ErsatzThistle Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Of all the seats in Scotland that could fall to the SNP, I think Gordon could be the one. Malcolm Bruce is stepping down and the SNP cut his majority a fair bit in 2011. Any locals reckon Falkirk could swing to the good guys ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 the greens came very close to winning Hillhead at the Scottish election, they have a big support there, students trendies etc.. , to get the Green Vote elsewhere the SNP will need to give the greens a clear shot at a seat methinx... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_fadiator Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 If you believe opinion polls, up to 30% Labour voters voted 'yes'. A proportion will say they're finished with Labour & the others will likely revert to type. There's potential for decent swings to pro-Yes parties, but there's a lot of work to do to show how close they are to the Tories for their vote to completely collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 ...nearer 40% of Labour voted YES.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 In my view, the SNP should go further left than Labour and point out their red Toryness at every turn. On the one hand this shouldn't be too hard. However, the fact that the Tories seem intent on moving even further to the right themselves might make people default to Labour as the least worst option. Consequently, the SNP must try and get the message across that they are the party best placed to speak up for Scotland at Westminster. Labour siding with the Tories during the referendum and any dilution of 'the vow' should make this easier. Below is a chart showing the non-SNP seats in Scotland: At first glance I reckon Dundee East, Falkirk, Ochil & South Perthshire and Glasgow East (Margaret Curran's seat) are within touching distance. Danny Alexander, if he has any sense at all, ought to fear for his seat too. If the SNP can get their grassroots campaigners out and about like they did during the referendum then they have a good chance of making a dent in a few sizable complacent Labour majorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 At my local SNP branch meeting, usually about 15 strong, the attendance last night was about 200. Astonishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 That table should serve as a reminder to all who expect the SNP to win a barrowload of seats next year. Glasgow and Dundee would be my focus plus one or two others. If can reach double figures of MPs and take a big percent of overall vote, job done. Would love a major scalp like Margaret Curran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 In my view, the SNP should go further left than Labour and point out their red Toryness at every turn. On the one hand this shouldn't be too hard. However, the fact that the Tories seem intent on moving even further to the right themselves might make people default to Labour as the least worst option. Consequently, the SNP must try and get the message across that they are the party best placed to speak up for Scotland at Westminster. Labour siding with the Tories during the referendum and any dilution of 'the vow' should make this easier. Below is a chart showing the non-SNP seats in Scotland: At first glance I reckon Dundee East, Falkirk, Ochil & South Perthshire and Glasgow East (Margaret Curran's seat) are within touching distance. Danny Alexander, if he has any sense at all, ought to fear for his seat too. If the SNP can get their grassroots campaigners out and about like they did during the referendum then they have a good chance of making a dent in a few sizable complacent Labour majorities. I think you mean Dundee West? Dundee East is already SNP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErsatzThistle Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) I just had a look at the 2010 results for Scotland. This is bloody shocking,The Lib Dems got 465,471 votes and won 11 seats.The SNP got 491,386 votes and won just 6 seats.A complete joke of a system we're up against here. Edited September 30, 2014 by ErsatzThistle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) A complete joke of a system we're up against here. It's all down to the geography of the vote. In certain areas the LibDems supplant Labour as the Unionist party of choice... Edited September 30, 2014 by Toepoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I just had a look at the 2010 results for Scotland. This is bloody shocking, The Lib Dems got 465,471 votes and won 11 seats. The SNP got 491,386 votes and won just 6 seats. A complete joke of a system we're up against here. FFS that is rank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Console yourselves with the fact that if anyone is going to lose big to the SNP next year it will be the LibDems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilser Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) FFS that is rank. The Tories did even worse out of it - 412,855 votes in Scotland and only 1 MP... Edited September 30, 2014 by neilser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanhibee Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Falkirk east and Linlithgow is my new constituency and Michael Connarty labour is the MP for the area. He won in 2010 with over 50% of the vote so ill count that one out that we should target although hopefully make gains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The Tories did even worse out of it - 412,855 votes in Scotland and only 1 MP... Not sure about that, at least the tories scored less votes and got less seats. So at least that is semi logical (although still pish poor for democracy). While the SNP scored more votes than the libdems and got half (near enough) as many seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frew Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Falkirk east and Linlithgow is my new constituency and Michael Connarty labour is the MP for the area. He won in 2010 with over 50% of the vote so ill count that one out that we should target although hopefully make gains. Show No Fear. I think it's the perfect target. Straight at the Scottish Labour's throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Not sure about that, at least the tories scored less votes and got less seats. So at least that is semi logical (although still pish poor for democracy). While the SNP scored more votes than the libdems and got half (near enough) as many seats. It took 81k SNP votes to elect one MP and over 400k Tory votes to do the same. It's a stupid electoral system but why can't you bring yourself to admit the Tories get shafted more than anyone else by it in Scotland? Some democrat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) It took 81k SNP votes to elect one MP and over 400k Tory votes to do the same. It's a stupid electoral system but why can't you bring yourself to admit the Tories get shafted more than anyone else by it in Scotland? Some democrat... Because that is how FPTP works. You have to achieve a critical mass otherwise you get shut out everywhere just about. The SNP have more mass i.e. scored more votes than the LIbdems so should have more seats even under FPTP. To have half is bull$hit. Edited September 30, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 It took 81k SNP votes to elect one MP and over 400k Tory votes to do the same. It's a stupid electoral system but why can't you bring yourself to admit the Tories get shafted more than anyone else by it in Scotland? Some democrat... Interesting way of looking at it, by comparison Labour got an MP for every 25,000 votes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Because that is how FPTP works. You have to achieve a critical mass otherwise you get shut out everywhere just about. The SNP have more mass i.e. scored more votes than the LIbdems so should have more seats even under FPTP. To have half is bull$hit. Well that clearly isn't how FPTP works, then - as your point demonstrates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dod Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well that clearly isn't how FPTP works, then - as your point demonstrates. No need to take religion into this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well that clearly isn't how FPTP works, then - as your point demonstrates. I never claimed FPTP was fair. I said I thought that the SNP getting more votes than the liberals but half the seats was worse than the tories getting one. The tory result is what you expect from FPTP the SNP suggests gerrymandering to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I never claimed FPTP was fair. I said I thought that the SNP getting more votes than the liberals but half the seats was worse than the tories getting one. The tory result is what you expect from FPTP the SNP suggests gerrymandering to me. Naw, no gerrymandering about it. As I alluded to earlier it's just that in the Highlands and Islands the Libs have been the traditional Unionist party and not Labour like in most of the Central Belt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) Naw, no gerrymandering about it. As I alluded to earlier it's just that in the Highlands and Islands the Libs have been the traditional Unionist party and not Labour like in most of the Central Belt... Makes sense. If the SNP votes was very dispersed versus the liberals who were geographically more concentrated that could explain it...but still it seems a tad fishy. edit: I suppose this is why the SNP suffer under FPTP - no historical geographical homeland, no concentration of voters in any one area, very dispersed throughout the wider population. Edited September 30, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Nothing fishy about it. It is to do with the geographical boundaries of constituencies, and the variation in size of them. Central belt - high population density ; Highlands, Borders- low pop density. Couple this with traditional voting patterns and you get this apparent disparity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.