This is a hypothetical situation… don’t worry about the numbers so much. We’ll know soon enough whether the predictions Jeff and I (and Kate, over at A Burdz Eye View) have been making will be on the money or nowhere near.  But I want to cast my eyes and our collective brains to possible outcomes.

It is now 6 May. The results are in. The campaign is (thankfully) over. We now have the following break-down of MSPs:

Labour (or SNP) – 52
SNP (or Labour) – 50
Conservatives – 16
Lib Dems – 7
Greens – 3
Independent – 1

For this analysis, it doesn’t really matter who wins the most seats, but we can run the potential outcomes with both Labour and the SNP as the largest party.

Suppose these numbers are accurate (give or take 2 or 3 seats, which I know could make all the difference, but bear with me). Also, considering that we’ll need a Presiding Officer from somewhere – likely from Labour, since we’ve had Lib Dem, Conservative and SNP MSPs fill the PO’s chair in the first three sessions, the numbers will need revised to account for that.

In this scenario, the only potential winning combination is between the winning or second place party and the third place party (52 + 16 = 68, 50 + 16 = 66). In reality, the third place party is the Conservatives, and formal coalition between them and either the SNP or Labour seems unlikely (verging on impossible). Indeed, any kind of Conservative agreement to sustain Labour in power (as a minority administration) seems unlikely. There is more likelihood that some kind of deal between the SNP and the Conservatives could be done – its unlikely to involve ministerial positions for the Conservatives, but could be a policy-for-power deal: maintaining the SNP in power and passing budgets for the pursuit of several Conservative policies (which we’ll find out more about after the manifesto is published).

But if that can’t happen, or if we’re in a situation whereby Labour win the most seats and the Conservatives feel that, tactical considerations aside, morally Labour have the first opportunity at being the government, what then? Two options, I suppose – Labour minority government (which, if they had the most seats, would be the logical way to go first) or SNP minority government, which has the potential to follow a failed Labour administration.

But here’s something to consider. The vote for First Minister. You only need 2 MSPs to nominate you for FM, and you can be in the contest.

In 2007, after a limited deal was worked out between the SNP and the Greens, well short of even “confidence and supply”, the Greens did not put forward a candidate for First Minister and cast their votes for Alex Salmond on both the first round (when there were four candidates) and in the run off between Salmond and Jack McConnell (incidentally – Margo abstained on both votes).

In 2003, however, there were SEVEN candidates for First Minsister:  Dennis Canavan (Ind), Robin Harper (Green), Margo MacDonald (Ind), Jack McConnell (Labour), David McLetchie (Conservative), Tommy Sheridan (SSP) and John Swinney (SNP), with Jack McConnell taking all Labour and Lib Dem MSP votes, totally 67 and being elected as FM.

I guess the point is this: how desperate will Labour or the SNP be to stop their rival taking office? Meaning – if neither can secure a formal coalition or agreement with any of the other parties to take them over the threshold, might either consider voting for another party to take office, to buy time? Specifically, if the Greens had 3 MSPs, or indeed Margo found an SNP MSP to nominate her, might either party consider voting for either Patrick Harvie or Margo MacDonald as First Minister?

It sounds far-fetched. In fact, it sounds downright loopy – a political party sacrificing itself and its own opportunity to put another party in office without an agreement in place. And, of course, many of you will think – this being a Green-leaning blog – that I’m “punting the party line” or making the Greens out to be in a more powerful position than they perhaps will be.  You’ll have to trust that isn’t what I’m up to.  Its just that, from some of the sheer loathing I’ve heard expressed from SNP and Labour activists in the early days of this campaign, I’m willing to believe that both parties would rather see any other party in power than their bitter rival, despite whatever policy and/or ideological positions they share.

Thus, if neither can make a formal agreement (either for full coalition or for support as a minority administration) with the Conservatives or the Greens, would they then vote for someone else as FM? This is where the numbers are important. If you are the larger party, there is no way you’d consider it.  But if you were the second party – and you have 50 MSP votes – you could direct them to vote for the Green candidate for FM which, with their 3 votes, would surpass the leading party’s 52.

In fact, this is perhaps more likely (if it is likely at all) to come from the SNP than Labour. Given the primacy of the constitutional issue (above all else) for them – to spin a Stephen Noon question around – would the SNP prefer a pro-union Labour party in government to a pro-independence Green First Minister?  If not, this is a course of action which might help them out in stopping a Labour First Minister after the election (if the numbers worked out).

No mistake – this is a desperation play.  And I doubt very much that any party would go for it.  But two things it has in its favour: it buys time beyond the 28-day period in which a First Minister has to be elected in order to conduct coalition discussions and it would stop a detested rival from taking power.  We can perhaps add to that a potential third advantage to those who would vote them in – the “temporary” First Minister would have all the responsibilities of governmental office, meaning that whoever put them there might be able to escape some of the political backlash for any unpopular governmental decisions made in the time period.

Unlikely – yes.  Something to consider?  It probably already has been…