We now have a full slate of Scottish regions accounted for through our Region Watch series. Â You can see each of the individual posts by clicking on the links below:
Highlands & Islands
North East Scotland
Lothians
Mid-Scotland & Fife
West Scotland
Central Scotland
South Scotland
Glasgow
The astute among you will probably have taken note of our predictions in each region and know the overall scores on the doors. Â To pull it all together, the regional results have been collated in the image below:
Which makes the total seats:
Also, information I had noted throughout on the split of candidates between men and women, and between new and returning MSPs. Â With our analysis, I make it that we’re currently projecting 46 female MSPs (35%) which is a marginal increase on the previous session. Â We’d also see 34 new faces in Holyrood (26%) which, given we had 20 MSPs standing down, shouldn’t be a big shock – but it will be interesting to see how having a quarter of all MSPs feeling their way into the job will play out.
Anyway – back to the baseline numbers.  From the figures we’ve projected (and please treat this as you would any opinion poll, subject to the usual caveats, questioning of methodology, scepticism of the outcomes etc) we’d have Labour up 4 seats, the SNP down 1, the Conservatives up 1, the Lib Dems down 5, the Greens up 1 and Margo returning, so no change on the Independent figure.  Which, on the face of it is minimal change from 2007 – Labour winning back their position as Scotland’s largest party and a marked decline in the Lib Dem vote having an impact on their outcome in seats.  Note also that the Lib Dem representation in West and South is limited to 1 list seat, and they are wiped out in both Central and Glasgow on these figures – the first time in the devolution period that one of the “big four” would fail to return at least 1 MSP in each of the 8 electoral regions.
For outcomes, we’d likely be looking at minority government, since there would only be potential for two winning coalitions: Lab-SNP (96) and Lab-Con (68). Â SNP-Con, totalling 64, might be workable given we need a Presiding Officer from somewhere, but it would be precarious. Â And unless either the Conservatives (more likely, though I wouldn’t say odds on) or the Lib Dems voted for Alex Salmond in the First Ministerial vote, that minority government would be Labour run… though how long it would last is anybody’s guess. Â Mine is that Labour wouldn’t get the same kind of dispensation from their opposition as the SNP got to run the last government since at Westminster they are overtly hostile to the two governing parties there. (Jeff addition:- One point to make here is that Labour seats exceed SNP + Greens together which could prove crucial as the post-election wrangling gets underway, though if I’d given that 7th Glasgow seat to the SNP, an SNP/Green coalition would be ahead by 1 seat, assuming (amongst other things) that Lib Dems and Tories would abstain).
In the coming weeks, we’ll try to sharpen up our analysis, look for the (massive!) holes in our local knowledge, perhaps change around a few seats and see how close we get to the final outcome. Â In the meantime, knock yourselves out with working out who will form the next government!
#1 by Douglas McLellan on April 8, 2011 - 4:11 pm
I wonder what James thinks of these figures. On twitter I said that the Lib Dems would get at least twice the number of Green MSPs and he expressed doubt.
I would like to see what local knowledge throws up in Glasgow.
Anyway, that is a fantastic effort by Jeff & Malc and both should be applauded.
#2 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 4:29 pm
Thanks Douglas. It was quite an undertaking – glad its done (for now!).
#3 by Aidan Skinner on April 8, 2011 - 4:14 pm
I have to admit, I’m concerned about any minority government – given the lack of ability for the SNP to get their programme through with the tacit support of the Tories trying to get anything done in a more hostile parliament seems ill advised.
Lab-Con is obviously a non starter, but Lab-SNP would work well on a policy basis. There’d most likely need to be a referendum on Independence but if us unionists can’t make the case we can’t make the case (I think we could though). The biggest problem would be the activists. I just can’t see them wearing it. Which is a shame, because with a majority of roughly the size of all the other parties put together anything would be possible.
