ALAN Crocket (Letters, January 21) in his response to my letter makes my case stronger, not weaker.

In 2016 the SNP won 59 constituency seats, up six from 2011, but dropped from 16 to four on the list. Is it realistic to make all planning based on such a large increase in constituency seats won? I have had too many disappointments over my 29-year membership of the SNP to allow this to happen.

READ MORE: Voting SNP on the list prevents the election of many more indy candidates

The small drop between constituency and list in 2016 was only 2% but this was enough to slash the number of list seats, so we can’t take any chances in this key election. The 2011 overall majority which gave us the 2014 referendum required the 16 list seats.

I can assure Mr Crocket that the First Minister has made it clear on many occasions that not only will the draft referendum bill with date be published before the election, it will be front and centre of the manifesto. I have seen no such statement from the Greens or any of the so-called list parties, but hope the Greens will back it when it comes before the Scottish Parliament in March.

An overall majority of any size will force a referendum, whether that is of a similar size to 2011, slightly smaller or larger. Alan Crocket may be willing to risk a referendum by not voting SNP on both constituency and list votes, but I am not. It is clear the Prime Minister will only change his mind by an overall SNP majority.

Munro Ross
Inverness

I AGREE with Dave Corns (SNP activist says research casts doubt on wisdom of both votes election strategy, January 22). The outcome of my own research also shows that “both votes SNP” did hand list seats to Unionist parties, and clearly could do again.

I laid out the results of my own research in my letter to The National published on October 31.

I know a party is not allowed to tell voters to vote for another party, although Labour got away with that in the last election. But why oh why are the SNP, my SNP, continuing to shoot themselves in the foot?

READ MORE: SNP activist says research casts doubt on ‘both votes’ election strategy

What is mystifying is that a party spokesperson for the SNP is quoted as stating complete nonsense.

There was no way, in 2016, that the SNP were going to be allocated list seats in areas with the majority of constituency seats AND with such a high second vote. If the SNP supporters’ second vote had gone to the Greens, that would have reduced the number of list seats for the Unionist parties. Like them or not, the Greens are for independence. Contrary to the comment from the party spokesman, an SNP 1 & 2 vote WILL gift list seats to the Unionist parties. If they can prove otherwise then they need to publish the proof, and be quick about it.

Keith MacBean
Shawlands

IN her letter of reply to Dan Wood, the letter from Julia Pannell (January 21) makes reference to 137,000+ votes being “a waste of votes”, as it resulted in NO regional MSPs last time, ie 2016, in the North East Region

In the previous 2011 election, 140,000+ votes for SNP resulted in ONE extra constituency SNP MSP and ONE SNP list MSP. A difference of a mere 3000 votes making one hell of a difference, while the 16000+ votes for minority parties resulted in NO MSPs, list or otherwise, from these fringe parties.

READ MORE: Don't confuse pragmatic planning for independence with 'infighting'

This shows that a huge BOTH VOTES SNP could result in both gains in constituency and list, while also showing that unless some of these fringe parties can find a huge surge in support, then a vote for any will be a wasted vote.

As Ms Pannell correctly states,”it is only political parties that can bring about the political change needed”. Then the only sensible option should be BOTH VOTES to the SNP to ensure we get the maximum pro-independence SNP MSPs returned to Holyrood.

Graham Smith
Arbroath

I HAVE noticed that social media is alive with discussions about how best to vote in May in order to get an independence majority. What shocks me is the number of contributors who do not understand how the D’Hondt dystem works. Many seem to think that it is a straight competition for seats in the list vote without realising how the constituency vote impacts upon it. Perhaps, The National could devote a page to giving a simple explanation for voters’ benefit.

Political parties will be selfish and ask for votes to their side even although it is not for the greater good. If they were able to sit down and agree a strategy which would virtually wipe out the Unionists it would be as follows:

1 The SNP should stand unopposed in the first, constituency, vote. Consequently, the vote would not be split and this would avoid allowing the occasional Unionist candidate through.

2 The Greens should stand unopposed in the second, list, vote so that it does not get spread across a host of independence parties.

3 New or old other parties that support independence should withdraw entirely from the May election, to avoid splitting the vote. They should commit their efforts to helping the SNP and Greens. Once we get our independence, they can all stand for as many elections as they wish.

If the above approach was adopted, I believe the Unionist parties would not have enough MSPs to fill a taxi to Holyrood. Our referendum would be virtually guaranteed.

Alasdair Forbes
Farr, Inverness-shire

THE D’Hondt system was introduced by the Unionists to make sure that no party would have a huge majority.The thing is, if we use it properly by giving our list vote to another party, for example the Greens, instead of wasting our vote we could get another indy person elected.

If we get more than 86 MSPs the parliament can call an election at any time, according to the Scotland Act. So if it is tight in your constituency, vote two votes for the SNP. If you are onto a sure thing, give your second vote to another indy party.

Daniel Campbell
via email