The SNP only won 30 seats in Scotland in 2015

[Deleted]

Title says it all.

What would be the implications?

And which seats would they be?

[mondialito]

Jun 16, 2018 15:23:56 GMT @beesley said:

Title says it all.

Which 30 seats? If the gains are concentrated in the Central Belt, they won't suffer as many losses in 2017 as they did IRL.

[No Offence Alan]

Assuming the SNP don't win the seats with the smallest % majorities,
I make it SNP 30, Lab 15, Con 5, LD 9.

[Deleted]

I would've said such would be the swings that it would more likely be:

SNP 30, LD 5, Con 3, Lab 21.

[Deleted]

The Scottish Conservatives probably wouldn’t have been able to gain seats like East Renfrewshire in 2017 without the SNP to dislodge the Labour incumbents. Indeed, Labour might have remained as the second party.

By the way, what do you have as the third Conservative seat? Dumfries & Galloway or West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine?

I also reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Rose would’ve survived. John Thurso was very popular locally and did well to have a comparatively small swing against him in 2015.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2018 7:15:08 GMT Sandy said:

The Scottish Conservatives probably wouldn’t have been able to gain seats like East Renfrewshire in 2017 without the SNP to dislodge the Labour incumbents. Indeed, Labour might have remained as the second party.

By the way, what do you have as the third Conservative seat? Dumfries & Galloway or West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine?

I also reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Rose would’ve survived. John Thurso was very popular locally and did well to have a comparatively small swing against him in 2015.

I would agree with the latter point, I would've said Dumfries and Galloway but in actual fact their second place was probably due to the strength of the SNP. So maybe Labour would've won Dumfries and Galloway.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 18, 2018 7:15:08 GMT Sandy said:

I also reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Rose would’ve survived. John Thurso was very popular locally and did well to have a comparatively small swing against him in 2015.

Swing was an especially messy concept in Scotland in 2015 but the Lib Dems did as follows:

East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) - Voteshare -2.4% Swing 16.0%
Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) - -2.8% 14.3%
Gordon (no incumbent) - -3.3% 14.4%
Argyll & Bute (Alan Reid) - -3.7% 14.5%
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (John Thurso) - -6.3% 16.7%
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (Danny Alexander) - -9.4% 20.4%
North East Fife (no incumbent) - -13.0% 19.9%
Ross, Skye & Lochaber (Charles Kennedy) - -16.8% 24.9%
West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (Robert Smith) - -17.0% 21.5%
Orkney & Shetland (Alistair Carmichael) - -20.6% 23.9%
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (Michael Moore) - -26.7% 27.1%

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2018 9:45:30 GMT timrollpickering said:

Jun 18, 2018 7:15:08 GMT Sandy said:

I also reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Rose would’ve survived. John Thurso was very popular locally and did well to have a comparatively small swing against him in 2015.

Swing was an especially messy concept in Scotland in 2015 but the Lib Dems did as follows:

East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) - Voteshare -2.4% Swing 16.0%
Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) - -2.8% 14.3%
Gordon (no incumbent) - -3.3% 14.4%
Argyll & Bute (Alan Reid) - -3.7% 14.5%
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (John Thurso) - -6.3% 16.7%
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (Danny Alexander) - -9.4% 20.4%
North East Fife (no incumbent) - -13.0% 19.9%
Ross, Skye & Lochaber (Charles Kennedy) - -16.8% 24.9%
West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (Robert Smith) - -17.0% 21.5%
Orkney & Shetland (Alistair Carmichael) - -20.6% 23.9%
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (Michael Moore) - -26.7% 27.1%

I don't know if you would agree but I would argue that is more due to the behaviour of tactical/general unionist voters than anyone else. Whilst John Thurso was popular, so was Charles Kennedy who decreased by a large margin. Because there was less of a tactical path in Orkney and Ross, or because the more popular Conservatives took second place in West Aberdeenshire and Berwickshire, the swing from unionist parties appears more pronounced. In East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Gordon, and Argyll there was a strong unionist tactical path, mostly from Labour but also the Conservatives. So the swing was too messy, which is why the predictions that Ross and Skye would be the most likely SNP-held seat to go Lib Dem, and Edinburgh West, Gordon and Caithness being the least, were wrong.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 18, 2018 16:47:42 GMT @beesley said:

Jun 18, 2018 9:45:30 GMT timrollpickering said:

Swing was an especially messy concept in Scotland in 2015 but the Lib Dems did as follows:

East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) - Voteshare -2.4% Swing 16.0%
Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) - -2.8% 14.3%
Gordon (no incumbent) - -3.3% 14.4%
Argyll & Bute (Alan Reid) - -3.7% 14.5%
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (John Thurso) - -6.3% 16.7%
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (Danny Alexander) - -9.4% 20.4%
North East Fife (no incumbent) - -13.0% 19.9%
Ross, Skye & Lochaber (Charles Kennedy) - -16.8% 24.9%
West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (Robert Smith) - -17.0% 21.5%
Orkney & Shetland (Alistair Carmichael) - -20.6% 23.9%
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (Michael Moore) - -26.7% 27.1%