#4 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 4:29 pm
I think minority government is a better fit than we’ve given it credit for. Of course the party in government isn’t going to get their whole manifesto passed, but then they shouldn’t be able to, since they don’t have a majority – that’s kind of the point. They should have to compromise, to find a constructive opposition to work with them. The Tories should be applauded for the type of role they played in the last session – they wrung concessions out of the SNP administration on a quid pro quo basis: give us x and we’ll vote for y. Labour were particularly bad at opposition for opposition’s sake and subsequently got very little out of the session.
Lab-SNP would, as you say, work on a policy basis – mainly since Labour have looked at the populist things the SNP have promised and said “we’ll do that too”. But read Iain MacWhirter’s latest piece for why it’ll never happen. I personally think that it would be bad for politics in Scotland – but then I think its pretty bad that politics in Scotland is dominated by 2 parties who are so similar to each other anyway. It is minority government for me… and I suspect if its Labour, it won’t last the four-year term. But I’m a doom-and-gloom merchant!
#5 by Jeff on April 8, 2011 - 4:54 pm
I have to side with Aidan on this one. I fear minority Government is starting to carry a risk of holding Scotland back and the continuation of parties hunkering down in their corners has been a bad scene for the past couple of years. Minimum pricing is a classic example, what’s the point of a Parliament if it can’t advance on issues like this because of party differences? I just fear that, if Labour win, there may be instances of retribution where SNP doesn’t back x,y or z as a form of ‘revenge’.
Hopefully not but two/three parties sorting out their differences behind closed doors (while staying true to their manifestos!) and pulling together a real radical platform for change over the next few years has to be Plan A surely. We need to unlock and unleash the power that Parliament does possess, right here and now. Salmond thought coalition was best back in 2007. Has so much really changed since then to change that view?
#6 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 5:10 pm
All I’m saying is that minority government actually worked as well as it was supposed to. On the numbers we’ve worked out, do any of the potential coalitions look likely?
And on minimum pricing… I don’t really get the point you are making. That’s how politics works. Even if the SNP had been in coalition with any of the other parties, none of them (bar the Greens) backed it, so it wouldn’t have been in any coalition deal anyway, would it?
I do agree to an extent that minority government could hold Scotland back… but really – what’s the alternative? A made-up coalition of parties with no real policy overlap? How’s that working in London? That’s a flippant response I know, but I really don’t get the issue with minority government. If a government can survive and work with others on issue-by-issue basis, what’s wrong with that?
#7 by Douglas McLellan on April 8, 2011 - 5:26 pm
I agree that minority government worked for a few years at least but the SNP did run out of steam I felt. The Minimum Pricing thing from Jeff I think refers to the fact that Labour would have probably voted for the measure had it not been an SNP Government. The Tories and possibly even the Lib Dems might have also supported it had it been coming from a more palatable source.
Cheap shot on the Coalition policies! I think that there is a difference between real policy similarities (which then show in the fact that there is little difference between the parties manifestos) as opposed to route taken to the policy outcomes. The Coalition, I think, exemplifies, the latter. As can be seen here: What the Hell have the Lib Dems done?
I think that a Labour minority government is possible but I would also ask what is wrong with the idea of a three party coalition or at least a formal confidence and supply deal with SNP/Con/Lib? I know that the Conservative and the Lib Dems are toxic but its worth talking about surely (admittedly, the Lib Dems would have to pull their heads out their backsides regarding an independence referendum)?
#8 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 5:30 pm
I’d be surprised if the latter looked likely for several reasons. I know the Welsh Lib Dems & Tories almost struck a deal with Plaid after the Welsh Assembly election in 2007 (which was vetoed by the Lib Dem membership) but I think a) we have much more reticence about working with the Tories in Scotland and b) with the changed situation regarding governing at Westminster, how could the SNP go into government with them here and moan about their cuts at UK level? For me, that’s not feasible at all.
