The goat died in vain

If the matter were not so serious, there might be some amusement in watching the various forms of fantasy politics being played in below-the-line comments on the article in The National headlined How overlooked Scottish polling points the way to an SNP majority. People gazing at the jumble of percentages like an ancient priest examining the entrails of a goat and finding there whatever it is that they want to find. Even where someone correctly points out that an SNP majority is immaterial, they then go on to rattle off a list of minor, nominally pro-independence parties as if votes for them somehow aided Scotland’s cause.

There is, too, a curious overlap between commenters who can frequently be found railing against the dishonesty of the British media and those who shun the truth when it is staring them in the face. The truth is that all of it is immaterial. None of it benefits Scotland’s cause. It doesn’t matter how you shuffle those percentages around or how many ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ you manage to cram into one sentence; there is no win for Scotland’s cause in this election. Whatever the result, whatever the post-election parliamentary arithmetic, Scotland’s cause derives no benefit.

The election does not benefit Scotland’s cause for one very simple reason: none of the parties or politicians involved has seen fit to make it so it might benefit Scotland’s cause. All their talk around the constitutional issue throughout the campaign has had one purpose only: to maximise the rewards that individuals and candidates can squeeze out of the event. That’s it! No other considerations whatever!

The constitutional issue has been reduced to just another political football to be kicked around by players all looking to score for themselves and their ‘team’. Making one aspect of the outcome very easy to predict: we are in for another five wasted years to add to the eleven that went before. And that is the optimistic view!

The article by The National’s political editor, Xander Elliards, looks for clues about different tactical vote scenarios in data from a recent poll conducted by the Diffley Partnership. This being The National, the conclusion was always going to be positive for the SNP. That is to say, to the very limited extent that drawing any conclusion at all is possible. One thought that did occur to me while reading it was that if everybody voted tactically, it would be as if nobody did. I’m not sure if the numbers confirm this, but then, the numbers don’t really confirm anything. There are just too many conditional statements in there.

The one point of interest for me was the extent of the tactical voting indicated by the poll.

According to the Diffley poll, around one-quarter of Scots (23%) plan to use their regional list vote tactically. Broken down, 7% said they would aim to maximise the number of pro-independence MSPs, while 6% said they wanted to maximise the number of Unionist MSPs.

In what may prove critical, 10% said they would “support a party that reduces the chances of my least preferred party from winning”.

Nearly a quarter of voters using their regional vote tactically was surprising to me. Until I realised that the respondents were being asked about their tactical voting intentions in various hypothetical scenarios. It seems to me that, human nature being what it is, a perhaps significant number of respondents would be likely to give the answers which showed them in a good light as regards their grasp of all the tactical voting strategies being presented.

Maybe I’m misreading the figures. That would not be at all surprising. But if it is the case that 23% of voters will vote tactically in one of several ways, doesn’t that make the outcome even more unpredictable? And look at the bit about how “10% said they would “support a party that reduces the chances of my least preferred party from winning”. That should read “a party that is perceived to reduce the chances of my least preferred party winning”. My guess is that rather a lot of voters will get it wrong, adding yet another variable to the mix.

Polling results are, of course, the best information we have, and so for purposes of speculation they must be treated as if they are reasonably accurate predictions. They will certainly be used in this way by the various parties’ campaign managers as they look to tweak their message in the final month of the campaign. I wouldn’t want to be the campaign manager trying to form any conclusions from the analysis in question. Heads might explode!

And none of it matters. There is no configuration of goat’s guts that bodes well for Scotland’s cause. There are some which bode ill. For example, should the upshot of all this tactical vote-shuffling be that the SNP clears the high bar set by John Swinney, then he will almost certainly submit a formal request for a Section 30 order, which will almost certainly be refused. It is almost certain that Swinney has no fallback plan other than to get an early start on using independence as an electioneering device in the next Westminster election. All of which will almost certainly be deleterious to Scotland’s cause.

Bring me another goat!