I don't know if you would agree but I would argue that is more due to the behaviour of tactical/general unionist voters than anyone else. Whilst John Thurso was popular, so was Charles Kennedy who decreased by a large margin. Because there was less of a tactical path in Orkney and Ross, or because the more popular Conservatives took second place in West Aberdeenshire and Berwickshire, the swing from unionist parties appears more pronounced. In East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Gordon, and Argyll there was a strong unionist tactical path, mostly from Labour but also the Conservatives. So the swing was too messy, which is why the predictions that Ross and Skye would be the most likely SNP-held seat to go Lib Dem, and Edinburgh West, Gordon and Caithness being the least, were wrong.

The swings are all Lib Dem to SNP even when the Lib Dems ended up in third place.

I'm always cautious about how "popular" an MP is said to be - we can all think of examples of supposedly popular MPs who get chucked out in a landslide and look on in wonder at the continued re-election with increased votes of MPs we never hear anything good about. Some of the Lib Dems actually increased their raw number of votes (although Thurso only put on 80), whereas Kennedy dropped about 3,500 (Smith and Moore did far worse) with the other unionist parties also dropping. You recall a prediction that he was the Lib Dem under most threat but I recall predictions (including some Andrew Neill put to him on camera) that he would be the only Lib Dem left in Scotland so it seems obvious he was the unionist choice for a tactical save. But I think it looks like Kennedy's popularity had faded come 2015.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2018 17:34:20 GMT timrollpickering said:

Jun 18, 2018 16:47:42 GMT @beesley said:

I don't know if you would agree but I would argue that is more due to the behaviour of tactical/general unionist voters than anyone else. Whilst John Thurso was popular, so was Charles Kennedy who decreased by a large margin. Because there was less of a tactical path in Orkney and Ross, or because the more popular Conservatives took second place in West Aberdeenshire and Berwickshire, the swing from unionist parties appears more pronounced. In East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Gordon, and Argyll there was a strong unionist tactical path, mostly from Labour but also the Conservatives. So the swing was too messy, which is why the predictions that Ross and Skye would be the most likely SNP-held seat to go Lib Dem, and Edinburgh West, Gordon and Caithness being the least, were wrong.

The swings are all Lib Dem to SNP even when the Lib Dems ended up in third place.

I'm always cautious about how "popular" an MP is said to be - we can all think of examples of supposedly popular MPs who get chucked out in a landslide and look on in wonder at the continued re-election with increased votes of MPs we never hear anything good about. Some of the Lib Dems actually increased their raw number of votes (although Thurso only put on 80), whereas Kennedy dropped about 3,500 (Smith and Moore did far worse) with the other unionist parties also dropping. You recall a prediction that he was the Lib Dem under most threat but I recall predictions (including some Andrew Neill put to him on camera) that he would be the only Lib Dem left in Scotland so it seems obvious he was the unionist choice for a tactical save. But I think it looks like Kennedy's popularity had faded come 2015.

I just wanted to clarify - I had heard numerous predictions that Charles Kennedy was to be the only Lib Dem out of the seats the SNP eventually won (most observers whom I recall believed that Orkney and Shetland would not change hands) and indeed he would be . I did recall projections that there would be SNP majorities of 20-30% in Caithness, but I'm unaware of what Andrew Neil said or what basis he had to make such an assertion.

[Antiochian]

If that had happened we wouldn't have had to see that damned woman all over the place all the time between 2015 and 2017. The best thing about 2017 was that it removed her from ubiquity.

But if Labour hadn't lost so many seats to the SNP then Cameron wouldn't have had a majority, Cameron would have had to resign on day after election, someone else would have gone to Brussels and Brexit vote may not have happened.

[timrollpickering]

Eh? Any seat Labour lost to the SNP was still a seat on the opposition benches.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2018 18:28:47 GMT timrollpickering said:

Eh? Any seat Labour lost to the SNP was still a seat on the opposition benches.

I think Antiochian is suggesting that the SNP surge boosted Conservative support in the rest of the UK, something which I would dispute. But you are obviously correct in your mathematics.

[greenchristian]

Jun 18, 2018 18:48:19 GMT @beesley said:

Jun 18, 2018 18:28:47 GMT timrollpickering said:

Eh? Any seat Labour lost to the SNP was still a seat on the opposition benches.

I think Antiochian is suggesting that the SNP surge boosted Conservative support in the rest of the UK, something which I would dispute. But you are obviously correct in your mathematics.

But if this was the case, it was the perception of the surge in England that made a difference, rather than the scale of the surge in Scotland. The SNP winning fewer seats on the day than they did in reality wouldn't have altered that factor.