I also agree they ran out of steam. And perhaps that’s right on minimum pricing – but that’s no fault of the government. Indeed, I’ve already commented on Labour’s lack of constructiveness in opposition, something which I hope the SNP learn from if indeed they become the largest opposition party.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on April 8, 2011 - 5:50 pm
I really do need to get a grip on how to use html. That looks a mess. Sorry.
Anyway, there couldn’t be a coalition for the reasons you suggest. But confidence and supply deal could be palatable for all parties. A few policies/degree of influence in exchange for abuse about the cuts seems an ok deal. The SNP have not been affected by dealing with the Tories earlier this year so why now? I think there is a difference, from a public perception point of view, in working formally with another party on topics of mutual interest and giving out ministerial positions.
#10 by cynicalHighlander on April 8, 2011 - 6:40 pm
HOW TO MAKE A LINK
From other thread Water in Scotland
We extract from mouths of Dee and Spey also aquifer extraction proposed for new housing in Aviemore.
#11 by Aidan Skinner on April 8, 2011 - 5:38 pm
There’s nothing wrong with a minority government surviving and working with others on an issue-by-issue basis. I just don’t believe it’d happen, particularly if it was a Labour minority government. The rampant contrainism hasn’t exactly left a stock of good will for us to work with other parties in that situation.
Minimum pricing is a great example, Labour basically only opposed it because the SNP were in favour. It’s exactly the sort of thing that, under other circumstances, we’d have supported. Except we decided we’d be dicks about it.
If the SNP formed a government the Tories would shift them rightwards, just as they have for the last few years.
None of the potential coalitions look likely on the numbers (btw, really enjoyed this series, good work!), no. I agree minority government of one flavour or another is the likely outcome. I’m just pretty pessimistic about what that’d be able to achieve.
#12 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 5:53 pm
Fair enough Aidan, and good on you for holding your hands up and saying Labour were wrong on it. And I now see where Jeff was going with the point. *looks embarrassed*
I agree with your assessment that Labour are unlikely to survive as a minority government, which is why, even if they are the largest party, I don’t see them being in power for very long – if at all. In the long run, I expect a minority SNP government to be the outcome – mainly because it suits the Tories better to do business with them. I’m not sure if Annabel would be able to bring the party to vote for Salmond for FM, but the SNP in power would certainly be more profitable for them.
#13 by Aidan Skinner on April 8, 2011 - 11:42 pm
I think it’d survive, I just don’t think it’d achieve a whole lot. There’s enough nous to get a budget through. We’re not America, the government wouldn’t shut down.
One of the things the SNP has been very good at is legitimising the concept of minority government as having a moral authority to rule, if not the numbers in parliament. I’m not entirely sure how people would feel about “the government” being brought down by “parliamentary procedure”. Of course, the SNP had relatively benign budgetary conditions to play with, which is no longer the case.
I’m not sure the Tory MSPs would vote for Salmond, but I’m also not sure that the SNP would want them too – an explicit acknowledged pact would be potentially toxic the “SNP passing on Tory cuts” line would do real damage.
#14 by CassiusClaymore on April 8, 2011 - 5:16 pm
The SNP get fewer seats than before…..really?
CC
#15 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 5:23 pm
Its 1 fewer. And like Jeff says, if he had gone the other way with his projected 7th Glasgow seat (Labour by 17 votes!) they would have stayed the same. But you’ve seen our numbers for the past few weeks. If you think we’re wrong, which seats are the SNP winning that we have them not winning?
#16 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Also – as the weeks go on, we’ll revise some of the predictions based on how the opinion polls close up. This is a snapshot over the last 3 or 4 weeks, and we’ll fully admit that polls have changed over that period. But we have to start somewhere!
#17 by Douglas McLellan on April 8, 2011 - 6:06 pm
Yes. A lot of the Lib Dem votes are going to Labour. At least thats the doorstep message I am getting.
#18 by Ali Miller on April 8, 2011 - 5:17 pm
Firstly, a big thankyou to Jeff and Malc for this excellent series, which has given me access to a lot of information and opinions. I am following this election very closely, and I have to say that Better Nation is an essential daily visit!
