Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Poll for Holrood puts SNP and Greens majority up to 23 seats due to large increase in Greens in regional vote.



https://archive.vn/KW5aa

That rather presumptuously assumes that the Greens would be willing to enter a partnership with the SNP under a new leader. I think that decision might well depend on who that new leader is.

[ProfessorDavey]

One model of seat outcome on that poll with map below. One of the interesting points is that where the SNP did better than their vote when at the higher number they now do less well as their strength of having support across the country as opposed to 'heartlands' becomes a 'weakness' on these figures.

LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)

Changes w/ GE2019.

Which is a standard feature of FPTP - there is a tipping point of support at which you begin to hoover up high proportions of seats.

But if these results did pan out it completely changes the dynamic for a general election. There has been an assumption that Labour would only get a handful of seats in Scotland making an overall majority. But if they get 30 seats that would make a massive difference. It would also be a double blow to the SNP - not only losing their stronghold on Scotland, but if there is a Labour overall majority they lose their potential king-maker powers.

[ProfessorDavey]

There has also been a post-Sturgeon poll on indy-ref showing no change.

So, if the polls are to be believed there is some interesting nuance. Sturgeon's departure isn't altering support for independence, nor strength of SNP support for Holyrood. But for Westminster there is a big shift from SNP to Labour.

Interesting times - I think the choice of new leader will be critical and more polling suggests Forbes is the favourite. Although with a caveat, nearly a third of voters don't even know who she is, let alone have an opinion on her. Angus Robertson has even pooler recognition with 39% saying they don't know who he is.

Interesting virtually all the SNP figures in the poll have poor voter recognition (including Flyn, Cherry, Brown, McAllan), only Yousaf and Swinney have high recognition amongst the public, comparable to Sarwar and Ross.

https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1626653198063702032?s=46&t=5eCF0RfSA41UPWiBriYI8A

[Nearly Sane]

While interesting, it's still not a poll of those voting. It will give any Forbes campaign a boost, but Yousaf's pollings show the disbenefit in this case of being known.

[Nearly Sane]

Shortened campaign designed to make it harder for Forbes?


https://archive.vn/61GaB

[ProfessorDavey]

While interesting, it's still not a poll of those voting.

True - I suspect there will be member polling soon. That said I imagine the current polling may provide some inference as in the cases of people with low recognition in the general public those that do know them and have an opinion are likely to be biased towards SNP supporters and members. Point being that a party member is far more likely to know who a minor figure in that party is, rather than the wider public.

It will give any Forbes campaign a boost, but Yousaf's pollings show the disbenefit in this case of being known.

Yup - interesting that Yousaf, while having a high recognition factor has a low 'positive' - I'd ignore the net figure as I think that is skewed for the reason I made above.

[ProfessorDavey]

Shortened campaign designed to make it harder for Forbes?


https://archive.vn/61GaB

Might backfire if members have a superficially positive view of her but the campaign doesn't allow time for proper scrutiny of her rather extreme views.

Presumably there is some kind of nomination process before candidates get on to the members ballot. Do you know how this is run and whether MSPs and MPs might be able to block a candidate getting to the membership as is the case for the tories.

[Nearly Sane]

True - I suspect there will be member polling soon. That said I imagine the current polling may provide some inference as in the cases of people with low recognition in the general public those that do know them and have an opinion are likely to be biased towards SNP supporters and members. Point being that a party member is far more likely to know who a minor figure in that party is, rather than the wider public.
Yup - interesting that Yousaf, while having a high recognition factor has a low 'positive' - I'd ignore the net figure as I think that is skewed for the reason I made above.

And yet it's a perfectly logical argument to those voting that Yousaf is not popular with voters because of what he has done as a minister. Health is always a bit of a poisoned chalice.

[Nearly Sane]

Might backfire if members have a superficially positive view of her but the campaign doesn't allow time for proper scrutiny of her rather extreme views.

Presumably there is some kind of nomination process before candidates get on to the members ballot. Do you know how this is run and whether MSPs and MPs might be able to block a candidate getting to the membership as is the case for the tories.

My understanding is that nominations only need s total of 100 members across at least 20 constituencies. I don't think that's been changed here.

[ProfessorDavey]

My understanding is that nominations only need s total of 100 members across at least 20 constituencies. I don't think that's been changed here.

Blimey - that's an incredibly low bar for getting on the ballot paper making it really easy for any crazies to be put in front of the membership. And as history tells us  put a crazy in front of a party membership as often as not they'll vote that person in.

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey - that's an incredibly low bar for getting on the ballot paper making it really easy for any crazies to be put in front of the membership. And as history tells us  put a crazy in front of a party membership as often as not they'll vote that person in.

I suppose that it's been 19 years since there was a leadership election in ths SNP, and I think that was the first OMOV one. Times have changed a bit since then.

  I wonder if the 100 number was chosen to echo the Declaration of Arbroath:


'... for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose that it's been 19 years since there was a leadership election in ths SNP, and I think that was the first OMOV one. Times have changed a bit since then.

  I wonder if the 100 number was chosen to echo the Declaration of Arbroath:


'... for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

Possibly a mistake not to update the rules that were in place 19 years ago. Might have been fit for purpose when membership was tiny, but with perhaps 100,000 members, needing just 0.1% for nomination might be a big risk given that political party members have a record of voting in the worst candidate in a list of two (Truss, IDS, Boris) and even the worst candidate in a list of many (Corbyn).

[Nearly Sane]

Possibly a mistake not to update the rules that were in place 19 years ago. Might have been fit for purpose when membership was tiny, but with perhaps 100,000 members, needing just 0.1% for nomination might be a big risk given that political party members have a record of voting in the worst candidate in a list of two (Truss, IDS, Boris) and even the worst candidate in a list of many (Corbyn).

I think it's in the constitution so changing it would not be the simplest thing. Be interesting to see if we get a real indication of the membership which as your 'perhaps' indicates is questionable, especially given the questions around finances.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it's in the constitution so changing it would not be the simplest thing. Be interesting to see if we get a real indication of the membership which as your 'perhaps' indicates is questionable, especially given the questions around finances.

Sure - changing the constitution for voting in new leader isn't something done overnight, but I think other parties have tended to do this as a matter of urgency when a previous election had turned out to be a car wreck. Now the SNP haven't had that issue yet, but they've only had one members ballot I believe and that a long time ago.

The 'perhaps' was that membership levels are always fluctuating a bit, but I think figures at the 100,000 level have been widely reported. I suspect 20 years ago membership would have been a fraction of that, so 100 nominations might have seemed like a reasonable proportion of the membership. The smart move would have been to require a particular proportion of membership rather than an absolute number. In that way the hurdle to getting on the ballot would be equivalent regardless of fluctuations in membership numbers.

This link:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354068820939799

Suggests that membership in 2004 was about one tenth of what it is now, which fits with the leadership election then when about 6,500 votes were cast. So to be comparable to get on the ballot paper should require approx. 1000 nominations.

[Nearly Sane]

And Robertson not going to run. There are reasons why I think he's not doing it but I am surprised that this wasn't part of s plan though it underlines that the resignation of Sturgeon was not done with any regard of timing for succession. It makes Yousaf the apparent Sturgeon choice, even if she will not express that openly. Given his unpopularity due to his performance in ministerial roles, it's going to be a difficult sell.

His attempted, but quietly dropped, suing of a nursery for racial discrimination, which always looked odd, will recieve more attention.

[Nearly Sane]

Forbes has entered the race, and I think that may be it. A field of Forbes, Regan, and Yousaf. Apart from GRRB differences, the only diffetentiator so far has been Regan talking about a more direct claim to what a mandate for indeoendence is (see attachment), and internal party democracy changes.

Be interested if we start to see something from Regan on freeports, as in opposition, and local democracy.

The Salmond case haunts the make up of the field.

[Nearly Sane]

And latest from Regan below on net zero commitments. The 'coalition' with the Greens only survives with Yousaf, if then.

Not that coalition has much impact as benefit for the SNP except at budget time, and even then it would be very difficult for the Tories, Lab, Lib Dems, Greens to vote in unison against one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Forbes has entered the race, and I think that may be it. A field of Forbes, Regan, and Yousaf. Apart from GRRB differences, the only diffetentiator so far has been Regan talking about a more direct claim to what a mandate for indeoendence is (see attachment), and internal party democracy changes.

I think Forbes has views on abortion rights and gay rights that I would image are neither mainstream within the SNP nor replicated by the other candidates. She will need to try to portray these as 'personal' views but she's been pretty outspoken in the past so she may not be able to park them so easily as leader (or potential leader) than she would have been able to do in her previous finance brief. She will, no doubt, also receive far more scrutiny on those views as potential leader.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Forbes has views on abortion rights and gay rights that I would image are neither mainstream within the SNP nor replicated by the other candidates. She will need to try to portray these as 'personal' views but she's been pretty outspoken in the past so she may not be able to park them so easily as leader (or potential leader) than she would have been able to do in her previous finance brief. She will, no doubt, also receive far more scrutiny on those views as potential leader.

And as already covered, Yousaf has represented himself as Muslim to appeal to that constituency but with this concentration on such subjects will need to be clear what that means. And it has to be remembered that Blackford is a Wee Free as well and lead the SNP at Westminster where the vast majority of decisions on the 2 issues you have mentioned are reserved.

Given the involvement of the GRRB question here, what do you mean by 'gay rights"?

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the involvement of the GRRB question here, what do you mean by 'gay rights"?

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Forbes has repeatedly failed to indicate her support for gay marriage despite being questioned on it. She is also reported to be anti abortion, believing that protecting 'the unborn' is the 'measure of true progress' in our society.

Now perhaps Yousuf and Regan are similarly anti abortion and have similarly failed to indicate their support for gay people being allowed to marry, but if not then I suggest there is a major distinction between the candidates on this.

[Nearly Sane]

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Forbes has repeatedly failed to indicate her support for gay marriage despite being questioned on it. She is also reported to be anti abortion, believing that protecting 'the unborn' is the 'measure of true progress' in our society.

Now perhaps Yousuf and Regan are similarly anti abortion and have similarly failed to indicate their support for gay people being allowed to marry, but if not then I suggest there is a major distinction between the candidates on this.

Has Forbes given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?

[ProfessorDavey]

... the vast majority of decisions on the 2 issues you have mentioned are reserved.

Are they NS? I thought that abortion was a matter for the Scottish parliament, also gay marriage. Neither are reserved matters.

[Nearly Sane]

Are they NS? I thought that abortion was a matter for the Scottish parliament, also gay marriage. Neither are reserved matters.

You are right. Which brings us back to whether Forbes has given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?

[ProfessorDavey]

You are right. Which brings us back to whether Forbes has given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?

But it isn't just about the highest of high level legislation, but about how things operate in practice. So on abortion examples could be levels of funding, approach to protests outside clinics, promotion of availability of services etc etc.

[Nearly Sane]

But it isn't just about the highest of high level legislation, but about how things operate in practice. So on abortion examples could be levels of funding, approach to protests outside clinics, promotion of availability of services etc etc.

And has Forbes made any indication on those - and  note that areas of protest outside abortion services hasn't been dealt with under Sturgeon.