Better Nation

70 Comments

• #1 by Stephen Glenn on November 5, 2010 - 9:52 am

  

  As there is a referendum on the same day [or so my new boss keeps telling me ;)] care to add a prediction of the Yes/No split in that for Scotland as well?

  • #2 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 9:58 am

    

    Does anyone care about that?

    Sorry Stephen, I jest (of course…!). I suspect we’ll marginally vote for it in Scotland and Wales (on a higher turnout than in England, given the legislative elections on the same day). Whether that will be enough to overcome Tories in England opposed to AV, I’m not sure. Equally, I’m still not sure how I’ll vote… but that was a different post on a different day!

  • #3 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 10:04 am

    

    I think it’ll be a ‘No’ result to be honest Stephen. Not just because current polling is pointing that way.

• #4 by James on November 5, 2010 - 9:56 am

  

  I’ve still got that hundred trillion dollars I won off myself on the CSR, so happy to punt that to our lucky winner.

  The general area set out above seems right. Labour up, SNP down, Tories static or up, Libs down, Greens up. Other than that, I don’t see the Socialists winning anything right now, and I don’t know if Margo’s standing again.

  • #5 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 9:59 am

    

    It’s my understanding (and I might be wrong) that Margo is standing again. Also, I hear rumours that we may see a “Margo party” so that she may be able to retire halfway through the term and pass her seat onto a like-minded individual…

• #6 by Indy on November 5, 2010 - 10:23 am

  

  I’ll predict that the SNP will increase their majority.

  Labour’s campaign is going to be pretty rubbish – the reasons.

  1. They don’t have much money.
  2. They have fewer members than the SNP.
  3. They are split – councillors are not happy with Gray’s policy pronouncements which largely entail a return to central control of local authority, police, fire board functions. Why does this matter? Because councillors are the backbone of local party organisation – and in many cases the foot soldiers too.
  4. They have only just developed the same kind of voter ID technology that the SNP has been using for years – as Labour has been developing their voter ID operation the SNP has been advancing theirs still further with the result that they can not only gain more information but can make better use of the information they have.
  5. In terms of the politics of the campaign Labour has made a rash commitment on increasing council tax. Even although they are now trying to backtrack and talking about setting a cap the perception is still out there that they want to increase the council tax. This, together with the scale of the unfunded spending commitments they have made (1.7 billion at the last count I believe) simply reinforces the perception that Labour are profligate and irresponsible.
  6. The personality factor. Alex Salmond or Ian Gray? Nicola Sturgeon or Jackie Baillie? John Swinney or Andy Kerr? Don’t think I need to go on do I?
  7. Ed Milliband is turning out to be a bit of a dud.

  There are a host of other reasons but these will do for now.

  • #7 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 10:33 am

    

    Indy,

    Want to give us a prediction on some seat numbers?

    I don’t disagree with what you’ve said… and indeed, when people ask me what I think of Labour, I tend to give them some of the above (their front bench is far and away less impressive than the SNP’s). And yes, they are weak at the moment. But look at Westminster 2010 – they were all those things BEFORE it, and still won. Granted, they have the UK-wide advantage, but is it enough to overcome all of the above?

    Incidentally, can I sound a note of caution. I know you think it won’t happen, but if Labour do win – with a campaign as bad as you predict – what would that say about the SNP? I know that sounds defeatist for the Nats, but perhaps it would be best no to note those things in public… just in case. Obviously, feel free to ignore me – most do! 🙂

• #8 by Stephen Glenn on November 5, 2010 - 10:24 am

  

  Thanks Malc for mentioning all the nations bar one. I have it on very, very, very good authority that the Northern Ireland Yes Campaign Manager is not best pleased with this ommission on your part. 😉

  • #9 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 10:28 am

    

    It wasn’t meant as a slight Stephen. Simply that you guys could ALL vote Yes to AV on a 100% turnout and it probably wouldn’t make that much difference. But, in fairness, so could Scotland and Wales… so I take your point.

    Incidentally, you asked how Scotland would vote, and I gave you an extra opinion on Wales (and was under no obligation to do that!) so I find your wanting extra info (on NI) a little cheeky! 🙂

• #10 by Despairing on November 5, 2010 - 10:28 am

  

  I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of the numbers, so I’ll paint some broad strokes:

  Neither Salmond nor Goldie will be leaders of their party come the end of May. Tavish will only cling on by blaming Clegg, and there will only be a couple of seats between the Greens and LibDems, forcing the PO to give Patrick Harvie a question at FMQs every week.

  I doubt we’ll see any Socialists, unless they get their act together rather rapidly, and as much as I’d like to see Margo back she’s been getting quieter and quieter around the issues (right-to-die notwithstanding).

  Oh yeah, and Scotland will qualify for 2014. (Well, if we’re playing Fantasy Futures…)

• #11 by Indy on November 5, 2010 - 10:49 am

  

  Malc – Westminster was all about voting against the Tories. It doesn’t really tell us anything about 2011.

  Although there is one point I think SNP folk need to grasp and that is that we will not win Labour voters by attacking Labour – we need to attack the Tories. In some senses that seems almost superfluous – people in Scotland don’t vote Tory on the whole so it seems a little pointless attacking them and, to us, it seems more sensible to point out how ill-equipped Labour are to stand up for Scotland. Nonetheless from the point of view of Labour voters they want to see us “prove” that we are anti-Tory as it were.

  What would it say about the SNP if we lost? It would say that most voters have lost their optimism and sense that we can, as a country, make progress. That is probably a fairly good description of how many people are feeling at present. It’s up to us to try and change that.

  • #12 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 11:07 am

    

    No – you are right on Westminster. But it also demonstrated that Labour – despite their failings – can put a campaign and message together which gets their vote out. But on your final point – that’s the challenge.

• #13 by Doug on November 5, 2010 - 10:52 am

  

  I can’t bear to even consider a Labour win. While the SNP’s first term in government has not exactly been a barnstorming, universally-acclaimed success, I would like to think they’ve done enough to convince voters to give them another term. Bear in mind that last time round they were still a party who had no experience of governing, not even as a minor coalition partner. I’m not sure how many voters actually buy into the ridiculous idea that previous experience counts, but certainly there should be no one now left thinking they are a purely one-issue party who have no idea what to do about day-to-day issues.

  Labour, on the other hand, are completely anonymous. As Iain MacWhirter was saying recently, does anyone even know who the Labour shadow ministerial team are? I find it hard to believe that Iain Gray has made enough of an impact as Labour leader to bring back ex-Labour voters, and it has to be kept in mind that even with the party list system, a significant proportion of the electorate still vote for their favoured party leader, rather than their favoured constituency MSP candidate. I just can’t see where Labour are going to pick up these extra seats – they certainly can’t really improve on their stronghold in the West, as Nicola Sturgeon is surely unlikely to lose Glasgow Govan, and to increase their top-up seats, they’d need just about every voter in Glasgow and the surrounding areas to vote Labour. If anything, I actually fancy the SNP getting a second Glasgow constituency seat, although I don’t know why I think that since I have always had a very low opinion of Glasgow’s ability to vote for anything but Labour. I did think John Mason had a chance for Shettleston, until I realised McAveety is the incumbant MSP.

  I can’t see the Tories increasing their vote, or certainly not by enough to get more than maybe one or two extra regional MSPs, and it’s almost unimaginable that the Lib Dems will experience anything other than an almighty collapse.

  I’m plumping for a second SNP win, with a significant number of Lib Dem seats being dished out between the Tories and the Greens. I’d love to see Tommy Sheridan back in Holyrood, but even if he’s running, I imagine his current situation will count against him.

  SNP – 49 seats
  Labour – 45 seats
  Conservatives – 19 seats
  Lib Dems – 10 seats
  Greens – 5 seats
  Ind – 1 seat

  I put those down without knowing if they added up to 129 or not. Having found out they do, I’ve decided it must be fate, so I’m sticking to it.

• #14 by Bella Caledonia on November 5, 2010 - 11:13 am

  

  Result: Labour/Lib Dem/Green/Socialist ‘Progressive Alliance’

  Jeff I love the idea of the Lib Dems in a coalition (!) and you call this a ‘progressive alliance’?

  I think you are hugely generous to the Tories and the Liberals given the cuts we will then be experiencing. Are you reading the same polls as us?

  The Greens 7 seats! Wow! That would be great. Who is the Socialist that’s getting elected? The SSP and Solidarity are bust.

  Here’s mine (and I’m also assuming I’m pocketing a tenner from Malc for Scotland qualifying):

  SNP – 51 seats
  Labour – 45 seats
  Conservatives – 17 seats
  Lib Dems – 8 seats
  Greens – 6 seats
  Ind – 1 seat

  • #15 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 11:29 am

    

    BC,

    I still think the Lib Dems can get away with being in a coalition with Labour in Scotland and the Tories in London. Most people accept that they are trying to pragmatically make the best of the hand that they have been dealt and can’t say no to an opportunity when it arises. It’s not like being outside of coalition in Holyrood has served them too well in the past 4 years and I bet Gray would like to beef up his Cabinet options, were he to pip the SNP to the post (which is by no means certain, as has been pointed out bu yourself and Indy).

    Tories – I think will win a few FPTP seats here and there and scrape through on the lists.

    Socialists – Surely they will get their act together in Glasgow and have a single Sociality standing which, i think, should be able to get through if Labour hoovers up the FPTP seats (save for Govan, perhaps, though the boundary changes are counting against Nicola)

    You also seem to be overlooking the cuts that Swinney will have to bring in quite soon. Yes, they are not of his making but will everyone in Scotland see it that way? Particularly with a hostile media talking up the Nat cuts?

    I don’t see the SNP being as ‘jammy’ as they were on the regional vote with ‘Alex Salmond for FM’ as the option and I don’t see which constituencies the SNP can make gains in, except perhaps for Airdrie & Shotts and Clydesdale and maybe Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (yes, yes, I know they are called something else these days. I need to get up to speed with that actually)

    I can only see your prediction coming true BC if Iain Gray tanks massively in the election campaign which, to be fair, is entirely possible as he has been deeply uninspiring.

    • #16 by Daniel on November 5, 2010 - 11:32 am

      

      SNP should be able to take Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale which has a new name and includes a chunk of Midlothian (From Jeremy Purvis )

    • #17 by Doug on November 5, 2010 - 12:04 pm

      

      In regards to SNP gains, the seats are there if you look for them. I’ve gotten a wee bit out of touch over the past few months, but just looking at Aberdeen, I can see optimism for the SNP. Aberdeen Central has Lewis MacDonald as their MSP (who?), and the SNP candidate is the current deputy council leader, Kevin Stewart. The council are not exactly popular at the moment (thanks to things like the Union Terrace gardens fiasco), but I reckon he’s got a chance. Aberdeen South (which I think is still my constency) will have no incumbant as Nicol Stephen is exiting parliament, and I just wonder if the Lib Dem vote will stand up without him, especially if a non-entity like John Sleigh is put up in his place. Margaret Watt did well to get the SNP into second place last time from fourth in 2003, and considering this area has seen Tory, Labour and Lib Dem representitives in General and Scottish elections over the years, whose to say the SNP aren’t next in line for a shot? It’s not exactly an area that has any major party affiliations.

      Then again, I’m probably living in la-la land thinking the SNP can hold all three Aberdeen constituency seats…

      • #18 by Doug on November 5, 2010 - 12:11 pm

        

        Margaret Watt is, of course, Maureen Watt’s little-known twin sister. Ahem…

• #19 by Daniel on November 5, 2010 - 11:30 am

  

  Pretty similar to the first few predictions. Labour are pretty far ahead right now, but I just can’t see that carrying on through till May.

