Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Married to the FM of Scotland.

No cigar - last time I looked being married to someone wasn't a role, office or position within a government.

So why don't you try again:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

[Nearly Sane]

No cigar - last time I looked being married to someone wasn't a role, office or position within a government.

So why don't you try again:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

It would save time if you just add 'I'm politically naive' as a signature.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you actually going to answer them or engage in your usual evasion and obfuscation.

I note that you've still failed to answer the question on your opinions of the three candidates which I asked in replies 318, 326, 328, 330, 331.

Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?

Given that one of the questions was actually posed by you in the first place, namely:

1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with

You seem to be declaring your own posts irrelevant.

Albeit interesting that you came straight back at me when I got the answers wrong, but then steadfastly refused to respond to my second bite. Hmm, wonder why that might be.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?

Why is it irrelevant to ask, which organisation Murrell was CEO (and which organisation that as far as I know he has never worked for) of and which organisation is accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum (and which organisation has not been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum).

These are absolutely locked on relevant questions.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that one of the questions was actually posed by you in the first place, namely:

1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with

You seem to be declaring your own posts irrelevant.

Albeit interesting that you came straight back at me when I got the answers wrong, but then steadfastly refused to respond to my second bite. Hmm, wonder why that might be.

You mean reply 304? I didn't pose a question in that.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is it irrelevant to ask, which organisation Murrell was CEO (and which organisation that as far as I know he has never worked for) of and which organisation is accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum (and which organisation has not been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum).

These are absolutely locked on relevant questions.

For a politically naive person who had never heard of Julius and his wife. You know I try to help you put but you just keep on pulling yourself back in.

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean reply 304? I didn't pose a question in that.

You posited views without indicating which candidate, which I think you'd be take as 'see if you can guess which is which'. Which is exactly what I did and you weer straight back at me when I was wrong. Yet when I made a second guess, you completely ignored it, despite me asking you to answer. Why might that be?

[Nearly Sane]

You posited views without indicating which candidate, which I think you'd be take as 'see if you can guess which is which'. Which is exactly what I did and you weer straight back at me when I was wrong. Yet when I made a second guess, you completely ignored it, despite me asking you to answer. Why might that be?

  And yet I didn't ask a question.

[ProfessorDavey]

For a politically naive person who had never heard of Julius and his wife. You know I try to help you put but you just keep on pulling yourself back in.

Sure I've heard of them - but as far as I'm aware ancient Rome didn't operate a system where the government funding and the funding of political parties are required, by law, to be kept scrupulously separate.

So, it isn't relevant. However if someone is so politically naive that they don't understand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are different organisations then there isn't much anyone can do to help.

So I'll ask my entirely relevant questions again:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

Sure I've heard of them - but as far as I'm aware ancient Rome didn't operate a system where the government funding and the funding of political parties are required, by law, to be kept scrupulously separate.

So, it isn't relevant. However if someone is so politically naive that they don't understand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are different organisations then there isn't much anyone can do to help.

So I'll ask my entirely relevant questions again:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

Yeah amazingly in a less democratic system than our's there was a concept of transparency, that you seem to have no clue about.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah amazingly in a less democratic system than our's there was a concept of transparency, that you seem to have no clue about.

Yes - I'm well aware of the story and note your continuing evasion and obfuscation.

Once again, please can you answer the following:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - I'm well aware of the story and note your continuing evasion and obfuscation.

Once again, please can you answer the following:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

And yet again you illustrate your lack of understanding. Asking irrelevant questions remains irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat them.

[jeremyp]

Did you miss my other examples - all of which involved parties electing a new leader in power.

Did you miss "of the examples cited" in my post? The examples previously listed were mostly elections while the party was in opposition.

It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's. Johnson's did drag on a bit. Gordon Brown slipped in pretty quickly (that was probably a mistake). When the party is in power, it seems there is often a lot of pressure for the leader to be decided without a membership vote precisely because of the power vacuum.

