Talk:Next Scottish Parliament election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Next Scottish Parliament election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

ComesRes 3–9 Sep 2021

I'm not experienced at reading poll data but what is currently posted for these dates might be wrong. Going via the pdf on https://comresglobal.com/polls/scottish-political-tracker-september-2021/ it seems to indicate for the totals - SNP 32%, Cons 20%, Lab 17%, Greens 12%, Lib Dems 6%, Alba 2%, Others 1%. Yet what is currently posted for this poll is - SNP 36%, Cons 23%, Lab 18%, Greens 13%, Lib Dems 7%, Alba 0%, Others 3%. Have I made a mistake/reading the figures incorrectly or is what is currently posted in the article wrong for this poll?

It also says in the following ComesRes poll for October that Alba "is down one point to 1 per cent of the vote" indicating their voting percentage was higher in the prior poll, which would correspond to the figures I have given rather than what is currently stated on the Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not generally involved in opinion polling tables, but I would suspect it has been recalculated to remove the don't knows (I just did that, and got the same results, apart from Alba (who should be on 2%) and others should be 1%. Number 5 7 20:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of no-confidence vote

It's planned for next Wednesday - 1st May 2024. Following is from the disagreement of disullion of the Bute house agreement Thursday 25th April 2024

Crazyseiko (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something here that might belong in the article then either add it or discuss it. Otherwise this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Meters (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling graph

Why is there a dashed line marking 5% on the regional polling graph under "opinion polling"? In some systems (e.g. Germany) there's a minimum threshold for seats, but not in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.17.140 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason is fairly straightforward. Although there is no specific rule in the AMS system used in Holyrood election, practice has shown that no one has won a Regional seat with less than 6% of Regional poling. Therefore the 5% line of those returns that maybe in with a chance of winning representation is a useful indicator. Apgup (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Formatting/image

I think that map for the Scottish election shouldn't be in the infobox - it's so big that it squeezes the text to the left of the box badly, but it's also not big enough to easily resolve all the visual details.

Maybe we can have the map somewhere lower down, where it has space to breathe, and a more generic photo in the infobox (basic map of Scotland? Photo of Holyrood?) Oolong (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talleyrand6 I wonder if you'd be up for producing a more minimal version of this to fit better in the infobox? Otherwise I can try.

Thanks! Oolong (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of Polls in Graphic

I had recently altered the order that these polling graph is presented so that the Constituency vote came ahead of the Regional vote, I did so for a number of reasons 1 The graphic refers to the Main Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election in this article the order is Constituency then Regional 2 This is consistent with the legislation around this election 3 It is consistent with all official guidance issued by authorities who run this election 4 Constituency vote is always described as your first vote 5 The process requires the counting and return of the Constituency vote before the Regional vote can be counted and List MSP selected

I do not wish to be involved in an editing war but am prepared to begin three-revert rule if required. I give fair warning to the other editor @jackwilfred and ask that he stops this edit warring. Apgup (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the rationales for my two reverts show, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election (which, admittedly, is an odd extension to a previous discussion which should be split into a separate discussion) about the change that you would like to make.

This is an issue of consistency between the two articles, and so it would make more sense to continue the discussion there, where editors can see the full context. JackWilfred (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The change requires being made here to ensure consistency. You have singularly failed to expand your rationale other than stating a preference, you provide no evidence from independent sources to explain your position and refuse clear concise and checkable evidence as to why you are wrong.

Lets have the discussion here as this is the only source you have provided and it is here that the error should be corrected.

Explain yourself rather than dodging I welcome engagement, lets hear your explanation and do try to answer points raised above. Apgup (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've now decided to continue this discussion in two separate places, rudely demanding that I "explain myself" in this one, and rudely ordering me to "lay it out" in Talk:Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election. I'll remind you, again, to be WP:CIVIL.

I think that proves my point that the two discussions should be merged back to the other talk page. I'll start a new thread there and attempt to seek a wider consensus. JackWilfred (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

There is currently an inconsistency between the article here and Next Scottish Parliament election regarding the order in which polling for the constituency vote and regional vote are displayed. This is a wider issue amongst Scottish and Welsh elections which use AMS, a somewhat less proportional variant of the MMP system.

AMS, as a semi-proportional system, uses the regional vote to compensate parties for their results in the constituencies, which are elected through FPTP. Therefore, the regional vote is what determines the eventual composition of the legislature, despite the system not always providing enough seats to ensure exact proportional representation.

On the other hand, Scottish parlance refers to the constituency and regional ballots as the "first" and "second" ballots, and that is a valid description of the order the results are used in the process of allocating seats to parties.

Alternatively, the inconsistency could be kept. Arguably, the two articles display the polling data differently for these two different, but valid, reasons. JackWilfred (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position here is that the regional vote should be displayed first, for the reasons outlined above, plus a couple of other, more debatable, ones:

Firstly, the constituency vote is arguably a less accurate reflection of public opinion. Not only does FPTP generate tactical voting, but the two ballots make it a valid strategy for parties to only run for regional seats. In 2021, the Greens ran in 12 constituencies, and a number of minor parties, most notably Alba, ran in none.

Secondly, this would bring AMS articles more in line with comparable MMP systems. Both German and New Zealand election articles display constituency polling/projections either below the list polling, or not at all. Arguably, Scotland only polls the constituency vote due to British familiarity with FPTP. JackWilfred (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Apgup (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to challenge many of the assertions you make here

There is no inconsistency it is a minor error that the graph on this page wrongly places the Regional vote first, you have attempted to use that error to push for the much older and more established article to have to change its whole layout, it makes more sense to have this minor error comply with a long established practice.

Firstly The AMS is a PR system and produces a return of MSP roughly proportionate to the votes cast in the Constituency vote, minor parties also enjoy this as the Regional vote can provides a way for them to gain representation that they would not gain in the FPTP Constituency Vote, (rough rule of thumb is that for every 6% of Regional vote gained a party might expect a Regional List MSP minus any they had gained at Constituency level) There is mountains of evidence going back to 1999 of this process. This is what is sometimes referred to as the compensatory element that parties that missed out on the FPTP element can gain some representation for those who voted for them It is important to see both votes the Constituency and the Regional as equally important to the whole process. It is a process and not a case of one vote or the other being more important.

Secondly as I have already explained to you the Constituency vote is the one displayed first because that is the start of the PR process, it is the first vote cast, the first one counted and the return of MSPs from it is the crucial number to allow the allocation of MSPs from the Regional list. This is as laid out in statute and and all official guidance on how to vote. Generally it says "You will have 2 votes, the first to elect an MSP for your Constituency.

Thems the facts and really nothing to do with other voting systems in other countries.

There is a minor error on this article in how the Polling graph presents the 2 votes, lets correct that and not try to extend the error. Apgup (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copied from other discussion

I have tried my best to be as civil and fair to you as possible here.

I've started a neutral thread in the place it originated (whereas you made a number of incorrect accusations in a separate talk page), I've requested comment from outside editors to resolve this dispute, and I've addressed your consistently rude requests for me to lay out my points (again) in a clear place.

If you don't want to engage in a genuine effort to find consensus, that's fine, but don't obstruct this discussion, and please remember to act civil. I don't regard you unnecessarily copying my contribution into your thread to be civil behaviour, and I suggest you revert it.

I won't be replying to you any further, on either thread. JackWilfred (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merely moved the discussion to where it should be happening at no point have I been rude, sorry but requesting that you explain your position is not being rude and I am dumbfounded why you would think so. Apgup (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Apgup (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]