  Labour – 49
  SNP – 43
  Con – 17
  Lib Dems – 13
  Green – 6
  Ind – 1

• #20 by Indy on November 5, 2010 - 11:43 am

  

  Jeff the SNP actually starts with an increased majority due to the boundary changes. There is one extra seat in the north east – which I think everybody accepts the SNP will win – and Glasgow loses a seat (hence Mgt Curran’s jump to Westminster) which means Labour loses an MSP.

  So start from that point.

  • #21 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 11:54 am

    

    Fair enough Indy, I didn’t realise it was a net gain for the SNP overall and I’m in no position to pass myself off as an expert (or even knowledgeable) on boundary changes so point taken and aim to get myself up to speed.

    5 months and 30 days to go after all….

  • #22 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 12:50 pm

    

    Prof Denver has the notional figures as SNP 46, Lab 44. Though by his own figures, he has a mistaken Tory regional seat in South (as pointed out by Will, formerly MacNumpty).

    • #23 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 12:58 pm

      

      And keeping in mind that the SNP won Cunninghame North by 48 votes, I wouldn’t get too excited about who is notionally up by 1 or down by 1.

• #24 by The Irn Juq on November 5, 2010 - 1:10 pm

  

  I think the boundary changes in Glasgow that as many have said work against Nicola Sturgeon in “Southside” will work in John Mason’s favour in Shettleston, losing the Gorbals, Govanhill and Toryglen, but gaining parts of Bailieston where he retained a lot of support during the 2010GE. The fact that he isn’t standing on the list might help get his personal vote out.

  However I think the SNP’s best chance for an upset in Glasgow (assuming that Nicola keeping her seat wouldn’t be an upset) will be in Kelvin. The constituency hasn’t been changed hugely by the boundary changes, the SNP fell short of Labour by 1208 votes, but the Green and Lib Dem votes tally close to 6,000. Assuming that a great deal of the Lib Dem half comes from the constituencies three universities, then I’d expect it to be slashed this time around. The seat will go to whoever can mop up the most of it.

  • #25 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 1:13 pm

    

    A great shout on Glasgow Kelvin, though the Greens standing a FPTP candidate may harm SNP chances.

• #26 by Chris on November 5, 2010 - 2:56 pm

  

  This is all getting a bit fantasy footballish. I remember Jeff predicting massive SNP gains at the General Election (Livingston? East Lothian?) Kelvin and Shettleston I don’t think so – the gap at the General Election was huge.

  The 2005 election was really a bit of a triple whammy for Labour, actually make that a quadruple whammy, even a quintuple whammy.

  1. Iraq : lots of anger from the electorate and a lot of disillusioned activists.
  2. Jack McConnell was loathed by many outside the party as well as in it. Iain Gray may be weak, but he doesn’t raise the hackles as much as the pin-striped kilted leader of the best wee country in the world. (But I’d have him back…)
  3. Alex Salmond for First Minister on all ballot papers – a dodgy trick not to be repeated
  4. Electoral confusion – 100,000 spoilt papers, particularly in elderly working class areas. Guess who they vote for?

  We could go on to mention tution fees etc.

  The SNP did exceptionally well by winning unexpected constituency seats and by getting a lot of top-up seats. I think that the SNP are likely to lose a lot of the unexpected gains (Kilmarnock, Livingston, Stirling, Cunninghame, Falkirk)

  My prediction

  Labour 53
  SNP 42
  Conservatives 17
  Lib Dems 10
  Greens 7
  Margo 1

  • #27 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 3:05 pm

    

    Assuming when you say “2005 election” you mean “2007” but otherwise I think you are probably right on some of what you say. And yes, Jeff has a habit of making “bold” predictions…

    But I have to say, the seats you identify as “unexpected” gains were perhaps (with the exception of Stirling) not as unexpected as you think. Falkirk’s MSP (Dennis Canavan) retired and Michael Matheson had what Will call’s “semi-incumbency factor” on his side (he was a list MSP, his Labour opponent was not). Cunninghame North had Kenny Gibson, a former MSP while Willie Coffey was a fairly popular local councillor in Killie. And Angela Constance had stood in the Livingston by-election, and was a well-known face, so again, not so unexpected. And though Stirling was a reach, Bruce Crawford had worked the area hard.

    Saying that, I think they will do well to keep them. Kenny Gibson’s majority of 48 looks shaky – though sometimes its the smaller majorities that are harder to turn around (just ask Jamie Hepburn, who couldn’t overcome the 420 votes required to oust Cathy Craigie…). But yes – there were a number of factors which you outline above (not least the AS for FM on the lists) which worked in the SNP’s favour in 2007.

  • #28 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 3:05 pm

    

    Though the idea of predicting an election 6 months out is necessarily “fantastical”!

• #29 by Paul Freeman on November 5, 2010 - 2:59 pm

  

  I’ll have to spend some time doing a seat by seat rundown , but generally I think SNP slightly up, Labour&Green slightly up, LD down, Tory static.

  But amused to see the title ‘Progressive Alliance’ featuring Labour

  Oh, and the more important thing, Stephen ?

  Scotland to increase wins this year in the #6Nations 🙂

  • #30 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 3:06 pm

    

    AGREED!

• #31 by anon on November 5, 2010 - 3:19 pm

  

  Utterly hilarious the prediction that the greens will progress. They have done nothing whatsoever in this session of Parliament despite climate change being such a huge issue. They’ll return two MSPs but won’t make any gains and rightly so.

• #32 by Bella Caledonia on November 5, 2010 - 3:36 pm

  

  Jeff – I really can’t agree with your comment about the Lib Dems: “Most people accept that they are trying to pragmatically make the best of the hand that they have been dealt”.

  Maybe that’s the attitude in London?

  My experience is most people are absolutely furious that they have sold out over a series of ‘red-line’ issues that they campaigned about from nuclear power to control orders to tution fees.