I think a potentially influential factor is that there is not the same fear-factor regarding the SNP this time. At the last election, the was a massive campaign by Labour and the Media to portray the election of a SNP administration as some sort of armeggedon. However, the SNP has now served 4 years of stable and competent government. It is now they who look like the safe bet to see Scotland through hard times, I would argue.
Labour seem to be struggling for momentum at the moment, I think it must be hard to re-envigorate things when they were in such a dominant position until very recently. Their London re-enforcments wont be able to make as much of an impact as last time either, with many big-hitters like Gordon Brown out of power. However, any bad news story for the SNP could change the situation as the Media is likely to be all over it like a rash, bad news stories hit them much harder than any of the other Parties. LIT could be a bit of a disaster.
There is a lot of very tight marginals out there, this looks to be a very intense battle!
#19 by danny1995 on April 8, 2011 - 5:58 pm
As I mentioned on the other thread, I feel this entire election comes down to whether SNP + Tory can get to 65.
#20 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Maybe. But even then, I don’t think we’re looking at a coalition.
#21 by An Duine Gruamach on April 8, 2011 - 6:06 pm
Another possible influence is the Sun. It now looks as if it may well come out for the Nationalists, which could make things interesting. I wonder if the number of people who were swung by the noose front cover (sorry, couldn’t resist) in 2007 is greater or less than the hypothetical 17 Glaswegians…
#22 by John Ruddy on April 9, 2011 - 9:16 am
I’m sure they’ll convince as many people to vote SNP as they did last May in encouraging people to vote Tory in Scotland 🙂
#23 by Doug Daniel on April 8, 2011 - 6:27 pm
Am I the only one to notice that the SNP are the only party – on these predictions at least – to have an equal number of constituency and regional list seats? I can’t help feeling this says something about how well our AMS system is or isn’t at returning the “correct” number of MSPs for each party. Would I be right in thinking that a bias towards constituency seats (i.e. Labour and Lib Dems) implies the party in question is winning more than their fair share of constituencies, and a bias the other way (Tories and Greens) implies the party in question means they aren’t getting as many constituencies as they perhaps deserve?
That’s perhaps fairly obvious, but I just wanted to point it out, because I like balanced numbers.
#24 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Yes and no. The “equality” of constituency and list seats isn’t the design of AMS. What its supposed to do is make more even the ratio between % of votes and % of seats. But in this scenario, yes. The SNP’s 23 seats is 31% of the constituency seats (roughly what they should get) while Labour’s 37 is 50% of the 73 seats… which yes, is an over-representation on that element. The list element balances that out a bit.
But important to point out that just because the SNP (on these numbers) have a “balanced” representation between constituency and list MSPs doesn’t mean it has worked out right though.
#25 by Chris on April 8, 2011 - 6:50 pm
Well done guys.
Of course I think Labour will do better than this with some of the 2007 exceptionally bad losses (like Kilmarnock, Stirling and Glenrothes) being more likely to go to Labour, with balancing list seat compensation for the SNP.
For Labour going for a minority administrations atr least gets them in charge of all the ministries, which is okay if you only want to administer well and regard parliament as a necessary evil. It would seem unambitious.
On these figures a traffic light coalition would work. The Scottish Lib Dems could be desperate to distance themselves from the UK coalition meltdown and what better way to do it than to go into a lovey-dovey coalition with Greens and Labour? There wouldn’t be many issues where SNP, Tory and Margo would come together to outvote them: you’d need to find a tory or SNP timeserver to become speaker of course or even Margo herself – she’d lap it up.
#26 by mav on April 9, 2011 - 9:00 am
well, first up, well done to malc and jeff.
On the presiding officer, i suspect margo will be ruled out on health grounds, her mind is still sharp, but her mobility isn’t there. Labour will come under huge pressure to take their turn – all other parties have done so. I’m sure they’ll try to wriggle out, but they shouldn’t be allowed to.
