Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.

This is an almost entirely AI report. I trust it more than I would any assessment by human beings with the unavoidable biases and predispositions we all possess [me too] and which, even unconsciously, direct what we think is our conscious thinking.

Yes I know AI can be, and has been, taught to have such biases and predispositions and I would not trust any of them to be fair on issues of socialism, human rights, Gaza or Trump but, as far as I can see, they have, as yet, no ‘horse in our race’ – Scottish independence.

I’ve read it through carefully and see no major concerns. I welcome comment from readers.

First – What happens when you give your list vote to a small pro-indy party

1. It often wastes the vote outright (the most common outcome for very small parties).
   In 2021, Alba got 1.7% of the national list vote (44,000 votes). Nationally that was theoretically enough for 2–3 seats, but the votes were spread thinly across all 8 regions. In no single region did they reach the effective threshold needed to win a seat under d’Hondt. Result: 0 MSPs. Those votes elected nobody.
2. It splits the pro-independence list vote, lowering the quotients of the viable pro-indy parties (mainly SNP and Greens).
   Suppose in a region the total pro-indy list vote is 55%. If it’s concentrated (e.g. 45% SNP + 10% Green), the viable parties have high enough quotients to compete for and win list seats against unionists.
   If split further (e.g. 40% SNP + 8% Green + 7% small party), the small party usually never wins a seat, the SNP and Green quotients are now lower, so unionist parties (with more concentrated votes) win more of the list seats in the successive d’Hondt rounds.
3. Net result: fewer total pro-independence MSPs, more unionist MSPs.
   The constituency MSPs (mostly SNP) stay the same. But on the list, you get fewer pro-indy top-ups and more unionist ones. The overall number of pro-independence MSPs does not increase — and can decrease. The number of unionist MSPs increases relative to what it would have been.
   This is why “Both Votes SNP” (or SNP 1 + Green 2 where it makes sense) is pushed by people wanting to maximise the pro-indy total: it avoids wasting votes on parties too small to clear the regional threshold and keeps the pro-indy list vote as efficient as possible.

Real-world example: 2021 election

Alba explicitly campaigned for “SNP constituency + Alba list” to create a “supermajority.” They got zero seats. The pro-indy total ended up at 72 MSPs (SNP 64 + Green 8). Many analysts (and SNP supporters) argued that the diverted list votes helped unionists pick up extra list seats they wouldn’t otherwise have won. The Greens succeeded as a list party because they had enough concentrated support; smaller parties like Alba did not.

Bottom line

Giving your second vote to a small pro-independence party rarely adds new pro-indy MSPs (because they usually fail to win any list seats). Instead, it fragments the list vote that could have gone to parties capable of actually taking seats from unionists. The system rewards concentration of list votes among the pro-indy parties that can realistically compete in d’Hondt (SNP where they can still get list seats, or Greens). Spreading it to micro-parties is the electoral equivalent of burning votes — and it hands the compensatory list seats to unionists.This is a mechanical feature of the AMS/d’Hondt system, not a moral judgement. Tactical voting only works when the smaller party is big enough to actually win seats in specific regions. For truly small parties, it backfires.

Sources: Analysis specific to 2021 election, Alba, vote splitting, and wasted votes

• UK Constitutional Law Association article (April 2021): Discusses Alba’s strategy under AMS/d’Hondt, where Alex Salmond aimed to “game” the system by encouraging SNP constituency votes + Alba list votes to boost pro-indy seats. It explains why this risks splitting the pro-indy list vote without Alba clearing thresholds, potentially costing seats overall.
  Link: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/04/07/kathrin-strauss-ausgleichsmandate-for-the-scottish-parliament-scotlands-mixed-electoral-system-and-the-alba-party
• Constitution Society article (April 2021): Covers “gameable” aspects of AMS, including tactical split voting incentives. It notes prior Green tactical gains (2016) boosted pro-indy MSPs slightly via concentration, but warns that smaller parties like Alba risk the opposite — fragmenting votes and helping opponents. References expert John Curtice on tactical dynamics.
  Link: https://consoc.org.uk/a-gameable-electoral-system-the-additional-member-system-in-scotland
• Scottish Election Study analysis (June 2021 post-election): Examines Alba’s 1.7% list vote share (“wasted” as zero seats), how it added to non-SNP pro-indy list support (10% with Greens), but failed to break through due to thin regional spreads and lack of a unique appeal. Notes most SNP list votes are inherently “wasted” due to high constituency wins, so fragmentation hurts efficiency.
  Link: https://scottishelections.ac.uk/2021/06/17/we-are-the-10-holyrood-2021-explained-part-three
• Guardian analysis (May 2021): Post-election piece on how Alba’s plan tanked (zero seats), while pro-union tactical voting (e.g., concentrating list votes) had more impact in preventing an SNP “supermajority.” Highlights that diverted pro-indy list votes didn’t help and arguably aided unionists indirectly.
  Link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/while-salmond-tanked-pro-unionist-tactical-voting-made-its-mark-in-scotland
• House of Commons Library briefing on 2021 Scottish Parliament election (May 2021): Official results breakdown, including regional vote shifts and how smaller parties (Alba, All for Unity) picked up votes but won zero seats, illustrating threshold issues under d’Hondt.
  Link: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9230/CBP-9230.pdf

These sources (official docs + post-2021 analyses) substantiate the explanation: the system’s compensatory nature + d’Hondt divisors mean small pro-indy list parties rarely win seats if their vote is too dispersed/low, while splitting reduces the quotients of viable pro-indy options (mainly Greens, sometimes SNP in weaker regions), letting unionist parties (with more concentrated votes and lower starting divisors) claim extra list MSPs. In 2021, Alba’s approach demonstrably didn’t add pro-indy MSPs and contributed to vote inefficiency on the indy side.

Important footnote by the human here: You could make a case for SNP 1 Green 2 but it’s a big risk because it would only work if you could be sure beforehand that the Green vote in your area would be big enough to earn an MSP, and you cannot be sure of that.

Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.