  • #33 by James on November 5, 2010 - 3:48 pm

    

    Agreed, Jeff, you’re too nice and too forgiving. Fortunately the electorate are unlikely to be either when they see the wilted bird on the ballot.

• #34 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 4:50 pm

  

  Bella/James, I can understand you’re wanting to maks that the main point regarding the Lib Dems and I agree that they are quite rightly suffering for their positions on VAT and tuition fees, particularly with Clegg’s insufferable and not a little sanctimonious promise of a ‘new politics’. But to deny they are not trying to make the best of the situation that has presented itself is to suggest that the Lib Dems are operating out of some sort of spite.

  They have won some half decent concessions through this coalition and some people, yourselves excluded of course, may give them some credit for that.

  Polling, of course, suggests otherwise but I still wouldn’t totally deny them
  the ‘progressive’ tag. They’re dealing with the Tories which can’t be easy.

  • #35 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 4:54 pm

    

    “They have won some half decent concessions through this coalition and some people, yourselves excluded of course, may give them some credit for that.”

    Not wishing to corner you Jeff… but do we have some specifics of the “half-decent concessions”? Or is it just that “the cuts would be much worse if we left the Tories on their own” kind of idea?

    I do agree (to an extent) that they’ve been making the best of the situation. But the “best” may have been to ignore the Tories advances and stay out of coalition…

• #36 by Jeff on November 5, 2010 - 5:10 pm

  

  And where would the Lib Dems being out of coalition have got us? An AV referendum, those earning £10k taken out of tax, this child premium thing, a more serious approach to Environment (a non-Tory environment Minister alone has to count for something!) and I’m sure I could find more if I had a more reliable net access (on a train).

  You might not say that’s much but the coalition is not, and nor should it be, an equitable agreement. The Lib Dems lost seats after all and the Tories deserve to call about 80%/90% of the shots.

  My overall point is that any argument against the Lib Dems cam only include the charge of broken promises WITH an admission that they are making the best of a far-from-perfect set of circumstances.

  And I feel far from cornered on that score so no worries….

  • #37 by Malc on November 5, 2010 - 5:21 pm

    

    Okay, well I’ll try again. I’m not suggesting they’ve done nothing, nor was I suggesting that a coalition agreement should be equitable, especially since LDs only have 57 MPs. And again, I’m not saying anything about broken promises.

    What I am saying is this. The Lib Dems had a manifesto agreed to by their membership – and, presumably the some of the public saw some things in it they liked and voted for it. But they’ve sold out on a lot of it. An AV referendum wasn’t what they wanted – its not PR – it wasn’t in the manifesto. The 10K tax thing was – but look at what has had to be cut to pay for it. And I’m not sure how you figure a Lib Dem Environment minister who has suddenly become pro-nuclear post-election is a “serious approach to the environment”.

    Half decent concessions? I see only concessions on their part myself. But then I was a cynic to begin with.

    By the way – the Lib Dems being out of coalition may have gotten us worse Tory cuts, or it may have gotten us less, since they would have struggled to get anything passed as a minority government. And we may have seen another election – and a real progressive alternative – but that’s idle speculation. But then, that’s what we’re in the business of I suppose!

• #38 by Indy on November 5, 2010 - 7:28 pm

  

  I think the only seat that the SNP won in 2007 that was in any way unexpected was Cunninghame North, The rest were target seats.

  I think Chris is making the mistake of not counting the incumbency factor when predicting that Labour will “take back” those seats. Labour think those seats belong to them and that the SNP somehow stole them by a sneaky trick but that is not how the voters see it. They have had an SNP MSP for the past 4 years, that gives the SNP the advantage. Let’s see if any of those seats are Labour targets. Indeed let’s see Labour’s targets. We are told for example that they are going to try and take back Nicola Sturgeon’s seat but my information from SNP contacts there is that Labour is doing diddly squat on the ground.

  That is also suggested by John Park’s piece on Burdz Eye view where he says “For this will be a doorstep election where Labour members will visit thousands of homes over the next few months, taking our message directly to the people of Scotland. ” It’s 6 months to go and they haven’t
  even started knocking on doors yet. What’s that about?

  Jeff the Lib Dems will undoubtably pay a high price in Scotland for going into coalition with the Tories. Why? Because they were the recipients of anti-Tory votes – the vast majority of voters at the General Election just voted for the incumbent because they calculated that was the best way to ensure that the Tories did not increase the number of MPs they had. It worked but now many of the people who voted Lib Dem are absolutely raging at them – understandably so. Their vote is going to nose-dive and in the north of Scotland who is best placed to gain from that? Not Labour.

• #39 by Bella Caledonia on November 5, 2010 - 8:41 pm

  

  I’m kind of incredulous Jeff:

  “And where would the Lib Dems being out of coalition have got us?”

  I suppose this assumes a) that this is all necessary and b) that the Liberals are some sort of fig-leaf to what they’d actually have done.

  “They have won some half decent concessions”. They haven’t. At all. They have broken every promise they have made and they made utter fools of themselves. Watching that poor upper class halfwit on BBCQT defending control orders was the best example we’ve had yet. Not liberal, not democratic. Though, if you’d beeen paying attention in Scotland you’d already know that.

  Now this is a nice parlour game and I don’t grudge you that, and whether the Lib Dems get caught out for their complicity in the devastation to 50 years of civil society, I don’t know. Perhaps people are as caught in in the clubby, affable world you seem to be in?

  “The Tories deserve to call about 80%/90% of the shots.” Do they have a mandate to rule Scotland? I do think they do.