#27 by Allan on April 8, 2011 - 8:13 pm
Well done.
I suspect that this is a snapshot though. I though that Labour would have a 10 seat advantage over The SNP at the start of the year. This has gone down and I wonder what the poor start to the campaign and the events in Glasgow Central yesterday will do to Labour’s standing. I wonder how many people saw yesterdays events and thought “not First Minister material”.
#28 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 8:25 pm
A lot of people thought that anyway, if opinion polls were anything to go by, and were still planning to vote for Labour… so who knows?!
You are probably right though – and we’ll refine it up to election day. Maybe we’ll get close – or maybe we’ll be miles off.
#29 by Shuna on April 8, 2011 - 8:51 pm
I too have enjoyed reading all the conjutations and calculations. Well done and thank you!
It will be interesting to see what happens in the tight ones. Kilmarnock could be interesting. Mr Salmond and his ‘I’ll stop Diageo leaving Kilmarnock’ march was so effective – not! – oops Mr Salmond the new bottling hall at Leven is looking all set to open this summer and Kilmarnock has not been saved. I wonder how that will play on the door steps?
Alistair Campbell has written an interesting blog today on the effect of the Sun backing the SNP might have and the real reason behind it. http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/
#30 by Ewan Dow on April 8, 2011 - 9:27 pm
Sterling work as ever gents, though I have one wee observation.
Am I correct in thinking that there were different national opinion poll figures used when doing some of the regions particularly at the start eg looking at the SNP/Lab figures I noticed that the H&I and NE reviews had Lab @ 36% and SNP @ 32%, Lothians had Lab @ 37% and SNP @34% and the rest used (I think) the 35% each STV poll.
If this is the case would using the STV poll for all the regions make any difference? I suspect not but one of my old stats tutorss would be upset if I didn’t query variances in base statistics!
Cheers,
Ewan
#31 by Malc on April 8, 2011 - 10:17 pm
Yeah Ewan, we really couldn’t win with this. We were going to use the same figures for all of them, but then folk moaned that the polls we were using weren’t up to date! So the first four are based on the 36 & 32, the latter four on 35 & 35. At least I thought they were, but I see you are right about the Lothians one being different as well.
So – yes. The baseline figures change. We’ll probably play it with up to date figures as well nearer the election, so we’ll probably have more of these posts later (unless you are all bored)…
#32 by Jeff on April 8, 2011 - 10:22 pm
Hi Ewan, you are correct but it was a purposeful move on Malc and I’s part and I don’t think takes anything away from the overall results. Of course the actual results will have only one fixed overall total but we don’t know what that total is so the earlier polls were the best bet when we were doing the early regions and the STV poll was the best bet more recently. Even then, the margin of error allows us to overlay a certain subjectivity to proceedings.
So I think you’re getting in a muddle with “variances in base statistics”. We’ve pulled together a rigorous, perfectly plausible projection with a primary purpose of inviting others to come along and shout “Mince! They won’t win Auchtermuchty South and those lot will win 5 seats in that region” etc. And, pleasingly, that has (largely) happened.
Future, less detailed seat predictions will be based on single poll results but will be no more robust for it.
#33 by The Burd on April 8, 2011 - 10:27 pm
Eek! Two posts behind. And I have managed to mislay a Highlands seat. See that is what happens when you let a burd near stats….
#34 by Jeff on April 8, 2011 - 11:31 pm
Yep, apologies, in honour of the Commonwealth Games we went for a sprint finish…!
#35 by Colin on April 8, 2011 - 11:56 pm
I liked each individual analysis, but now that it has come together as a whole I find two things odd:
1. How can the SNP lose a seat on what appears to be an increase of around 2% in their vote on 2007.
2. That Labour seem to have taken the biggest advantage from the Liberal Democrat collapse, yet most of their seats seem to have SNP challengers, particularly in the North.
