ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Hi Brian,
Interesting piece, especially about the way a referendum might break down.

You say "29 per cent back independence - AND want more powers; 27% either support devolution but don’t want greater powers OR don’t want Holyrood at all; only 24 % support devolution AND want greater powers."

... and that under First Past The Post, independence would win with those numbers. Let's assume that the "Independence - and more powers" people actually choose independence on such a ballot, which doesn't look exactly like a given, with that description. Then let's assume the 27% who don't like Holyrood or are happy with the current settlement vote for the status quo rather than abstaining. Finally, those who support devolution and want more powers will surely back the "more powers" option. Given all that, you're right to say that independence would win a majority.

However, you go on to say that "Single Transferable Vote? More powers might come through."

With those same numbers, assuming those votes are now first preferences cast in the same proportions, the lowest of the three would be eliminated first: i.e. more powers. That's how STV works.

That would then mean the next count was a straight run-off between full independence and the status quo.

So the "More Powers" people's second preferences would be added up next. If they divide evenly, independence again wins - because it was 2% ahead from the first count. If the "More Powers" people baulk at independence, and even a few percent more of them put "Status Quo" as their second preference, then the result would be "Status Quo", even though that might be counter-intuitive.

Or have I got that wrong? I know it all makes me a shocking anorak, but I can't worry about that now.

Surely this is an obvious one for voters though?

If they do genuinely want independence- and I think most don't- then vote SNP.

I just think we are going to have to listen to lots of moaning and whining from people for the next 4 years who voted SNP to give Labour a kicking and then live to regret it.

Try a "blind taste test" and look at their policies without thinking about which party they are from, and you will see that the SNP manifesto is flimsy and fudges the issues, since they only have 1 that they care about and there is no democratic mandate for them to hold a referendum on it.

One of the great benefits of devolution has been the resurgence in Scottish political characters. It's so refreshing to hear politicians talk about genuine issues rather than to be constantly distracted by "more pressing" matters on the world stage.

Say what you like about the quantitative success of the Scottish Parliament but it's clear from the types of bills that Scotland is a considerably more liberal nation than England.

Take for example the Tories. My general reaction to London-based Tories is simply to distrust them regardless of the amount of green wash they've been bathing themselves in recently.

However, the Scottish Tories seem to be a very different beast. They're generally in favour of more Hollyrood powers, have consistently backed parliament's left of centre policies and their candidates seem to have a genuine affection for Scotland. Something tells me that making the Scottish Tories independent from London might actually be more a case of conflicting political ideals than general election posturing.

Then you have the socialists and greens. These organisations are effectively treated as extremists south of the border whereas they fit comfortably into the Scottish political landscape. With PR they can appeal to our deeply held ideals which are lost in the necessary pragmatism of the first-past-the-post system.

Devolution has shown that we're a nation to the left of UK politics. I believe that a 4 year term of what seems like an inevitably left-wing coalition government (perhaps with more devolved powers) is going to ring true with the Scottish people and strengthen the case for full independence.

If it takes a couple of parliamentary terms to satisfy the Scottish electorate that Independence is the correct course of action then that's a necessary evil I'm sure I can live with. The balance of power will inevitably shift again after independence but I'd rather have real Scottish Tories as the check and balance to our socialist friends on the far left.

Given all the speculation about Mr Miliband will he won't he and how precise and emphatic he needs to be to say NO. I wonder Brian when you might ask Mr Salmond when he intends to hold true to the absolutely unequivocal statement he made when asked if he intended to stand again as SNP Leader.

If memory serves he couldn't have been more emphatic that "If elected, I'd resign!". Is he a man of his word? So far no sign of that. A man of opportunism? Yes! It's a shame he usually comes across as quite genuine, but he was so very very forthright in his let there be no doubt comment, that to do a U-turn on that leaves one thinking "Is there anything he wouldn't do a U-turn on?". Sadly not a politician I could trust after that episode.

What is your response to the story in the Scotsman about secret talks between the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ and the Labour party?