Regardless of the history of leadership elections while in power, wouldn't you accept the a short transition is generally a good thing, provided you don't screw it up?

[jeremyp]

Actually the strict definition of a lame duck is a person who remains in office after their successor has been elected - e.g. in US presidential election from the election in Nov until the Jan inauguration of the new president.

But I get that in a more general sense it is a person who has no authority any more. But this is where I disagree - Sturgeon having announced that she is to resign has no bearing constitutionally on what she can and cannot do as FM.

Not everything is about the constitution. Politically she is impotent because we know that within a few weeks her successor will be in place and her successor might want to do things differently. It doesn't matter that Sturgeon hasn't lost the confidence of the party - although the way things are going, that might not last.

[jeremyp]

And yet again you illustrate your lack of understanding. Asking irrelevant questions remains irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat them.

What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?

[Nearly Sane]

What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?

Because in political terms having a party in govt where the CEO is married to the leader, and therefore FM in this case, makes it look as if any notional Chinese walls don't exist.

[jeremyp]

Because in political terms having a party in govt where the CEO is married to the leader, and therefore FM in this case, makes it look as if any notional Chinese walls don't exist.

So you are arguing that there is a conflict of interest because the Scottish First Minister is married to the CEO of her party. I'm not sure I agree with that or that there needs to be any "Chinese walls" other than to avoid Scottish government money, privileged information and other resources being used for party purposes, although I guess I've just defined a Chinese wall.

Murrell's resignation was correct given that he seemed to have forgotten to tell any of his staff that the SNP only had 70,000 members. Regardless of who his wife is, he had to go.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you miss "of the examples cited" in my post? The examples previously listed were mostly elections while the party was in opposition.

Actually I think I have given six examples to date:

Blair replacing Smith (in opposition)
Cameron replacing Howard (in opposition)
May replacing Cameron (in power, but truncated due to only one candidate)
Johnson replacing May (in power)
Truss replacing Johnson (in power)
Drakeford replacing Carwyn (in power)

I make that majority of example being for a party in power - and in every case the timetable was considerably longer than the 6 weeks for the SNP election.

It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's. Johnson's did drag on a bit. Gordon Brown slipped in pretty quickly (that was probably a mistake). When the party is in power, it seems there is often a lot of pressure for the leader to be decided without a membership vote precisely because of the power vacuum.

But in the case of Brown and May, the reason why the election was quick was because there was only one nominees and therefore the membership election part never happened. Had there been more than one candidate in 2007 or 2016 the process to replace Blair and Cameron respectively would have taken considerably more than 6 weeks had there been the need for a member vote.

And the flip side is also true - had there been only one nominee for the SNP election we'd have had a new leader by now.

But comparing the current SNP with Brown or May is comparing apples and oranges - non equivalents as in the latter cases there was no membership vote due to there being only one candidate while the former requires a membership vote. To compare apples with apples you need to look at either selections where there was a membership vote e.g. for Johnson, Truss, Drakeford or the timetable for Brown/May had this gone to a member vote.

Regardless of the history of leadership elections while in power, wouldn't you accept the a short transition is generally a good thing, provided you don't screw it up?

I said elsewhere that I do not think the selection of a new leader when in office should involve a membership vote as the key distinction is the selection of a new FM/PM and that should be either directly with an electoral mandate or indirectly via elected MP/MSPs. So yes it is preferable for it to be shorter but if you are going to have a member vote it cannot be short as the process gets much more complicated - and particularly so if you have no idea who your members actually are!!

[ProfessorDavey]

So you are arguing that there is a conflict of interest because the Scottish First Minister is married to the CEO of her party. I'm not sure I agree with that or that there needs to be any "Chinese walls" other than to avoid Scottish government money, privileged information and other resources being used for party purposes, although I guess I've just defined a Chinese wall.

