Labour party is split on independence

that thinking goes both ways doesnt it

 

 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, sadj said:

If it helps you understand , the lass from labour on bbc just pointed out that the Labour party is split on independence

 

Indeed (I use that word too much). The final tally will tell us what the split is between parties who have independence or not in their manifestos, but won't tell us what percentage of folk want independence due to the fact that voting for certain parties is not 100% correlated to folk's opinions on independence. The only thing that a pro-independence majority will tells us is that serious consideration should be given to allowing the electorate to decide on the issue.

[sadj]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

that thinking goes both ways doesnt it

 

 

Not to the same degree. Labour admit themselves its a fairly even split. Thats not even close to how the Greens are. SNP their whole ethos is independence. 

 

 

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Indeed (I use that word too much). The final tally will tell us what the split is between parties who have independence or not in their manifestos, but won't tell us what percentage of folk want independence due to the fact that voting for certain parties is not 100% correlated to folk's opinions on independence. The only thing that a pro-independence majority will tells us is that serious consideration should be given to allowing the electorate to decide on the issue.

Thats what the whole argument was let people decide themselves. As I said about to antti , Labour admit a split thats fairly divisive in themselves on Indy. Greens have a fair indy leaning and snp well its in the name. 
 

I think its pointless but pointing out that Brexit was pushed through despite a large percentage not wanting it was acceptable but an indy ref isnt makes no sense

[sadj]

Why is Douglas Ross allowed to be an MP and an MSP. Thats madness to me. 

[dobmisterdobster]

4 minutes ago, Gards said:

Thanks all for the explanations on the list/regional votes....i think i get it.  The only bit i think is an anomoly is that someone who loses in a constituency vote can still get in through the regional list.  I think I read that a tory candidate in edinburgh west finished 3rd on about 2000 votes yet will still get in through the regional list.  Can't quite get my head around that one - otherwise what's the points of having 'named' people in the constituency vote?  

 

You can stand in a constituency and on the list at the same time. They are two separate ballots.

[redjambo]

9 minutes ago, Gards said:

Thanks all for the explanations on the list/regional votes....i think i get it.  The only bit i think is an anomoly is that someone who loses in a constituency vote can still get in through the regional list.  I think I read that a tory candidate in edinburgh west finished 3rd on about 2000 votes yet will still get in through the regional list.  Can't quite get my head around that one - otherwise what's the points of having 'named' people in the constituency vote?  

 

It does give folk a "second chance". Following on from the discussion above, I personally would now like to see all list candidates made to stand in the constituencies and achieve a certain percentage of the vote in their constituency election before becoming eligible for success as a list MSP. That way, the electorate will truly be able to say about an individual "We don't like this person at all. Remove them from our collective sight forthwith!" rather than them being brought in the back door through the list system.

[Gards]

1 minute ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

You can stand in a constituency and on the list at the same time. They are two separate ballots.

Yeh i understand that's the reality....but if voters thought someone was that 'shit' that they only got 2000 votes and was 3rd - why should they still be able to get to be an MSP.

As I say, the flipside is why have named candidates at constituency level and just vote for the party?  Can't have it both ways?

[ri Alban]

19 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

SNP 9 constituencies 0 list seats

Tories 1 constituency 4 list seats

Labour 0 constituencies 2 list seats

Greens 0 constituencies 1 list seats

Lib Dems  0 constituencies 0 list seats

 

Based of the relative share of the votes overall, is seems a fair distribution of seats overall.

 

And the the South. 

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, sadj said:

Why is Douglas Ross allowed to be an MP and an MSP. Thats madness to me. 

I'm sure that NS will ridicule him for that, just as she did with Baroness Roof, for treating Scotland as a part time job.

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed (I use that word too much). The final tally will tell us what the split is between parties who have independence or not in their manifestos, but won't tell us what percentage of folk want independence due to the fact that voting for certain parties is not 100% correlated to folk's opinions on independence. The only thing that a pro-independence majority will tells us is that serious consideration should be given to allowing the electorate to decide on the issue.

We should have an initial referendum to decide and a second confirmatory referendum to ratify the decision based on the negotiated deal. 
 

I think Scotlands leaders and public were near unanimous that this should have been the case for Brexit.
 

I’m sure they don’t want to deceive the Scottish public in the same way the brexiteer lunatics did.
 

 

[Pasquale for King]

28 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Holyrood can change it's electoral system with a two-thirds majority vote.

Can you show me proof of that as all I can find is the list of reserved and devolved matters and elections is one of them. 
Can’t see the Unionists voting for it though. 

[kingantti1874]

6 minutes ago, sadj said:

Not to the same degree. Labour admit themselves its a fairly even split. Thats not even close to how the Greens are. SNP their whole ethos is independence. 

