The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/771687526121762816

Could you explain how I am attempting to deceive?

edit: I should've said a 31 point lead but I think most people would realise it was a hasty mistake - is this what you're talking about?

I was attempting to lead you into lifting the lid on it by asking 52% of what?

I'll expand on that.

52% of the turnout, which was 55%. Fifty five. So pretty much half of those eligible to vote (not the population) couldn't be bothered to get out and vote.

So if the eligible vote is ~4m then 55% of that is ~2.2m.

Therefore the 52% that SNP supporters readily throw about like a badge of honour only really represents ~1.1m votes. Taken as part of the entire eligible vote that's only 27.5%.

That means the SNP is governing on 27.5% of the eligible vote.

Why the low turnout? Do Scots not really care about Holyrood apart from the devout 1m - 1.4m SNP supporters there appears to be if you look across statistics over multiple votes and elections and cross-reference 'probable' opinions? Do they hate the Scottish Labour/Conservative/Lib-Dem parties and therefore don't vote, or do they live in a place in which the SNP appears to dominate and therefore do not vote?

Because when you look at higher turnout votes such as the 2014 indy ref, where turnout was ~84%, the SNP was on the losing side of the argument.

beecher2

They didn't get 52% in the election Tricky, my post is about a recent poll which showed 52% of people asked said they'd vote SNP in the constituency vote. How that shows a party on the wane is truly beyond me, which was of course my point.

Your other points about turnout and arithmetical gymnastics only show no clear understanding of the reasons for low turnout and are, at best irrelevant (to be kind).

I've just remembered why I don't post here much so thanks for that.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

They didn't get 52% in the election Tricky, my post is about a recent poll which showed 52% of people asked said they'd vote SNP in the constituency vote. How that shows a party on the wane is truly beyond me, which was of course my point.

Your other points about turnout and arithmetical gymnastics only show no clear understanding of the reasons for low turnout and are, at best irrelevant (to be kind).

I've just remembered why I don't post here much so thanks for that.

My bad re: the 52%.

It was 46.5%, so even worse than the 52%. My apologies for using the wrong number and for not realising it was about a poll rather than an actual result.

However, please educate me as to why Scots didn't turn out to the parliamentary elections then, I defer to your intellect.

beecher2

The media portrayed the election as a foregone conclusion while polls overestimated the SNP vote, while underestimating the Tory vote. This will have had an impact on turnout, as people didn't feel the same urgency to vote as they might've in the referendum. Incidentally turnout was the highest it had been in a Scottish election since the first election in 1999.

There are SPICe articles you can read on this. My main point is that you can't use turnout as a way to show that the SNP is on the wane and any party in the world would be pretty happy to be on 52% in the polls, especially when there are at least 4 other main parties competing for votes.

.string.

@Shakey - I forgot to mention the NI problem where I would agree there is a big constitutional problem.

The issue of the border does not seem at first hand seem to have a ready solution. The matter of people crossing the border without hindrance seems to be readily solvable, but the trade issue is another where I, for one, have not thought of anything that is not clumsy.

Hopefully maybe those with better brains than I ....

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I was attempting to lead you into lifting the lid on it by asking 52% of what?

I'll expand on that.

52% of the turnout, which was 55%. Fifty five. So pretty much half of those eligible to vote (not the population) couldn't be bothered to get out and vote.

So if the eligible vote is ~4m then 55% of that is ~2.2m.

Therefore the 52% that SNP supporters readily throw about like a badge of honour only really represents ~1.1m votes. Taken as part of the entire eligible vote that's only 27.5%.

That means the SNP is governing on 27.5% of the eligible vote.

Why the low turnout? Do Scots not really care about Holyrood apart from the devout 1m - 1.4m SNP supporters there appears to be if you look across statistics over multiple votes and elections and cross-reference 'probable' opinions? Do they hate the Scottish Labour/Conservative/Lib-Dem parties and therefore don't vote, or do they live in a place in which the SNP appears to dominate and therefore do not vote?

Because when you look at higher turnout votes such as the 2014 indy ref, where turnout was ~84%, the SNP was on the losing side of the argument.

Your basic argument is approximately correct; 55.6% turnout of 4,099,407 electorate & of those the SNP have 46.5% as the constituency vote share.
So yes, the SNP are the controlling party in Scotland with just under 26% of the total possible electorate voting for them.
REGARDLESS of the number of "other" votes or non-votes; as said, in indyref the turnout was 84.6%.

What is quite interesting is that the SNP gained 1.1% from the demise of labour BUT the Tories gained 8.1%.
That extra 7% over the SNP if another 29% of Scottish electorate voted (as in the indyref) and assuming a similar voting pattern would give an extra 242,760 or so voters to the Tories.

So Beecher may be correct when he insists that the SNP are not on the wane BUT they most certainly (and thankfully IMHO) are NOT on the rise.

Though as has been said, no-one is accepting why so many Scots don't (or rather, did not) vote?
Perhaps because the choices were "rock and hard place" in the eyes of many?
Which to me demonstrates the weakness - not just of the SNP - of ALL parties in Scotland, and this at a time when REAL advantage could be taken of the shambles that labour has become.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - I forgot to mention the NI problem where I would agree there is a big constitutional problem.

The issue of the border does not seem at first hand seem to have a ready solution. The matter of people crossing the border without hindrance seems to be readily solvable, but the trade issue is another where I, for one, have not thought of anything that is not clumsy.

Hopefully maybe those with better brains than I ....

what trade issue is that?

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

what trade issue is that?

Sorry, I should have explained.

At the moment because both the UK and Ireland are in the EU, a resident in Ireland can go to NI and buy a pair of shoes or a fridge or whatever without having to worry about declaring it to import it legally back into Ireland .. and vice versa for a NI person. The same for a business, but on a larger scale.

That facility was all part of the freedom of exchange enabling North and South to intermingle and got rid of the border which was a big symbolic breakthrough.

Although one could imagine, Ireland not being part of Schengen, people could easily still cross, waving a contactless identity card, but for goods is really needs the border to be re-instated.

That's how I see it but if you have a good idea, let's hear it, I would be very pleased to learn of it.

Trade-wise it would be much the same between an iScotland and an rUK. There a border would be necessary anyway because Scotland would presumably have to be part of Schengen.

elantan

Those Tories down in Birmingham seem awfy scared of the SNP, they have been going on and on about them ... bordering on obsession ...

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

Those Tories down in Birmingham seem awfy scared of the SNP, they have been going on and on about them ... bordering on obsession ...

Illusions are easily created and perpetuated on social media by those with too much time on their hands.