Legally there will be all sorts of things that Sturgeon would not have been allowed to discuss with Murrell and were she have done so she would potentially have been in breach of the official secrets act.

And the same will go for Sunak - there will be all sorts of things that he is legally not permitted to discussed with senior conservative party officials as they are confidential government matter. The issue isn't whether person X is person Y's spouse, it is that the role of FM or PM is distinct from the role of party leader. And that is because the government and the political party are different things, but NS really doesn't seem to understand that rather simple principle of politics despite patronisingly claiming that I am politically naive.

Murrell's resignation was correct given that he seemed to have forgotten to tell any of his staff that the SNP only had 70,000 members. Regardless of who his wife is, he had to go.

Yup I agree with that.

[ProfessorDavey]

What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?

Because it is a fundamental (and fundamentally important) element of our constitution that we separate the role of government - which is a part of the functioning of the state, and supported by state-funded civil servants - with the role of a political party, which is largely a privately funded organisation.

As such if in government you must create a complete boundary between the money that you control in government and the money you use for political purposes for campaigning etc. So an MP or MPS will not be able to use public money for campaigning.

The slightly grey area is the so-called Short money - this is public money largely given to opposition parties to support policy develop. The argument is that parties in government have an advantage as their policy develop is support by the civil service, which is legitimate as this is government policy. Oppositions are therefore on the back foot so short money is provided to level the playing field. However Short money is not supposed to be used for campaigning purposes, nor to support party central office functions.

[jeremyp]

I said elsewhere that I do not think the selection of a new leader when in office should involve a membership vote as the key distinction is the selection of a new FM/PM and that should be either directly with an electoral mandate or indirectly via elected MP/MSPs. So yes it is preferable for it to be shorter but if you are going to have a member vote it cannot be short as the process gets much more complicated - and particularly so if you have no idea who your members actually are!!

I agree. Paradoxically, a leadership election is more democratic if it's limited to MPs rather than allowing the party membership to vote. This is because (taking the Tories as an example with a membership of around 172,000 in 2022), you can win with fewer votes than the population of one constituency. Liz Truss won with 81,326 votes and there are a number of constituencies with more people in it than that. It would be far better IMO for the leader who is going to end up as prime minister because their party already has a majority in parliament, to be elected by MPs alone.

In fact, with the current Tory system, there is a small risk that, following the membership vote, the Tory MPs who voted for the loser could join the opposition in a no confidence vote and cause the collapse of the government.

Anyway, back to the SNP...

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's.

Out of interest, in 2016 had Leadsom not pulled out to leave May as the only candidate the election would have run from 24th June (when Cameron announced his plan to resign) to 9th Sept. That's pretty well double the length of the SNP election.

[jeremyp]

Because it is a fundamental (and fundamentally important) element of our constitution that we separate the role of government - which is a part of the functioning of the state, and supported by state-funded civil servants - with the role of a political party, which is largely a privately funded organisation.

I don't think any of us would disagree with that.

As such if in government you must create a complete boundary between the money that you control in government and the money you use for political purposes for campaigning etc. So an MP or MPS will not be able to use public money for campaigning.

Agreed.

The slightly grey area is the so-called Short money - this is public money largely given to opposition parties to support policy develop. The argument is that parties in government have an advantage as their policy develop is support by the civil service, which is legitimate as this is government policy. Oppositions are therefore on the back foot so short money is provided to level the playing field. However Short money is not supposed to be used for campaigning purposes, nor to support party central office functions.

I didn't know such money existed. The Wikipedia page says it is for "parliamentary duties", not policy development. In any case, the SNP being in power would not qualify for whatever the Scottish equivalent is.

[jeremyp]

In any case, the SNP being in power would not qualify for whatever the Scottish equivalent is.

Although they would qualify for the Westminster version, of course. My question is therefore, would it be paid to the parliamentary party or to the party as a whole. In the latter case, there would have to be controls to make sure it was used for its proper purpose and it seems that the SNP has issues in the area of accounting.