Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

So in your view the red wall was a state.

You could argue that it terms of dominance of a party in an area - indeed I've described St Albans as a one party LibDem 'state' given they won all but one of the seats up for election last May. But that would be cherry picking as parties that contest red wall seats also contest other seats, just as LibDems also contest Watford, Hemel, Edinburgh etc etc. The SNP only contest Scottish seats and their dominance in terms of constituencies won vs constituencies contested is way ahead of any other party unless you self select a smaller area where they stand and ignore other areas where they stand.

And also the red wall is typically defined as ex Labour seats that went Tory in 2019 so defining after the event.

[Nearly Sane]

You could argue that it terms of dominance of a party in an area - indeed I've described St Albans as a one party LibDem 'state' given they one all but one of the seats up for election last May. But that would be cherry picking as parties that contest red wall seats also contest other seats, just as LibDems also contest Watford, Hemel, Edinburgh etc etc. The SNP only contest Scottish seats and their dominance in terms of constituencies won vs constituencies contested is way ahead of any other party unless you self select a smaller area where they stand and ignore other areas where they stand.

So you are using 'one party state' in a personal and metaphorical way.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you are using 'one party state' in a personal and metaphorical way.

Of course.

My use of the term, in a quasi-colloquial manner, was to emphasise the electoral dominance in Scotland of the SNP over the past 12 years or so, which I would argue (and have demonstrated with ... err ... evidence). I can't think of anything comparable in recent UK politics.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course - I don't believe there is some official, objective definition.

My use of the term, in a quasi-colloquial manner, was to emphasise the electoral dominance in Scotland of the SNP over the past 12 years or so, which I would argue (and have demonstrated with ... err ... evidence). I can't think of anything comparable in recent UK politics.

So when you said 'Westminster terms' you meant Scottish. And you meant 'one party state' ro not mean anything anyone else might think.

[ProfessorDavey]

So when you said 'Westminster terms' you meant Scottish.

When I said in Westminster terms I, of course, meant Scottish Westminster constituencies, as I have clarified until I'm blue in the face. That contrasts with, for example in Scottish Parliamentary terms (which are of course all in Scotland) or european election terms (which would mean the results of European elections in Scotland, but clearly not in England, or Latvia or Barcelona).

The point is a discussion of the dominance of Sturgeon and the SNP in Scottish politics - I would have thought it pretty obvious that I didn't need to point out that the SNP winning every local council area but one in the 2019 european election wasn't a demonstration of SNP dominance in Scottish politics as I didn't point out that they didn't win a single seat in Latvia!

And you meant 'one party state' ro not mean anything anyone else might think.

As I've explained I used the term to demonstrate a level of dominance in Scottish politics over the past 12 years that seems unprecedented, not just in Scottish politics, but also in UK politics. But maybe you can point out another example of a party that in terms of the constituencies they have contested have won greater proportion. Or perhaps a party that in the area they operate has won every single election (Westminster seats where they contest those seats, european where they contest those seats, regional parliamentary and local council elections) over a 12 year period. I can't think of anything close.

[Nearly Sane]

When I said in Westminster terms I, of course, meant Scottish Westminster constituencies, as I have clarified until I'm blue in the face. That contrasts with, for example in Scottish Parliamentary terms (which are of course all in Scotland) or european election terms (which would mean the results of European elections in Scotland, but clearly not in England, or Latvia or Barcelona).

The point is a discussion of the dominance of Sturgeon and the SNP in Scottish politics - I would have thought it pretty obvious that I didn't need to point out that the SNP winning every local council area but one in the 2019 european election wasn't a demonstration of SNP dominance in Scottish politics as I didn't point out that they didn't win a single seat in Latvia!
As I've explained I used the term to demonstrate a level of dominance in Scottish politics over the past 12 years that seems unprecedented, not just in Scottish politics, but also in UK politics. But maybe you can point out another example of a party that in terms of the constituencies they have contested have won greater proportion. Or perhaps a party that in the area they operate has won every single election (Westminster seats where they contest those seats, european where they contest those seats, regional parliamentary and local council elections) over a 12 year period. I can't think of anything close.

