AS was the intention, the report we featured last week on Tinto SNP’s research showing that both constituency and list votes should be cast for the SNP next May has certainly sparked a debate in the Yes movement.
Let me emphasise that my report last week was not a personal view – as Yes DIY pages manager I only report on the movement and if ever I make a comment or express an opinion I will make that clear.
James McIntyre of Lesmahagow wrote: “My gut feeling is it should be both votes SNP, however for some time now I’ve asked the following question.
“When will we see spreadsheets that have taken actual votes from the previous election and been re-worked to show results based on more SNP votes in the list section?”
“Still waiting!”
Andy Collins added: “I am a Green list candidate and chair of Yes North East Fife. I am very disappointed that the SNP are pushing ‘both votes SNP’ again.
“If you want the most SNP MSPs, then of course this makes sense. However if you want the most MSPs for independence, then it makes no sense at all.
“Indy supporters voting Green on the list will increase the number of Yes MSPs, and just as important, it will reduce the number of Unionist MSPs. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the D’Hondt voting system.”
Malcolm McInnes wrote in to say: “My response is clearly both votes SNP.
“The only way to secure the mandate is to return an overall majority SNP. Playing the system is a distraction”
Jim Stamper opined: “I would think it unlikely that any pro-independence party other than the SNP or Green Party could stand candidates in every list. These other parties should concentrate on areas where analysis of the previous Holyrood election results and current trends and polling will show the SNP are least likely to get a list candidate elected due to the number of constituency candidates.
“By deciding not to stand against each other indiscriminately then we could expect to maximise the numbers of SNP, Green and other pro-independence MSPs and also maximise the number of and percentage of pro-independence votes.”
Jim Manclark wrote that the Tinto research “is completely wrong, as is the replies by the SSP and ISP based on that research and the question put to them”, while a supporter of Action for Independence, Manclark pointed out: “They [AFI] only pick their own candidates. The only thing that is negotiated re candidates is where they go on the list for the actual election next year.”
Clearly this debate will continue. Have you or your groups any views? Then please e-mail community@the national.scot.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel