A fresh MRP projection points to 67 SNP seats while YouGov data maps extensive tactical switching between Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Conservatives
Topics covered
MRP poll forecasts SNP landslide as tactical voting reshapes Holyrood battleground
The political landscape in Scotland may be shifting rapidly after an MRP-based poll published on 25/02/ projected the Scottish National Party could win 67 Holyrood seats. The projection would give the SNP a historic advantage in the Scottish Parliament.
The projection arrives alongside broader analysis from YouGov that maps patterns of tactical voting across Britain. That research shows how supporters of one party sometimes vote for another to prevent a less favoured party from prevailing. Together, the findings indicate constituency outcomes may hinge as much on strategic choices as on first-preference support.
Who is affected? Scottish Labour appears to be the main casualty in the current projections. Shifts by voters prioritising the blocking of particular parties are altering constituency-level results and eroding Labour’s projected seat count.
Where and when does this matter? The dynamics are most consequential for the forthcoming Holyrood contest, where tight constituency races can be decided by small shifts in strategic voting.
The MRP projection and YouGov’s behavioural mapping suggest the next Scottish Parliament may reflect coordinated voter strategy as much as party popularity.
Why does this matter beyond Scotland? From an ESG perspective, political stability and governance trajectories influence corporate planning and investment decisions. Sustainability is a business case where regulatory frameworks and public mandates affect long-term strategy. Leading companies have understood that sudden political shifts can alter policy signals relevant to climate, procurement and public services.
What does this mean in practice? Parties will need targeted ground campaigns focused on constituencies where tactical switching is decisive. Campaign managers should refine voter messaging and coalition-building tactics. Analysts must also treat national vote shares cautiously when forecasting seat distributions under first-past-the-post and mixed systems.
Examples of the mechanism are already visible in recent constituency polling where second-preference flows and tactical coordination changed likely victors. Political operatives and external observers should therefore prioritise micro-level data and voting behaviour over headline national percentages.
The coming weeks will test whether the MRP projection holds as polling firms release further updates and as parties adjust strategy. The immediate implication is clear: seat outcomes may be determined as much by strategic voter behaviour as by shifts in baseline party support.
What the MRP projection shows
The MRP (multilevel regression and post-stratification) model cited in the poll projects the SNP could win about 67 seats in the Scottish Parliament. The projection rests on constituency-level modelling rather than national vote shares alone.
That approach highlights local variations where strategic transfers of support and low-turnout dynamics could amplify the SNP’s advantage. The model identifies specific pockets where small shifts in voter choice or turnout produce large changes in seat allocation. While statistical uncertainty remains, the projection is consistent with local reports of voters adapting choices to influence outcomes.
The immediate implication is clear: seat outcomes may be shaped as much by targeted voter behaviour as by broad swings in party support. Campaigns can therefore gain or lose ground by focusing resources on marginal constituencies and turnout operations. Analysts caution that MRP estimates are sensitive to assumptions about voter turnout and transfer patterns, so actual results could still diverge from the projection.
How YouGov maps tactical voting across parties
YouGov has mapped voter willingness to change first preferences to block other parties. The poll defines this behaviour as tactical voting. Its data show sizable numbers of supporters from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens prepared to back one another where one is the most viable challenger to a disliked opponent.
The survey also finds that some Conservative and Reform UK backers are willing to switch between those two options. Their choices depend on which candidate appears to have a realistic chance of winning in a given constituency.
The findings matter because they can change local outcomes without large shifts in Tactical transfers concentrate support behind the most competitive challenger. That can flip marginal seats even when national polls remain stable.
The MRP projection noted earlier is sensitive to turnout and transfer assumptions, and tactical voting is a key element of that sensitivity. If tactical moves are underestimated, seat forecasts may be biased in favour of parties with concentrated local support.
From an ESG perspective, transparent polling and clear public communication reduce uncertainty for voters and campaigns. Accurate measurement of tactical intent gives parties and analysts a clearer basis for modelling likely transfers and for advising where to focus resources.