• #40 by Bella Caledonia on November 5, 2010 - 8:48 pm

  

  “Tories and Neo-Libs want to re-engineer UK, more cash for corporations, lower wages, less welfare, rolling back the NHS, education and services. We need to fight that.” – Derek Wall

• #41 by Danny on November 5, 2010 - 11:02 pm

  

  Labour – 51
  SNP – 44
  Conservative – 16
  Lib Dem – 12
  Green – 5
  Ind – 1

• #42 by James Kelly on November 6, 2010 - 1:34 am

  

  Can’t quite bring myself to tempt fate by giving an exact prediction, but I do just want to say that I hope Jeff’s prediction of a ‘progressive alliance’ was tongue-in-cheek! I just can’t imagine the Socialists doing a formal deal with Labour and the Lib Dems (particularly the latter given the current circumstances). The Greens would probably be open to offers, but I suspect it would have to be a hell of an offer given the lack of common ground with Labour. And, last but not least, I think there are just too many barriers in the way of a Lib/Lab arragement in any case, however much Gray and Scott would probably fancy one.

  PS. It’s a brave man who would make predictions about the Greens’ performance in May one way or the other – I think they’ve surprised us in all three Holyrood elections to date (exceeding expectations in 1999 and 2003 and dramatically underperforming in 2007). But it does seem fairly safe to assume that the Lib Dems will take a hit.

• #43 by Bella Caledonia on November 6, 2010 - 8:57 am

  

  Evidence of the alleged systematic and brutal mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at a secret British military interrogation centre that is being described as “the UK’s Abu Ghraib” emerged yesterday during high court proceedings brought by more than 200 former inmates.

  The court was told there was evidence that detainees were starved, deprived of sleep, subjected to sensory deprivation and threatened with execution at the shadowy facilities near Basra operated by the Joint Forces Interrogation Team, or JFIT.

  It also received allegations that JFIT’s prisoners were beaten, forced to kneel in stressful positions for up to 30 hours at a time, and that some were subjected to electric shocks. Some of the prisoners say that they were subject to sexual humiliation by women soldiers, while others allege that they were held for days in cells as small as one metre square.

  Michael Fordham QC, for the former inmates, said the question needed to be asked: “Is this Britain’s Abu Ghraib?”

  The Ministry of Defence is resisting such an inquiry, however. In a statement to the Commons on Monday, Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat armed forces minister, said the MoD should be allowed to investigate the matter itself.

  Another Lib Dem concession? The fact is that they are culpable and complicit in economic shock doctrine and now in covering up the worst atrocities of the British State abroad.

• #44 by Chris on November 6, 2010 - 11:32 am

  

  I don’t think these seats belong to Labour. I think Labour lost them on a bad result. Incumbency is over-rated: 2% of the vote tops. Look at John Mason defending Glasgow East or further back in history Jim Sillars defending Govan or even South Ayrshire as SLP leader.

  Well known and especially well known and liked candidates do well. I reckon that’s why Nicola Sturgeon will hold on to her seat. I suspect that familiarity will help Kenny McAskill too.

  I think the Greens will progress simply because it is hard to see what will happen to the ‘bohemian’ libdem vote in the University areas. Labour/SNP/Green will gain from this. These seats have a lot of very middle class people who won’t be keen on Labour and a lot of English people who will hesitate to vote SNP. The easy alternative is to vote Green.

• #45 by Allan on November 6, 2010 - 12:28 pm

  

  Bearing in mind that voters minds are still focused on elsewhere, and not on the question of who will run Holyrood. Making a prediction will be dificult. However taking into account the SNP’s poor performance against Labour spin since the GARL decision and the Meghrahi controversy, i think that the fugures will be (give or take a couple of seats each way…)

  SNP – 44
  Scottish Labour – 52
  Conservitive’s – 15
  Lib Dem’s – 11
  Green/Ind/Others – 7

• #46 by Indy on November 6, 2010 - 1:49 pm

  

  We’ll have to disagree on the incumbency factor – I think it is important, especially with the not insignificant sector of the electorate who will vote for the candidate/party they think is most likely to win.

• #47 by Baron Sarwar on November 6, 2010 - 4:12 pm

  

  SNP 49
  Lab 49
  Con 13
  LD 9
  Grn 7
  Ind/Oth 2

  Electing a FM should be fun…

• #48 by John Ruddy on November 6, 2010 - 4:22 pm

  

  I think the incumbancy factor is over rated – much depends on what the incumbant has actually done, and how visible they’ve been. For example, one might think that Nigel Don would gain a slight incumbancy in Angus North & Mearns, by stint of being a list MSP. But he has been fairly low profile, and seems to be on the wrong side of the the biggest local issue – the Laurencekirk flyover.

  My predictions:

  Labour 49 – 56
  SNP 39 – 46
  Conservatives 14 – 19
  Liberal Democrats 7 – 12
  Greens 1 – 4
  SSP 0 – 2
  Ind 0 – 1

  Now, I know I’ve cheated slightly by using ranges, but hey, its still 6 months out!

• #49 by Social Democrat on November 6, 2010 - 11:04 pm

  

  @ John Ruddy. Nigel Don was only list MSP for the north part of the constituency and he has a good profile in the Mearns. Nobody is against a flyover at Laurencekirk. In my experience people aren’t stupid enough to believe the LibDems on this issue. They had 8 years to build one and they didn’t. Local people are more than aware of that! Politicos like all of us on this site sometimes live in a bit of a bubble, disconnected from the way most of the electorate view the political classes. Frankly, people tend to see through blatant political opportunism and insincerity.

  In terms of predictions, as a progressive I fear a Labour victory is the most likely outcome at the moment. However, it is still possible that we may see an SNP resurgence if there is a high profile and relatively well balanced election campaign. I would expect the Tory vote to remain static and I personally would be surprised if the Liberals weren’t forced back into single figures in terms of percentage share of the vote in light of their complete ideological meltdown. I feel the way the election falls is likely to depend on who is most efficient at mopping up disillusioned LibDem voters

• #50 by Indy on November 7, 2010 - 11:49 am

  

  I think that the idea that voters will give more priority to the decision to cancel GARL or to release Megrahi than they will to the likelihood of Labour putting up their council tax is a bit daft. Labour have had an easy ride over the past three and a half years because all they have done is attack the SNP – they have not had to put forward any proposals themselves.

  Now they do have to start painting a picture of what they would do instead and the fact is that, in order to pay for all the policy commitments they have already made, Labour would need to increase council tax by a heck of a lot more than 2 per cent. They would also need to use the tax raising powers of the Scottish Parliament.

  They have got themselves into quite a pickle because they have made a big song and dance about every cut they can blame the SNP for yet they have made no real commitments themselves on cuts. They have only made spending commitments. They are trying now to get on top of that dilemma with sweeping commitments such as a single police force – they have not done the work on that, however, and they face very strong opposition on that one and on other centralising policies – particularly on any return to ring-fencing (I’m not arguing against mergers of police forces incidentally or indeed mergers of local authorities or fire boards or health boards but a national police force makes little sense to anyone, which is why most people in the Labour Party do not support it).

  This goes back to the issue I highlighted earlier, that there is a big gulf between Labour councillors and the Labour parliamentary group. This has passed a lot of political journalists by – they don’t seem to have noticed the number of times Pat Watters for example has been ranged on the SNP’s side of a debate against Gray et al, But it’s important and the SNP does not have this problem. There have certainly been issues where SNP councils don’t see eye to eye with the government but they have been sorted out by John Swinney or Alex Salmond picking up the phone and reaching an agreement. I wonder how much communication there is between Labour in Holyrood and Labour councils – were the councillors consulted about Gray’s speech before he made it or did they find out at conference what he intended?

• #51 by Gaz on November 7, 2010 - 11:55 am

  

  Hi Guys,

  First time visiting the site. It looks good.

  On the matter in question, I am not going to make any prediction about final numbers because I think this is largely going to be decided by a very complex list situation.

  What I will say is that I expect not a single constituency to change hands between the SNP and Labour in either direction. I don’t really see much that will have changed the intentions of either set of supporters since 2007 and any change will be as a result of how disaffected Liberals might vote. First of all, in most of these SNP/Labour contests, the Liberal vote was probably about as low as it was going to get because of the squeeze factor. Second of all, any Liberal votes that do go elsewhere are as likely to be influenced by the work of the incumbent MSP as anything else.

  I expect the SNP to pick up some Liberal seats in the Highlands, Aberdeen and Borders due to a combination of boundary changes, retirals and disaffection with the coalition. Liberal seats in Edinburgh and Fife are probably a bit more secure but I think Labour have a good shot at a couple and another could go either SNP or Tory.

  So, in summary, I expect the SNP to win a few more constituencies, Labour and Tory to gain maybe one or two and the Liberals to lose quite a few. The Greens will probably pick up a seat or two and Margo will, of course, be returned.

  The interesting question is how the new make up of the constituencies will affect the list results. Will the Liberals be able to make up their FPTP losses on the list?(probably not) Will the Greens come into contention in the Highlands list? (probably) Will Labour benefit on the Highlands list if the SNP win a couple more constituencies (probably)? Can the SNP still pick up list seats in the North-East if it wins another two constituencies there? (possibly – I don’t think the Alex Salmond for First Minister tag was used in that region last time so there can be no question that the exceptionally high SNP vote in 2007 was in any way gerrymandered?).

  All in all I expect the parliament to be even more polarised with more SNP and more Labour MSPs. The final outcome will probably be influenced as much by how the non-SNP, non-Labour vote splits region by region as the effectiveness of the SNP and Labour campaigns themselves.

  What I will say is that, if things turn out like this, the SNP will find it easier to form a stable government than Labour. Not that that is in anyway a guide as to what will actually happen.

• #52 by John Ruddy on November 7, 2010 - 11:55 am

  

  @ Social Democrat
  I thought the north east Scotland list covered the whole region from Dundee through past Aberdeen. The whole of Angus North & Mearns was part of his constituency.

  My point about the flyover is he had a chance to support the campaign for a new flyover – and instead he seems to have used his position on the petitions commitee to try to knock it into the long grass. You point about the Lib Dems is valid, but I believe their current stance is that Laurencekirk was next on the list to do, and it hasnt been. Plus this is a cross-party campaign – except for the SNP. Their response that their havnt been enough fatalities, when it has had more than other junctions where they had built flyovers was a bad own goal locally. Despite that, I cant see the seat as being anything other than an SNP hold – but my point is that incumbancy only matter when the “incumbant” does a good job in the eyes of the electorate.

  You’re right I think the result will depend on who gets the lost Lib Dem votes. I think a lot will go to Labour, though some may go Green – perhaps splitting. I think the SNP hit a high point in 2007, and will do well to keep their current number of seats.

• #53 by John Ruddy on November 7, 2010 - 1:29 pm

  

  Hi Gaz,
  Some interesting thoughts there, however the “Alex Salmond for First Minister” line was used on the list in the North East – I didnt think they would get away with it until I actuallay saw it on the ballot paper!

  I think its a bit much to call it gerrymandering, but it certainly had an effect.

• #54 by Gaz on November 7, 2010 - 2:01 pm

  

  I stand corrected, John. I’ve been racking my brains trying to remember who told me that.

  Personally, I think the impact of this has been rather overstated in any case. One thing is for sure, I don’t think Labour would dare try the same trick with Iain Gray even if it was permitted!!!

  On the Angus North situation, you are right to say that Nigel Don is effectively an MSP for the entire NE region, which is most of the old Tayside Region and the old Grampian Region. But i would think that he and Maureen Watt have divvied it up on a north/south basis for practical purposes.

• #55 by Allan on November 7, 2010 - 5:22 pm

  

  “I think that the idea that voters will give more priority to the decision to cancel GARL or to release Megrahi than they will to the likelihood of Labour putting up their council tax is a bit daft.”

