IT’S sometimes said that Westminster general elections are just 650 entirely separate constituency battles (or 59 in Scotland) that happen to simultaneously take place on the same day. With Holyrood elections it’s not quite as simple, because in addition to the 73 constituency seats there are also 8 electoral regions, each returning a further 7 MSPs. And, crucially, the constituency results directly affect the distribution of regional seats, with parties being compensated with regional MSPs if they fail to win as many constituency seats as their share of the vote should entitle them to.
The key to whether the SNP win an overall majority in May’s election, or indeed whether the pro-independence parties in combination win a majority, does not therefore necessarily lie in closely-fought constituency contests. In some cases, a constituency seat will spectacularly change hands, causing no end of excitement on the TV results programme, but will make absolutely no difference to the final result. The losing party will simply be awarded an extra list seat to make up for it, and the winning party will be given one list seat fewer.
On other occasions, though, a constituency gain or hold will be just as crucial as it would be in a Westminster election. For example, if the SNP hadn’t won Cunninghame North in 2007 by just 48 votes, they wouldn’t have replaced Labour as the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament. Alex Salmond might never have become First Minister and we might never have had an independence referendum. By contrast, Ruth Davidson’s gain in Edinburgh Central, and Iain Gray’s hold in East Lothian, were decisive in preventing the SNP from winning an overall majority in 2016.
It’s not always possible to tell in advance whether the outcome in a particular constituency will be important or a sideshow – although sometimes there are enough pointers to make an educated guess. Between now and polling day, I’ll be profiling all 73 constituencies, identifying the ones that are most likely to change hands, and attempting to separate out the noisy irrelevances from the battles that could actually determine whether Scotland becomes an independent country.
And on Sundays I’ll be profiling the eight electoral regions where the 56 list seats will be decided – and getting to grips with the much-misunderstood formula that determines how that happens.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel