(Following on from James’ post yesterday and the fine debate that followed…)

With Michael Moore’s perfectly fair announcement that, back in 2007, the SNP let lapse the option to vary tax powers, the Scottish Greens’ policy of ‘revenue raising’ through said powers has been well and truly torpedoed. However, has the SNP shot itself in the foot by hampering its own 2011 policy of ushering in a Local Income Tax?

There are not expected to be too many big issues in the coming election campaign which makes the debate around what to replace the Council Tax with (if anything) all the more important. Labour and the Conservatives appear to be in favour of a variant of the status quo, the Greens are championing Land Value Tax and the SNP and Liberal Democrats prefer a Local Income Tax.

However, in order for Scotland to implement a Local Income Tax, we would need HM Revenues & Customs to collect different levels of tax rates from Scots to English and Welsh workers, an exercise that would be remarkably similar to receiving the income from use of the tax varying powers.

How can the Scottish Government bring in a Local Income Tax if it no longer has the option “to fund the upkeep of the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR), which allows MSPs to increase or lower income tax by 3p in the pound”?

The SNP has made similar short-sighted mistakes like this on big policy issues before:

The Scottish Futures Trust was stopped in its tracks upon the SNP learning that it couldn’t issue bonds to raise the necessary funds, a bodycheck that the policy has still not fully recovered from, particularly given the news that the Scottish Government is to dabble in the implementation of the much-maligned PPP

The reduction of class sizes to 18 was deemed illegal because parents had a right to put their child in a classroom as long as the class size was still below 30 and an embarrassing change of approach and shift in emphasis soon followed

It can’t be easy running a country, particularly when you want to simultaneously lead a devolved nation competently while convincing your electorate that it should choose independence. You only get to make so many mistakes though and this may be the one that decides the next election. After all, if this wasn’t a mistake, then why has it been brushed under the carpet for 3 years?

Labour may be arguing for an increase in Council Tax but set against a Local Income Tax that can’t be implemented for another three years (a policy we’ve already waited four years for) Labour’s offering might end up being accepted as the least worst option. Or, even better, Land Value Tax may come through the middle and be seen as an idea whose time has come.

Bottom line – I just can’t see how the SNP can campaign for varying our tax rates via LIT when it opens the party up to such easy, and deserving, criticism.

A strong headline and one that can fast-track a blogger into embarrassing disrepute but I’ve checked, double-checked and triple-checked. (And, not only that, but I was informed that the super-reliable Will Paterson came to the same conclusion a full two months ago. Will’s discovery was entirely unbeknownst to me over this weekend as I familiarised myself with the Scottish Parliament boundary changes, but I’ve written this post now so I might aswell publish it too)

The result of a report conducted by David Denver of the University of Lancaster (as found on the BBC) had the notional result of the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections (per the new boundaries) as follows (difference to actual result in brackets):

SNP – 46 (-1)
Labour – 44 (-2)
Conservatives – 20 (+3)
Liberal Democrats – 17 (+1)
Greens – 1 (-1)
Margo – 1 (-)

So, the Conservatives are seemingly the big winners from the boundary changes and Labour are the biggest losers. The SNP hasn’t done so badly either, doubling its majority despite losing a seat.

These figures have been widely quoted by politicians and activists alike. The Herald ran the news with the headline “Boundary changes may help Tories at Holyrood” and the BBC’s Brian Taylor went into a lot of detail over what the report may mean for 2011, one of the main talking points being the increased Tory representation and “a slightly improved net lead for the SNP over Labour”.

However, there is an error in the workings for the allocation of the 7 South MSPs that overstates the Conservatives by 1 seat, understates Labour by 1 seat and results in a notional SNP majority of 1 MSP, the same majority as the ‘actual’ 2007 result.

The South of Scotland Regional MSP allocation per this analysis is as follows:

SNP – 3 regional seats
Lib Dems – 2 regional seats
Conservatives – 1 regional seat
Labour – 1 regional seat

I am not trying to show anyone up with the below but I do want to recalculate the above in order to clarify what the true notional result is

The South region’s First Past the Post seats, with ‘notional’ winners, are as follows:

Ayr – Conservative
Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley – Labour
Clydesdale – Labour
Dumfriesshire – Conservative
East Lothian – Labour
Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire – Conservative
Galloway and West Dumfries – Conservative
Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley – SNP
Midlothian South, Tweedale and Lauderdale – SNP

Conservatives – 4
Labour – 3
SNP – 2

The split of notional 2007 regional votes, as per the report on the BBC, is as follows:

