With a lot of coverage of the latest dramatic Scottish poll results, it's time to remind everyone that predicting results in individual seats or seat totals (and overall majorities or lack thereof) is MUCH harder than predicting national shares of the vote.
This is REALLY IMPORTANT when people will be holding forth on the supposed certainty or otherwise of a single-party majority, or of a single-party whitewash in a particular region, and perhaps encouraging people to change their votes in light of this supposed certainty.
Let's assume you could go to the start of 2016 with the vote shares from the election, Biff Tannen from Back to the Future style. You are far ahead of any pollster - you know the *exact* national vote totals. What would they have told you would be the result in terms of MSPs?
Well, they'd have said it was going to be an SNP majority. Plug it in and you would have seen SNP 66, Con 30, Lab 23, Grn 5, LD 4. Close, but off in that one key detail. And remember, this is assuming you actually had the correct national numbers rather than just poll estimates.
Why? Basically, all the seat predictors out there for Holyrood have a big simplifcation. They assume all parties' shares of votes will change by equally in all constituencies. If the SNP are up 1% nationally they increase that vote by 1% everywhere and work out the new 'winner'.
As a rule of thumb it works reasonably well. But you might be looking at one of those all-yellow maps and thinking the SNP is set for a sweep. Perhaps, but here are a few 2016 reminders of the locality of some contests to shake overly confident/complacent predictions.
Nationally, the Lib Dem constituency vote share was down 0.1%. In North East Fife it was up by 15%, giving them a gain. Tories nationally were up 8% but won Aberdeenshire West up 17%. Labour was down 9% nationally but managed to be up 8% in Edinburgh Southern, taking the seat.
The method in 2016 would have got the winners of 63/73 constituencies right. Pretty good - like I said, it works reasonably well - but it was the results in the other 10 and the decline in the SNP list vote that meant the SNP majority predicted by polls didn't materialise.
Basically, if you want to look at these polls and say SNP are set for a majority, beware of three things: the inaccuracy of any poll; possibility of change before election day and, if any of this has sunk in, the difficulty of turning polling numbers into *exact* seat results.
Addendum: SNP 67 including Presiding Officer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scottish Labour are stuck. They are a centre-left party that opposes independence. In Scotland most centre-left voters however back independence and consequently vote for the centre-left party that is in favour (the SNP). So as I see it Labour have a difficult set of options.
1) The status quo. Well, that's not been going so well, has it? Realistically it means holding on *at best* to their new and unexpected electoral strongholds of Helensburgh and Morningside. Do they have the temperament to be content as a 10-20% party like the Lib Dems used to be?
2) Move further left. Effectively what happened under Corbyn. Helps split off a few old/new/radical left pro-independence voters that are more about being left than pro-independence. Starmer is a big block to this and, unlike in Wales, SLab has never been able to differentiate.
A Universal Basic Income in Scotland set at the level of the state pension (which campaigners for years have argued is too little to live on) and paid to all citizens would require £38bn per year. This would be the same as the cost of 3 Scottish NHSes.
To pay for this a range of existing payments could be rolled in. All current social security spending in Scotland adds up to c.£19bn per year (and this includes disability and housing schemes that would be *very* problematic to roll in to a UBI). £19bn more to find.
The next path is raising more revenue. Most UBI schemes therefore involve eliminating the relief that means you pay no income tax on the first £12,500 you earn. Extending NI to all earnings (meaning 12% extra tax on earnings at the bottom, 10% extra on more than £962/week.)
Thoughts on the Edinburgh Central SNP selection contest, by the last and indeed only person to have actually ever been elected an SNP MSP for the constituency (a short thread).
A democratic selection process is different to a civil war. A healthy selection contest is fair: it's based on record, ideas and respect for the voting members and the other participants. I very much hope that is what happens in Edinburgh Central.
To be quite honest though, there has been an element of the local party membership that has been dreading this since it became foreseeable three years ago. While the contest has the potential to bring interest and energy, handled badly it could lead to rancour and division.
The Lord Ashcroft poll on Scottish independence is significant, no question: 48% Yes, 45% No, 8% undecided (doesn't add to 100% because of rounding). Polls have shown Yes ahead intermittently since 2014, but this is the first for a while. 1/
Methodologically, it makes more sense to report undecideds in the topline. These undecideds were more likely to have been No in 2014 for example. Movement is often between Yes or No and undecided, so taking them out can give a false picture. 2/
48% and 45% are the highest and lowest shares since the short-lived polling bubble straight after the 2016 EU membership referendum. At that point Yes also touched 48% but No fell to 41% with many more answering Don't Know. (See previous point about undecideds.) 3/