Do the SNP have the powers implied in your term 'one party state'?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do the SNP have the powers implied in your term 'one party state'?

Given that I have never made any claim about 'powers' there are no powers implied in my quasi-colloquial use of the one party state.

My use of the term is entirely about electoral and political dominance, nothing to do with the power that may bestow. So I might describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a 'one party state' if all elections to the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council were won by the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party by a significant margin over a 12 year period.

The Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council may have bugger all powers, responsible for nothing more than keeping the verges clean, but that wouldn't change the notion that the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party were electorally and politically dominant in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake and that one might colloqually describe  Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a one party state.

And actually this perhaps isn't a great analogy as I'd imaging the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party would only contest parish council elections - the equivalent would be if the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party also always won the district council, and general election constituency(ies) in  Little-Molding-on-the-Wake.

[ProfessorDavey]

So apparently Sturgeon was just a unionist stooge.

Apparently she only pretended to want independence and the unionist establishment she was in cahoots with pretended to attack her.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-used-and-discarded/

Hmmm

[ProfessorDavey]

There doesn't seem to be an heir apparent with Sturgeon resigning. This does seem to have come completely out of the blue and that means that the SNP doesn't appear to have carefully lined up a replacement as was the case when Sturgeon replaced Salmond.

It really is hard to see anyone easily able to step into the shoes of Sturgeon and before her Salmond who have dominated Scottish politics very successfully for more than a decade.

I guess the person who will be most delighted by her resignation will be Keir Starmer.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that I have never made any claim about 'powers' there are no powers implied in my quasi-colloquial use of the one party state.

My use of the term is entirely about electoral and political dominance, nothing to do with the power that may bestow. So I might describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a 'one party state' if all elections to the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council were won by the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party by a significant margin over a 12 year period.

The Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council may have bugger all powers, responsible for nothing more than keeping the verges clean, but that wouldn't change the notion that the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party were electorally and politically dominant in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake and that one might colloqually describe  Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a one party state.

And actually this perhaps isn't a great analogy as I'd imaging the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party would only contest parish council elections - the equivalent would be if the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party also always won the district council, and general election constituency(ies) in  Little-Molding-on-the-Wake.

is that in 'Little Molding on the Wake' terms?

[ProfessorDavey]

is that in 'Little Molding on the Wake' terms?

Nope that would be in 'Little Molding on the Wake Parish council terms', or in Snoddersby District Council terms if based on the Little Molding on the Wake seats on Snoddersby District Council etc.

Any thoughts on Sturgeon being a sleeper unionist, presumably having been a deep cover operative since the age of 16.

Or thoughts on successor, given that none look particularly likely to have anything like the experience and/or profile/credibility that Sturgeon had nor that Salmond had before her.

Apparently the bookies favourites are (in order and with my opinions for what they are worth):

Robertson (hardly the charismatic leader that the SNP have been used to with Sturgeon and Salmond, but perhaps boring in a Starmer-like manner, which might not be a bad thing)
Forbes (v. inexperienced with the potential to be a female Tim Farron)
Swinney (he was the future once!)
Yousaf (seems lightweight to me)

[Nearly Sane]

Nope that would be in 'Little Molding on the Wake Parish council terms', or in Snoddersby District Council terms if based on the Little Molding on the Wake seats on Snoddersby District Council etc.

Any thoughts on Sturgeon being a sleeper unionist, presumably having been a deep cover operative since the age of 16.

Or thoughts on successor, given that none look particularly likely to have anything like the experience and/or profile/credibility that Sturgeon had nor that Salmond had before her.

Apparently the bookies favourites are (in order and with my opinions for what they are worth):

Robertson (hardly the charismatic leader that the SNP have been used to with Sturgeon and Salmond, but perhaps boring in a Starmer-like manner, which might not be a bad thing)
Forbes (v. inexperienced with the potential to be a female Tim Farron)
Swinney (he was the future once!)
Yousaf (seems lightweight to me)

Your dislike of the Labour leader is interesting

[ProfessorDavey]

Your dislike of the Labour leader is interesting

I don't dislike the Labour leader, but my views on him seem to be a derail of the topic which is about Sturgeon's resignation and therefore the need for a new leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland.