#36 by Malc on April 9, 2011 - 10:11 am
Colin,
1) Quite easily. Its really down to the electoral system. If Labour win back constituency seats – and manage to hold onto list seats in places where they don’t win many constituencies (H&I and NE in particular) – then they will increase their seats and that will have a knock on effect on how many the SNP win.
2) Again, this is down to the system. On our projections, the Lib Dems would lose a couple of constituencies to the SNP, but the SNP would also (I think we have projected anyway) lose three or four constituency seats to Labour, while the Lib Dems would lose list seats and it would be Labour that would pick them up there. So while the NET outcome looks like Labour winning seats from the Lib Dems, there are a few steps in between.
#37 by John Ruddy on April 9, 2011 - 4:53 pm
This time round, Scottish Labour have a list strategy, so I would assume a better vote on the list than in previous elections where List candidate were basically forgotten.
#38 by Brian Nicholson on April 9, 2011 - 12:59 am
I appreciate this blog and your analyis conclusions. However, the absence of actual numbers to support the analysis and conclusions makes it very hard for the reader.
I am sure you have the numbers so I would suggest that you actually print them to allow us all to review at leisure.
One particular number that needs clarification is your determination of where the declining Liberal Democrat vote will migrate. You seem to indicate that the majority will move to Labour but I see no polling that confirms that scenario. Could you please provide further information?
Also as you have indicated that migrating vote tends to move towards incumbents, could you elaborate on what percentage of migration is towards incumbents and not impacted by other factors?
thank you very much for this blog and your analysis
#39 by John Ruddy on April 9, 2011 - 9:19 am
Brian,
I think what Jeff and Malc have done is very impressive – they’ve done detailed blog posts on every region (check the links at the top of the post). Theres plenty of detail in there for all of us to disagree with something!
#40 by Malc on April 9, 2011 - 10:00 am
Thanks John.
Brian, I don’t know how Jeff feels about it, but think – as John points out – we’ve put plenty of info out there. I’m reluctant to put the numbers out there for several reasons. Firstly, I’m being a bit precious about it – it was a lot of work, and we undertook it in our spare time. Secondly, we’ve given enough of our methodology that if people are interested in working it out for themselves, they can. And people have – enough to point out where we made some errors.
On your specific points: We have said in comments that we THINK Lib Dem votes are likely to go to Labour, but that’s a hunch and there’s no polling on that – so it doesn’t inform our numbers. If anything, that might have more of an effect than we have credited it with. Similar situation with your other point – on incumbents. We have no polling on that, so it hasn’t really informed the numbers much. Just hunches.
We’re not trying to pretend this is totally scientific – but we will try to refine some of the methodology so we get a more accurate picture closer to election day.
#41 by Brian Nicholson on April 9, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Thank you for the responses. Please do not feel that my questions are negative about the work you are doing. I am merely seeking to better understand how you reached your conclusions.
A number of the polls have shown that the LibDem vote is not going primarliy to Labour and the recent Wick by-election for Highland Council seemed to indicate a move to the SNP more than Labour.
Depending on what perecentage moves to one party or another, the actual impacts could vary tremendously.
#42 by Malc on April 9, 2011 - 7:39 pm
We did talk about the methodology in detail in the first few posts, so its not like we’re just coming up with figures without saying how we got them.
But yes – how the Lib Dem vote falls could determine quite a lot of the election. But its all very well the SNP taking Lib Dem votes in the Highlands – there’s only a couple of seats for them to win there, and we DID have them winning both of them. The net outcome in H&I wasn’t a big SNP bonus though, since Labour got seats on the list. If Lib Dem voters in Central or South Scotland, or even Glasgow, swing to the SNP, that’d be bigger. But I’m not sure if I expect that to be the case.
Pingback: #sp11 Regions revisited – the totaliser « A Burdz Eye View
Pingback: On the representation of women at Holyrood « Better Nation