Analysts say campaign strategy may shift towards persuading second-choice backers in tight contests. Parties that identify where they are the most viable challenger can target messaging and ground operations to convert tactical willingness into actual votes.
Polling firms caution that expressed willingness does not always translate into action on election day. Turnout, last-minute events and local dynamics can still alter outcomes. Expect tactical voting to remain a variable that affects marginal seats and the final seat count.
Patterns among progressive voters
Following YouGov’s mapping, the analysis shows a high degree of flexibility among progressive voters. Large shares of Labour supporters indicate they would switch to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens to block either the Conservatives or Reform UK in specific constituencies. Likewise, substantial proportions of Liberal Democrat and Green backers say they would support Labour in a direct contest with Reform UK.
These conditional transfers form a tactical coalition that can outnumber a single unified challenger in marginal seats. The pattern is not uniform across regions. Transfers matter most where margins are tight and local dynamics make tactical coordination feasible.
From an ESG perspective, the finding highlights the practical impact of voter alignment on political outcomes. Sustainability is a business case for coordinated strategy; similarly, effective electoral coordination can shift resources and campaign messaging where they are most decisive.
Patterns among right‑wing voters
Following the case for coordinated strategy, voting on the right shows a similar tactical logic. Substantial shares of Reform UK supporters say they would back the Conservatives in direct contests.
A measurable slice of Conservative voters also report willingness to back Reform UK in some two‑way match‑ups. Willingness to move from Reform UK to progressive parties is minimal. As a result, tactical switching on the right tends to consolidate bloc lines rather than blur them.
From an ESG perspective, this pattern resembles resource‑conserving alliances seen in corporate strategy: parties and voters shift where impact is highest. The practical implication is clear for campaigners and strategists: targeted coordination can solidify, rather than fragment, existing right‑of‑centre coalitions.
Implications for seat outcomes and strategy
The MRP projection and YouGov behavioural mapping indicate constituency-level tactical swings could decide several marginal seats. Where progressive voters coordinate, intentionally or as an emergent pattern, they increase a single challenger’s chance of defeating a plurality opponent. Conversely, right-leaning tactical switching can blunt Reform gains in some areas while reinforcing two-party contests elsewhere.
For campaigners, the immediate priority is targeted voter mobilisation in the narrowest marginals. Resources allocated to precise postal and door-to-door operations can tip results where forecasts show tight three-way splits. Party strategists must also monitor short-term shifts in transfer preferences that underpin the MRP scenarios.
From an ESG perspective, parties should consider the reputational and organisational risks of overt tactical appeals. Sustainability is a business case for political organisations too: disciplined messaging and transparent outreach reduce volatility and protect institutional trust. Leading campaigns have understood that pragmatic coordination can convert fragmented support into decisive outcomes.
Operationally, effective coordination requires constituency-level data sharing and rapid response teams. That entails clear targeting rules, legal compliance, and contingency plans for late swings. The implication is simple: focused coordination can stabilise coalitions and materially change seat arithmetic in the closest contests.
Tactical coordination could decide the closest contests
The data show that constituency-level coordination can outweigh headline national figures. Where campaigns mobilise targeted coalitions and present clear local match-ups, seat outcomes shift materially.
Campaign strategists should prioritise mapping marginal seats and communicating pragmatic choices to voters. From an ESG perspective, clear messaging on trade-offs reduces voter uncertainty and strengthens coalition durability. Tactical alliances that are well signalled at local level are more likely to hold through an electoral period.
For voters, the evidence suggests pragmatic voting in tightly fought constituencies can produce results different from those implied by national polls. That dynamic matters most in contests decided by small margins, where focused turnout efforts and local endorsements carry disproportionate weight.
Analysts will watch whether these tactical arrangements become repeatable patterns or remain ad hoc responses to specific races at Holyrood. Sustainability is a business case for long-term coalition planning: parties that embed predictable local match-ups improve their odds of converting support into seats.