As you are based in Scotland NS (and therefore the choice of First Minister will have a greater impact on you than on those living south of the border) perhaps you'd like to give us your views on the likely contenders. I've indicated the four top candidates in the betting so why don't you start with these four and perhaps add your views for anyone else you feel has a credible chance as there seems to be no clearly obvious heir apparent.

[SteveH]

Nice bit of mis-quoting NS.

"... close to a one party state (certainly in Westminster terms) ..."

So in the elections she was leader.

Westminster result 2019
SNP 48 out of 59 seats - in other words over 80% of the seats.
Westminster result 2017
SNP 35 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 60% of the seats - clearly an appalling result, compared to.
Westminster result 2015
SNP 56 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 95% of the seats

Sounds pretty close to a one party state to me - I think my comment is demonstrably accurate.

A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't dislike the Labour leader, but my views on him seem to be a derail of the topic which is about Sturgeon's resignation and therefore the need for a new leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland.

As you are based in Scotland NS (and therefore the choice of First Minister will have a greater impact on you than on those living south of the border) perhaps you'd like to give us your views on the likely contenders. I've indicated the four top candidates in the betting so why don't you start with these four and perhaps add your views for anyone else you feel has a credible chance as there seems to be no clearly obvious heir apparent.

I think Robertson is the clear heir apparent and that's why he became an MSP. While the timing of Sturgeon's resignation was a surprise, Robertson taking over as leader has been talked about in the party for some time.


Of the other three, it's a bit too early for Forbes, and Swinney and Yousaf have no chance.

The SNP are an odd party in requiring 2 leaders, and one of those posts Robertson has already held. Due to the main aim of the party, the leader in Scotland, particularly if FM, is the senior role but there will be people looking at Stephen Flynn wondering if he can somehow become leader.


Oh and the idea that Sturgeon is a sleeper unionist is pish.

[Nearly Sane]

A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.

Just to note they don't have a majority in Holyrood

[Nearly Sane]

Other possible candidates, though I don't see them winning, are Keith Brown and Ash Regan. I do think they need a competition this time.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Robertson is the clear heir apparent and that's why he became an MSP. While the timing of Sturgeon's resignation was a surprise, Robertson taking over as leader has been talked about in the party for some time.

That certainly didn't seem to be the view of the 'talking heads' on the news programmes yesterday, nor does that seem to be born out in polling. In both cases the view seems to be that there is no obvious heir apparent and the field it pretty wide open.

So there was a poll released just a couple of days ago that rather presciently asked who should succeed Sturgeon. Now Robertson came third in the poll, after Forbes and Swinney. But that isn't the most interesting point - the numbers opting for anyone were tiny - top ranked Forbes was the preference of just 7%, Swinney 6% and Robertson 5%. An overwhelming 69% said 'don't know' - that is hardly consistent with the notion of an obvious heir apparent. Sounds as if people in Scotland have no idea who should take over, which isn't surprising given that Sturgeon has been such a dominant figure, that were announcement was rather unexpected and that there has been no clear successor groomed to take the role.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of the other three, it's a bit too early for Forbes ...

Forbes has other challenges besides age, hence my point about the potential of her ending up as a female Tim Farron. She has been able to hide from voting on progressive social issues either through being given a conscious opt out due to her religious views or more recently due to being on maternity leave. It is one thing as the member of a government, but not the leader, personally not agreeing with government policy. It is an entirely different matter when you are leader as Farron discovered - you can't really legitimately exempt yourself from votes on government policy on conscience grounds as leader.

Sure, she could drive the SNP down a highly socially conservative route, which would align with her personal views but surely the SNP needs to be centre left, progressive and liberal if it is to continue to succeed.

[Nearly Sane]

That certainly didn't seem to be the view of the 'talking heads' on the news programmes yesterday, nor does that seem to be born out in polling. In both cases the view seems to be that there is no obvious heir apparent and the field it pretty wide open.

