IN my years of producing election communications and leaflets I always considered it gross stupidity to mention any opposing party by name, by inference or their manifesto policies. Instead, it was better to push your own party’s policies and your intentions if elected.
So it is with a not inconsiderable amount of mirth that I have “looked at” the very numerous Tory party leaflets publicising the SNP, and then going on to ask everyone to vote Tory “on the peach (or list) ballot paper”! As my wife commented “the obvious advice from the Tories is not to waste your constituency vote on them as they only want your vote on the list ballot”.
READ MORE: POLL: What would be the Yes movement's best outcome on May 6?
Similarly from the Labour and LibDem leaders. It is a measure of their desperation and the depths to which they have been reduced. A good example of this was on the evening news, where Willie Rennie was asking for all parties opposed to the SNP to vote for him. He is obviously worried about the North East Fife seat!
This was followed by a Tory party political broadcast which featured arch hypocrite Ruth Davidson asking people to vote Tory to “unite the country” while she is busy preparing to abandon the country and climb the greasy pole at Westminster as a “baroness”! May she stay there.
Unfortunately the product of “Operation Arse” likely has plans to use her as a “spokesperson” for Scotland and we won’t be allowed to have seen the last of her.
Paul Gillon
Baintown, Leven
YESTERDAY in his letter titled “Trust, not arithmetic will lead many to stick with “both votes SNP”, Cliff Purves argues that “to ensure the best possible chance of an SNP majority in the next parliament it has to be SNP1&2”.
I don’t deny this point but he goes on to at least imply that in promoting the argument of using your second vote for an alternative party supporting independence, people like myself and many others are somehow manipulating or “spinning” arithmetic to suit our argument.
Let me ask you just one question, Cliff – just two numbers and no need for any calculation. When is it that 751,770 = 0 ? The answer from the 2016 list votes is when you compare the total number of second votes cast for the SNP in the six regions of Scotland (excepting Highlands and Islands and Scotland South) with the total number of SNP list MSPs elected in those six regions!
READ MORE: SNP and Greens set for historic election success, new poll suggests
Those two quoted numbers are easily checked and totally unspun. More than three-quarters of a million votes, more than any other party polled across the whole of Scotland, produced no MSPs and did not counteract any of the votes polled for the Unionist parties. Cliff argues they were not “wasted”. How would you describe them Cliff?
My main objection to Cliff’s letter is his assumption that the SNP are the only important part of the independence movement. His argument cares nothing about any other faction. This is the wrong approach, and will not lead us to achieving our goal. The main players are undoubtedly the SNP but the wider movement is also crucial and must be supported. Second votes cast in those six regions for alternative independence-supporting parties have the potential to decrease the number of Unionist candidates and increase the number and hence profile of independence-supporting parties. This can only help us in our quest for independence.
Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh
THERE is nothing wrong with the theory behind Alba taking advantage of the system to achieve a supermajority in favour of independence. With the SNP predicted to gain a comfortable overall majority, what could possibly go wrong?
Alba seems to have overlooked the fact that although there is no risk for Alba if the plan fails, there is a serious risk for the SNP if it falls short of opinion poll predictions; without list votes the total number of SNP MSPs would not be adjusted in proportion to its share of the list vote in each region and the seats anticipated by Alba would be shared among the Unionists.
Unfortunately as a consequence of Alba’s secretive creation it didn’t ask the SNP or canvass voters to assess how they felt about Alba’s plan before putting it into effect, launching the party on an unsuspecting public complete with candidates and basic policies.
Then reality kicked in, the SNP did not recommend Alba to its supporters, the Unionists reacted by actively promoting large-scale tactical voting and the Greens, Unionists and others stepped up their competition with Alba for the list vote.
With so many possible ways for the decisive list vote to be split, the outcome of tomorrow’s election is now entirely unpredictable and in the hands of the voters, each person acting in what each one of them sees is in the best interests of themselves, their families and the country.
Whatever happens, this will be remembered as the year that Alba brought Scottish politics to the boil in the Holyrood election.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
I WRITE in response to Ann Williamson’s reference to a letter of mine (Letters, April 28). What I had written was based on an exclusive by Kathleen Nutt on Alex Salmond.
Ann is correct, I have not read Alba’s 57-page manifesto, which is probably in common with most of the working people in my community of Castlemilk, but I am in no doubt as to what their majority voting intention will be, and it will not be Alba. The fact is I have not read any of the political manifestos (can’t remember the last time I did). I based my political conclusions on voting on their actions essentially, not their rhetoric.
READ MORE: Could those using ‘populist’ to insult Alex Salmond please elaborate?
Ann and I share the same basic aim – Scotland’s right to self-determination – and I respect her sincere assessment as regards Alba’s manifesto. A party that understands, appreciates or realises that they will not be the party of government have the luxury of knowing that they will not have to implement their manifesto contents or be held to account by the electorate for its failure.
Bobby Brennan
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here