  Indy – Ah, but is it. Bear in mind that there are lots of Labour voters who distrust the SNP in any case. Labour have used this distrust, and the cancellation of the GARL project as the cornerstone’s of their “Ripped Off Glasgow” campaign – which while it was nonsensical still had electorial success. Variations ran here in Renfrewshire, where we have an SNP led Council who have made unpopular and nonsensical cuts (cutting school transport etc…) – while giving heads of service inflation busting wage increases.

  Lets not forget that Labour are using the cover of “Front Line services” to get away with this. Yes they have been given an easy ride over this, but until broadcasters list example’s of Labour largesse (several example’s appear on my post against Council Tax increases accross at “Dispatches…), they will continue to do so.

  On the Megrahi issue, MacAskil shot himself in the foot by going with the established concensus that there was nothing wrong with Megrahi’s conviction (which as I have pointed out in my own blog is unsafe to say the least – he also spoke an awful lot of nonsense about a “higher power”). This has provided Labour & the Tories the ammunition required to attack the release of the “single biggest mass murderer in UK history”

• #56 by Indy on November 7, 2010 - 7:41 pm

  

  But Allan Labour cannot go into the election simply criticising the SNP. If they want to attack us for GARL they must reinstate GARL in their manifesto – and find the funding. Given that they are already over a billion pounds overspent – and have still to demonstrate in any kind of concrete way that they can save a single penny – they have made a rod for their own back haven’t they?

  They have criticised the SNP for GARL, for teacher numbers, for cutting NHS staff, for cuts to local authority services, for the freeze on police recruitment etc etc. That message has come over loud and clear. But what people have not heard is how Labour will reinstate GARL, increase the number of teachers being employed, keep NHS staffing at current levels, keep local authority funding at current levels, unfreeze police recruitment etc and they won’t hear that because Labour can’t do it without increasing council tax massively and also using the tax raising powers of the Scottish Parliament.

  So they have a choice – either to look like fools for criticising the SNP when they wouldn’t do much that was different or they have to come clean about their tax plans. The problem there is that people don’t generally vote for a party which wants to put their tax up radically – particularly not when they blame that party for the state of the economy (as polls show that most Scots blame Labour for the economic crisis).

• #57 by Holyrood Patter on November 7, 2010 - 11:11 pm

  

  SNP – 45
  Labour – 45
  Tories – 21
  Libs – 12
  Greens – 4
  Socialists – 2

  Outcome – ive nary a clue, curious to know who malcs predicted independent is, is margo not stepping down?
  As for the referendum, id imagine tere might be a good chunk of spoiled papers, aswell as mass confusion again

  • #58 by Malc on November 8, 2010 - 10:28 am

    

    It is my understanding that Margo will stand again (and perhaps as part of the “Margo MacDonald Independent Party” in order to safeguard the seat if she decided to stand down before the end of the term). Hence my independent. I’m sure I’ve said that before though!

  • #59 by Jeff on November 8, 2010 - 3:32 pm

    

    Tories at 21 HP? You are even more ‘optimistic/pessimistic*’ than I am.

    A draw would be fascinating of course; a good one for the neutrals as they say…

    * – delete as appropriate

• #60 by Fitalass on November 8, 2010 - 12:43 am

  

  Really enjoying the contributions from the Better Nation team, a great follow up to your much missed previous blogs. Keep up the good work!

  I too think that the Labour party will win this time around at Holyrood, but I think that they are going to have to go it alone as a minority administration just like their predecessor’s the SNP. I honestly cannot see the Scottish Libdems forming a possible very damaging coalition with them up here at Holyrood. And for the simple reason that it would not only cause problems for the Westminster Libdems, it would also make it more difficult for the Labour party in opposition down there too. What I could see is a more loose grouping being formed, and with the Libdems voting with a minority Labour government on an issue by issue basis as the Conservatives have done with the SNP.

  With cuts coming quick and fast from both our local councils and the Westminster government, I am not sure that the Parliament in the middle of the government machine cannot keep blaming the wee man below them, anymore than they keep blaming the big man down the road at Westminster. The next Scottish elections might be a hard one for the SNP or Labour to lose, but its not going to be a walk in the park for the winner either. There are going to be tough decisions on spending which will have a direct effect on all of us.

  I have been fascinated to watch Cosla growing some real teeth over recent months, and I think its too simplistic to assume this is just a Labour driven attempt to undermine the SNP government right now. I suspect they are going to be giving the Scottish government, what ever their politics a very tough ride over the next few years.

  Those councils are going to be making some very unpalatable choices and spending announcements over the next few months, and they are not going to sit back and carry the can while the Holyrood politicians try to blame everyone else for our current predicament. And just like our MSP’s and MP’s these councillors are elected and answerable to the public in their respective areas. And they will be facing local elections in 2012.

  Holyrood politics are going to get a lot more turbulent for all the parties in the next Parliament what ever the results of the elections. Interesting times indeed.

  • #61 by Jeff on November 8, 2010 - 3:30 pm

    

    Thanks Fitalass, always good to hear feedback (especially when it’s positive!)

    I think you are right that this will be the election that people really start thinking about the different levels of Government that we have, though I am not sure I agree about the current Scottish Government “getting away with “blaming the Government above. These are not SNP cuts and it would be foolhardy to suggest otherwise.

    However, where the real pinch will be with the SNP will be protesting that they can’t do anything about it which is not true, raising income tax is an option (one which I believe the Greens have now formally backed). While it is always best to receive ever-increasing budgets from London and while independence will theoretically be a valid argument for them, the reality of the here and now in terms of financing the public sector will be interesting indeed.

• #62 by Indy on November 8, 2010 - 10:11 am

  

  It is interesting that Fitalass sees things entirely in terms of having to make decisions about spending. It just shows that there are still lots of people who see the Scottish Parliament/Government as body that spends money but has no powers to increase growth. I think that is where the real debate over the next few years is going to be.

• #63 by Chris on November 8, 2010 - 10:17 am

  

  Indy

  I wouldn’t put it beyond Labour to put an impossible promise like GARL in its manifesto, and then blame opposition parties for blocking it. Like the LibDems on tuition fees and the SNP on council tax abolition, part of the luxury of opposition is to make lots of promises to get elected.