So there was a poll released just a couple of days ago that rather presciently asked who should succeed Sturgeon. Now Robertson came third in the poll, after Forbes and Swinney. But that isn't the most interesting point - the numbers opting for anyone were tiny - top ranked Forbes was the preference of just 7%, Swinney 6% and Robertson 5%. An overwhelming 69% said 'don't know' - that is hardly consistent with the notion of an obvious heir apparent. Sounds as if people in Scotland have no idea who should take over, which isn't surprising given that Sturgeon has been such a dominant figure, that were announcement was rather unexpected and that there has been no clear successor groomed to take the role.

And it wasn't a poll of the people who will vote for a leader.

[Nearly Sane]

Forbes has other challenges besides age, hence my point about the potential of her ending up as a female Tim Farron. She has been able to hide from voting on progressive social issues either through being given a conscious opt out due to her religious views or more recently due to being on maternity leave. It is one thing as the member of a government, but not the leader, personally not agreeing with government policy. It is an entirely different matter when you are leader as Farron discovered - you can't really legitimately exempt yourself from votes on government policy on conscience grounds as leader.

Sure, she could drive the SNP down a highly socially conservative route, which would align with her personal views but surely the SNP needs to be centre left, progressive and liberal if it is to continue to succeed.

My point wasn't about age but rather her career in the govt.

ETA - not sure she wants the role.

[ProfessorDavey]

My point wasn't about age but rather her career in the govt.

And you don't see her religious views as being a problem? She was recently interviewed by Tim Farron for Premier Christianity - I think he could give her good advice about the impossibility of trying to square ultra-conservative religious views with being the leader of a party that is socially progressive and liberal. 

[ProfessorDavey]

A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.

Steve - I never intended to imply that Scotland/SNP were a literal one-party-state, as per North Korea. Nope it was merely an expression used to demonstrate the dominance in political and electoral terms of the SNP in Scotland over the past 12 years which, as far as I can see, seems pretty well unprecedented in political terms in Britain for as far back as I can see.

So the SNP operates in Scotland and therefore it is only relevant to look at their results in Scotland. Since 2011 I think there have been:

3 Westminster elections
3 Scottish Parliamentary elections
3 rounds of local elections
2 EU elections.

In terms of the results in Scotland and votes cast/seats won etc the SNP has won every one of those elections, in some cases by a country mile. That is a remarkably achievement and something I cannot see having been replicated by another UK party over a similar period in modern times. Sure parties have won general elections, but they've lost local elections, EU elections etc in between - but not the SNP, they've had a clean sweep since 2011.

[ProfessorDavey]

And it wasn't a poll of the people who will vote for a leader.

Heir apparent definition (in this context):

one whose succession especially to a position or role appears certain under existing circumstances

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heir%20apparent

That isn't just to a small subsection of the population who might have voting rights, but more generally. Clearly the Scottish people do not see Robertson as heir apparent, indeed they don't seem to think that anyone is an obvious heir apparent. The SNP hasn't mapped the route forward in succession planning terms, as was the case for the transition from Salmond Sturgeon, or indeed from Blair to Brown.

Robertson might win, indeed currently looks to be the favourite in some people's view (although others are seeing Forbes as favourite), but he is no heir apparent.

Will be interesting to see whether SNP members have a better hit rate at picking a leader than Labour or the Tories (or indeed the LibDems). Recent history suggests party members are as likely to pick a complete no-hoper, an ideological extremist nutter or a buffoon as they are to pick a credible leader.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see that details of the leadership selection process are being announced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64671290

The process will be complete within a relatively short timeframe - by late March. I wonder whether this is sensible given that there isn't an obvious successor - perhaps more time, particularly following nominations, would allow less high profile candidates to become better known by the members. I remember in 2005 the Tories deliberately extended their leadership election to ensure that lower profile candidates gained recognition - and this was considered to be key for the relatively unknown David Cameron to be successful.

I know there was criticism that the most recent Tory leadership election - well the one that ended in Truss - took too long but I do think there are occasions when taking a little more time might be preferable - specifically when there are a range of potentially credible candidates but no overwhelming front runner. And I think the SNP have time - I don't believe there are any elections upcoming (e.g. in May), nor is there an issue over first minister in my opinion. Sturgeon was not forced to resign, she chose to, so I see no problem in her continuing for a few months longer. That wasn't really the case when Boris was forced out and had no real mandate to continue.