The rumour is that a deal has been struck to sideline identified SNP sympathisers within the corporation during the Scottish elections.

In reply to Alexander Bissett - presumably you have gone through your entire life without ever changing your mind or your opinions?

Alex Salmond is as entitled to change his mind as you or I - and thank goodness he did! He stands head and shoulders above the rest of the pygmies in this Election - and far from being untrustworthy all polls show he is the most trusted party leader.

Now, wouldn't it be a great idea if McConnell changed HIS mind - maybe over Trident for example? Oh I forgot, he's done that already! Maybe Nicol Stephen could change his mind over the Graduate Endowment? Oops again , he's done that. Well how about Goldie - maybe she could change her mind about the Tory opposition to Devolution? Double Drat! - she's done that already.

We live in a changing world, circumstances change minute by minute and politicians of ALL parties have to adapt to these changes. The SNP was going down the toilet with Swinney and the prospect of Roseanna Cunningham being elected and continuing that terminal decline presumably was too much for Alex to bear. Thankfully he changed his mind.

Alexander, if you want to admire leaders who never change their minds I can suggest Hitler, Mugabe, Stalin, or maybe Thatcher?

Alexander, the Labour party - as a whole - are not to be trusted. Here's a few reasons, that [I'd hope] off-set your machinations towards Mr.Salmond.

Iraq? Trident? Cash for honours? Faslane spin? Pension wreck? Al Qaeda attack? Social ties between Scotland and England dissolving? The 'Balkanisation' of the UK? Govan poverty? Decreasing school score cards? Reiterated, tired pledges? Trade Union anger? Phoney party political broadcasts with ex-Labour officials? Boils, rashes and plagues...

Or - of course - you could lend your trust to the Liberals. That bastion of democracy, wielding the sword of power etc - except, errr, they're a minority party who drop their policies to order for the faintest whiff of say-so.

Then there's the Tories. You'll find them in some dusty tome, probably next to 'Tyrannosaur' [vicious, and dead].

I think you're being unfair to Alex. He did indeed not intend to stand for the SNP leadership. However, given his obvious political strengths, he was persuaded by ordinary party members to stand again.

I'd call that willingness to serve his party rather than opportunism.

Would this persuade you to vote for Jack McConnell? I hope not!

What do you want in your politicians - robots?. I much prefer a politician who can be persuaded to change his mind as happened with Mr Salmond - polls showed that people up and down the country felt he was the most able and charismatic of our Scottish politicians and wanted him as leader of the SNP and, as his party needed him, he allowed himself to be persuaded. Good on him. I would trust Mr Salmond to stand up for Scotland.

Alex Salmond only stood for SNP leader when it became clear his favoured candidate, Nicola Sturgeon, wasn't going to win the leadership - for the same reasons that she has never won any real election and has to take up one of the 'losers seats' in parliament - she turns off the voters in droves.

However,if Alex's cunning ploy to lead the SNP to victory while failing to win a seat in Gordon himself works out, we can all look forward to Nicola as First Minister by the back door.

And if by any chance he does win in Gordon, he can stand down at any time and refer people back to the "if elected, I'll resign" promise.

We could ask Mr Salmond for a pledge that he would actually serve a full term if he was elected. But what would such a pledge be worth - "I'm sorry, but I've changed my mind again..." ?

been reading through many of the comments here and on the herald site , i just hope the scottish punters hold firm against the unprecedented onslaught from the suppossedley scottish press . i note that the labour delegation didn't feel the need to trot along the M8 to the daily ranger to press their point re fair coverage . i do hope that we give alex salmond a shot at first minister , and if we do see an snp led administration they place the sizeable advertising budget with the sections of the press which reported the election campaign in an unbiased manner.

as an englishman living in scotland i didnt vote in the election,but i feel sorry for the scottish electorate as after voting out labour it seems obvoius to me after watching various programs that in this parliament all labour are going to do is try and disrupt the new first minister and his party they need to learn a bit of grace in defeat even if they only lost by 1 a defeat is a defeat.