Labour – 81,326
SNP – 80,668
Conservative – 62,972
Lib Dem – 28,001
Greens – 9,494
‘Other’ – 20,371 (breakdown is irrelevant as neither the BBC report nor my recalculation gives these Others a seat – these votes will therefore be disregarded from now on)

Applying the d’Hondt formula in order to allocate the 7 South Regional MSPs gives the result as per below (see Wikipedia page to understand the slightly complicated allocation method):

1st Regional MSP – Lib Dems (28,001 = 28,001/1)
2nd Regional MSP – SNP (26,889 = 81,326/3)
3rd Regional MSP – Labour (20,332 = 81,326/4)
4th Regional MSP – SNP (20,167 = 81,326/4)
5th Regional MSP – Labour (16,265 = 81,326/5)
6th Regional MSP – SNP (16,134 = 80,668/5)
7th Regional MSP – Lib Dems (14,001 = 28,001/4)

The Conservatives won 4 FPTP seats so their regional statistic of 12,594 (= 62,972/5) was too low to win a regional seat. However, the report on the notional numbers nonetheless gives the Conservatives a regional seat at the expense of Labour.

As I said earlier, I’m not looking to show anyone up with the above but given how often claims and counter-claims will be thrown around between the various parties over the coming election campaign, it is best to start with the truth.

That truth seems to be that that boundary changes give the SNP a notional majority of one seat over Labour, not the two that most believe from September’s headline and has been used in the comments section of this blog. Furthermore, the Conservatives only pick up an extra two seats, a significant increase in its own right, but not the more eye-catching three seats increase that many currently believe.

So, as I admitted at the top, Will got there first, but I’m sure he would agree that there is no harm in reminding those that are interested where it is we are starting from, and what election claims are and are not valid, as the 2011 Holyrood campaign approaches.

UPDATE – Note also that these notional results has the SNP to win the new constituency of Almond Valley by only 4 votes, their only notional victory in all of Lothian.

Were this seat to be won by Labour, and all other results remain equal, the SNP would not win an extra seat in the list so it would be a genuine loss of an MSP from SNP to Labour meaning it would be Iain Gray who would head up the largest party.

The SNP won the 2007 ‘actual’ election by 46 votes thanks to Kenneth Gibson’s slender victory in Cunninghame North and they win the 2007 ‘notional’ election by an even more slender 4 votes.

(Note that the Cunninghame North majority in the notional analysis is 40 votes)

The region of Glasgow has always been a fairly settled land in terms of who would be returned at Holyrood elections.

In 1999, Labour won all 10 FPTP seats while the SNP took 4 regional, with 1 apiece for Lib Dems, Tories and SSP
In 2003, the only change was an extra SSP and Green at the expense of the SNP
In 2007, the only change from 2003 was the SNP taking Glasgow Govan and retaking 4 regional seats, at the expense of the Socialists

However, the announcement that George Galloway will be standing this year can make what is becoming a crowded field increasingly difficult to predict the winners from.

There are two schools of thought on Gorgeous George – one is that he is a busted flush and the other is that he is a formidable talent that is yet to be fully utilised. I will take a rather wimpy position and say that he is both.

The man’s oratory skills are electrifying, one need only look at the punishment he levelled out in the US to believe that. However, with no party machine behind him, George will always have to scrap and scrape his way to election victory and with the 2011 election very much an SNP vs Labour head-to-head, he will struggle to even get noticed, let alone elected. The man’s days in Parliament may well be behind him. The key factor as to whether George will make it into Holyrood is whether Glasgow voters blindly go with a wasted Labour-Labour vote or instead are savvy enough to opt for Labour-George Galloway on their ballot slips.

Not that it is only George who will be feeling the pressure.

The Lib Dems don’t have to slip by too much to lose their perennial single seat here, the dear green place of Glasgow may soon find itself without a Green MSP if it’s not careful and Tory blue is also at risk of falling by the wayside if its old vote doesn’t hold firm. Their fate will largely be dictated by the strength of the Socialist vote in Scotland’s second city and to what extent Glaswegians back the SNP to stop Iain gray becoming First Minister.

The Socialists should hope for a strong showing in light of a Conservative Government, unpopular cuts and Labour voters finally working out that a second vote for Labour is a wasted one. It is interesting to note that Labour took a massive 42.6% of the regional vote in 2007 with no MSPs to show for it).

However, there are now three options on the ballot for that far-left choice – Solidarity, Scottish Socialist Party and George Galloway. It looks entirely possible that the far-left have still not learned the lessons of the past and are fragmenting their precious vote share, shooting themselves in the collective foot. What an irony it would be if a splintered socialist vote allowed a Conservative to nab the 7th regional spot.

Exacerbating this problem for the far-left is that Tommy Sheridan’s well-publicised (alleged) bed-hopping exploits will probably ensure that he doesn’t come as close to Patrick Harvie as he managed in 2007, assuming Tommy’s is the top name on the Solidarity list. It seems, regrettably, that the firebrand politician now has a great future behind him.

So, prediction time again, and on the assumption of Labour winning 8 FPTP seats and the SNP winning 1, I predict the breakdown of number of votes/regional seats to go like this:

Number of regional votes – Party – 2011 (2007)
Labour 70,000 (78,838)
SNP 46,000 (55,832)
Lib Dems 12,000 (14,767)
Conservatives 14,000 (13,781)
Greens 13,000 (10,759)
SSP 4,000 (2,579)
Solidarity 10,000 (8,574)
George Galloway 4,000 (-)

1 – SNP (Humza Yousaf)
2 – SNP (Bob Doris)
3 – Conservatives (?)
4 – Green (Patrick Harvie)
5 – Lib Dem (Katy Gordon)
6 – SNP (Sandra White)
7 – Solidarity/SSP (Tommy Sheridan?)

8 – SNP

Of course, one more SNP seat at the expense of the Socialists (a vote share that even I believe I may be overegging) would mean the prediction effectively becomes the same result as in 2007 which, to be fair, wouldn’t be all that surprising.

To get ahead in modern-day elections it seems that one must come from behind.

I am too wet behind the ears to know when and where this phenomena originated but I would start with Bill Clinton, the ‘Comeback Kid’. Seemingly down and out in New Hampshire in 1992, Clinton turned it around with calculated risks and used that momentum-gathering moniker to great effect from then on in. The same strategy has been used by Barack Obama against Hillary, Ed Miliband in the Labour leadership contest and Gordon Brown (well, Peter Mandelson) in the recent UK elections, with mixed degree of success.

As Scotland’s political parties shape up for May 2011, there appears to be a similar jostling for the coveted perceived second place going on. While Lib Dems, Tories and Greens quite understandably talk themselves up, there is a certain talking down going on from Labour.

This thought emanated from Iain Gray’s talk of an ‘elite’ (which he seemingly wants no part of) and refrain of being a humble teacher and it crystallised upon reading John Park MSP’s guest post over at A Burdz Eye View, seemingly a follow up from Labour’s election and campaigns co-ordinator on themes from Iain Gray’s leader’s speech at the Scottish Conference. John makes an imaginative comparison between Labour’s coming election campaign and the Spartan battles that were fought against preposterous odds by an outnumbered few. This is the same story of the recent film ‘300’ but don’t take that thought much further as surely noone wants to imagine the Shadow Front Bench in tight leather pants.

Any objective assessment of the May campaign would at least have the SNP and Labour on an equal footing, many would say that a press favourable to Labour, often slavishly fawning in its analysis, a UK-wide party machine that is used to winning and an electorate pre-disposed to voting Labour does not equate to facing ‘numerous arrows that blocked out the sun’, as the Persians did.

I should say that I may have misunderstood the metaphor, (though I don’t believe I have). Labour’s ‘fighting in the shade’ line may relate merely to knocking doors in the evening darkness over the coming Winter months, imagery that suggests a confidence and optimism for the battle ahead, but at odds with the ‘fighting against the odds’ overtures.

The question is, if Labour is adopting a strategy similar to SNP’s underdog ‘Rage against the Machine’ theme from earlier this year, then is it correct to do so?

Although I can understand the fuzzy satisfaction gained from supporting the little guy, I prefer to save that for sporting events or Hollywood moves. I certainly do not understand a politician wilfully painting oneself as that little guy before the eyes of the nation, particularly when your tagline is ‘Scotland deserves better’. We are, theoretically at least, voting for the best of the best into the First Minister role here and the person for the job should be adamant that they were right before, they are right now and will be right until kingdom come.

I personally am impatiently waiting to be inspired, waiting to be swept off my feet by a leader or party that is head and shoulders above the rest, that can deliver a Scottish confidence and can-do attitude, either on the crest of a devolved Scotland wave or surfing an independence alternative. I do not particularly want someone who shuns the elite, just wants to be one of the guys (or girls) and thinks they are on the outside looking in when, in reality, they are already a significant part of the establishment.

This surge in insurgent campaigns coupled with delusions of modesty seem to involve a mentality of taking one step backwards in order to take one giant leap into office, trading on an inferiority complex amongst the electorate where some prefer the plucky outsider to the current establishment, all other criteria being equal.

It shouldn’t be good enough. Confidence and personality should fill the First Minister’s office and it is perhaps ironic that the incumbent who holds both in overflowing abundance is being challenged by a man who, purposefully or otherwise, appears to have neither.