• #64 by Indy on November 8, 2010 - 3:43 pm

  

  I wouldn’t put it past Labour either but they would be foolish to do so, particularly if they intend to operate as a minority government. A minority government does not have the option of jettisoning various parts of their manifesto (as both Labour and the Lib Dems had) in order to reach a parthership agreement.

  If we imagine the scenario where there is a Labour minority government which has promised the moon and patently can’t deliver the SNP would not make the mistake of opposing their Budget. Rather, I think they would promise a more constructive approach including support for a Labour budget – provided it was balanced of course.

• #65 by Allan on November 8, 2010 - 7:22 pm

  

  Indy.

  They already have. the PPP for Renfrewshire North Stuart Clark has already indicated, via the PDE, that this will appear in the Labour manefesto.

  As for the point about Labour promising the earth, they did that 6 months ago and people still voted for them in their droves. My point is that the SNP will have to up it’s game drasticaly to expose the Labour pledges for what they are… uncosted pledges. To go back to my own local council, in justifying the redundancies of teacers and teaching assistants in Renfrewshire, they could have pointed to the many millions of pounds leaving Education budgets annually because of PFI re-payments. But they didn’t.

• #66 by Holyrood Patter on November 8, 2010 - 8:41 pm

  

  Jeff,
  I must admit to saying that partly to get a rise, although i think theses days that predicting elections there is as much about understanding the scottish “psyche” as it is number crunching.

  The Tories might, and I stress might, get a return from being seen as having the strength of their convictions, and their anti benefit aroungers stuff might get some traction.

  the lib dems, junior partners, etc might be seen as quite meek indecisive, sold themselves etc, ie its a lose lose for them, the tories as senior partners will get any bounce from the coalition, but they willl get hammered for their perceived selling out, no one likes a lickspittle!
  indeed your own blog highliughted the relative unpopularity of clegg and cameron

• #67 by Danny on November 9, 2010 - 5:38 pm

  

  SNP minority is a non starter, the only chance we see Salmond return to Bute house, is if the SNP are prepared to form a coalition government to exclude Labour. This coalition would include the Lib Dems, the Tories, the Greens, the Margo party(This is a clever tactic so they can set up a regional list incase Margo’s health deteriorates during the next session) and the Socialists if they get any MSPs. The thought of the ConDems working with the SNP sounds farfetched, but the way I see it is that all 3 parties see the SNP as a preferable alternative to Labour.

  I don’t understand why Labour are so far ahead in the polls though. If Herr Salmond can win me over(And for the record, he has), surely he can win over the rest of Scotland. He’s going to freeze council tax(Which is a rubbish system anyway, it should either be LIT, or combining council tax into normal income tax and removing fiscal autonomy from councils), he’s going to protect Scottish students from Tuition fees, education secretary Mike Russell has not ruled out student contributions, but has said any contributions would be after graduation. And finally, he’s going to give us the right to vote on independence. Now I don’t support independence and I’ve made that perfectly clear, but it’s my opinion that if a geographical group of people vote for independence, you need a very good reason not to give them independence. So I support a fair referendum.

• #68 by John Ruddy on November 9, 2010 - 5:46 pm

  

  Danny,
  The SNP criticise Labour for a list of unfunded promises, and what do they come up with? An unfunded list of promises. And a lot of people remember what happened the last time the SNP came up with such a list. The SNP’s problem is that their memories arnt that bit longer.

  Heres an example. A colleague of mine left university with a lot of debt in 2007- the SNP promised that they would write it off, so he voted for them in 2007. They didnt do it. Now, he has said he will vote for anyone who will get rid of the SNP to “punish” them. Its not logical, but he’s frustrated, and I suspect theres a good number of other folk who feel the same (about different issues, perhaps).

  I work in local Government, so I can say that the SNP’s council tax freeze, whilst welcome personally, has come at a price. Cuts have had to have been made. Choices between which service gets what. Admiteddly, these are choices we can now make, rather than funds being ring fenced for particualr projects, but if the idea of local government is to give local people a say in how their local services are run, then surely they desrerve the right to set their own local tax level to fund those services? Or a cut if a reduction in services is what they want?

• #69 by mav on November 9, 2010 - 11:28 pm

  

  well my tuppence worth is this.
  I think the libdems will take a bit of a beating. It’s not becuase of the coalition, per se,. They’ve relied for a long time on being the nice alternative, the party you vote for if if you don’t like the govt AND the oppostion. I think a lot of those votes will go Green.
  I read today the Gorgeous George fancies a shot as an independent for holyrood, and I think he could do that.
  I don’t think the tories will fall back, as many have predicted elsewhere. They’re actually doing what their voters want to see happen, and I have a hunch that a few of their more decisive policies south of the border may see them creep up a bit. The few opinion polls I’ve seen suggest that may bear out.
  Now the big one. Eck’s charm is wearing thin, and I’ve heard too many grumbles on trains, in barbers, in shops for that to be true. But at least he has/had charm, and a certain political talent. Iain Gray never has, and I genuinely think there is a chance he could lose his 2nd FPTP seat, to go with Edinburgh South 8 years ago. I think the SNP will claw back some of the ground they’ve lost when voters realise that Labour aren’t going to change leader again. That said, I take Labour to move up 3 or 4 seats, and that the SNP will find themselves 2nd once more.

  My wild cards? Nicola Sturgeon to lose Govan, where Stephen Curran is a well known councillor, whose surname (no relation so far as I know) will probably help him along.

  And Rangers will go one better than 2 years ago, and lift the UEFA Cup.

• #70 by Colin on November 10, 2010 - 11:58 am

  

  Labour will remain pretty much as they are. They always do. Meanwhile, the SNP will drop nine or ten seats. Iain Gray will be First Minister for four years, during which he will talk about the Tories a lot.

Comments are closed.