 

 

Thats what the whole argument was let people decide themselves. As I said about to antti , Labour admit a split thats fairly divisive in themselves on Indy. Greens have a fair indy leaning and snp well its in the name. 
 

I think its pointless but pointing out that Brexit was pushed through despite a large percentage not wanting it was acceptable but an indy ref isnt makes no sense

then the polls should show a clear majority for independence.
 

ps I was as anti brexit as anyone.  It wasn’t acceptable but as per my other post I’m sure we will not repeat those disgraceful mistakes

[Pasquale for King]

7 minutes ago, sadj said:

Why is Douglas Ross allowed to be an MP and an MSP. Thats madness to me. 

I’m sure he stood down as an MSP after becoming an MP so not sure why he won’t, apart from the cash. 
Im sure the sleepy cuddler did both for a while too as did that piss stained  ***** leech Foulkes. 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

And the the South. 

Still waiting for the list votes.

 

The constituencies are 6 SNP (+2) and 3 Tories (-1). 

 

The list in 2016 was SNP 3, Tories 2 and Labour 2

 

The SNP will lose at least two of the list seats because of the constituency gains.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, sadj said:

Why is Douglas Ross allowed to be an MP and an MSP. Thats madness to me. 

 

Agreed. And being a local councillor should also be included with being an MSP or MP when forbidding dual mandates, imo.

 

For interest: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/spice/factsheets/msps/msps-with-dual-mandates-14-april-2021.pdf.

 

And he won't be standing down as an MP either: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2204620/douglas-ross-scottish-conservative-leader-will-serve-as-both-mp-and-msp-after-securing-list-seat/

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Still waiting for the list votes.

 

The constituencies are 6 SNP (+2) and 3 Tories (-1). 

 

The list in 2016 was SNP 3, Tories 2 and Labour 2

 

The SNP will lose at least two of the list seats because of the constituency gains.

👍

 

 

[ri Alban]

I'll never split my vote again. 

Hopefully I'll be voting Labour Labour in a GE for the Scottish Parliament. 

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, Gards said:

Thanks all for the explanations on the list/regional votes....i think i get it.  The only bit i think is an anomoly is that someone who loses in a constituency vote can still get in through the regional list.  I think I read that a tory candidate in edinburgh west finished 3rd on about 2000 votes yet will still get in through the regional list.  Can't quite get my head around that one - otherwise what's the points of having 'named' people in the constituency vote?  

 

10 minutes ago, Gards said:

Yeh i understand that's the reality....but if voters thought someone was that 'shit' that they only got 2000 votes and was 3rd - why should they still be able to get to be an MSP.

As I say, the flipside is why have named candidates at constituency level and just vote for the party?  Can't have it both ways?

 

It really only means that the constituency in question liked someone else more. But if his party have decided that he's someone they really want in, it's a wise move. Maybe he's a specialist or a big name in the party but just wasnt fancied in that seat

Edited May 8, 2021 by Smithee

[John Findlay]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Agreed. And being a local councillor should also be included with being an MSP or MP when forbidding dual mandates, imo.

 

For interest: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/spice/factsheets/msps/msps-with-dual-mandates-14-april-2021.pdf.

 

And he won't be standing down as an MP either: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2204620/douglas-ross-scottish-conservative-leader-will-serve-as-both-mp-and-msp-after-securing-list-seat/

A man cannot serve two masters, to paraphrase, a man cannot service two parliaments. I think he will be pressured into giving up his WM seat and a by-election called.

[ri Alban]

51 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

It proves that First-past-the-post is the superior electoral system. I hope Westminster never tries to do a PR. What a mess.

Pretty poor that you can lose in the constituency and still be elected on the list. For instance, Anas Sarwar. 

[dobmisterdobster]

10 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Can you show me proof of that as all I can find is the list of reserved and devolved matters and elections is one of them. 
Can’t see the Unionists voting for it though. 

 

Scotland Act 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2016

 

Quote

The ability to amend sections of the Scotland Act 1998 which relate to the operation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government within the United Kingdom including control of its electoral system (subject to a two-thirds majority within the parliament for any proposed change).

 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

A man cannot serve two masters, to paraphrase, a man cannot service two parliaments. I think he will be pressured into giving up his WM seat and a by-election called.

Did Alex Salmond not sit in both houses?

[Paddy Crossan]

10 minutes ago, Gards said:

Yeh i understand that's the reality....but if voters thought someone was that 'shit' that they only got 2000 votes and was 3rd - why should they still be able to get to be an MSP.

As I say, the flipside is why have named candidates at constituency level and just vote for the party?  Can't have it both ways?

I agree, the leader of the "Labour Party in Scotland" stood in the constituency and got hammered but he got in via the list system, it stinks. Still a hell of a lot more democratic than the Westminster system though

[ri Alban]

That Rise and fall of the SNP thread needs binned, BTW.