Sturgeon to resign as FM

[Nearly Sane]

Given this has already happened perhaps 6 weeks might be too long.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

I think it will be a problem but I think that there are other issues as mentioned. The party has a problem here in that if Forbes and Yousaf were both candidates, attacking Forbes because of her religion opens up the possibility of that happening to Yousaf. If that happens the perception of being a tolerant party will be strained.


There have already been comments that she might have problems with the job as she has a new baby - strangely missing that other touted male candidates have young children.

ETA: One of the current defences being used for Forbes's religious beliefs are that they are 'private beliefs', I'm not really sure how in running for FM you can have them as private. It's a bit different from liking Marmite.

[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.

Having looked at some sheep's innards yesterday, I think you are right. The intention existed to have Robertson  as an heir apparent but the plan was not carried out. The reasons for that are ones that I will refrain from speculating on for legal reasons.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it will be a problem but I think that there are other issues as mentioned. The party has a problem here in that if Forbes and Yousaf were both candidates, attacking Forbes because of her religion opens up the possibility of that happening to Yousaf. If that happens the perception of being a tolerant party will be strained.

Perhaps - now I might be wrong, but my impression was that Forbes' religious convictions seem rather more prominent compared to Yousaf. I think Forbes has been clear that her religious belief are more important than her political belief/career. Has Yousaf made any similar kind of statement - maybe he has, but I not aware if that is the case.

ETA: One of the current defences being used for Forbes's religious beliefs are that they are 'private beliefs', I'm not really sure how in running for FM you can have them as private. It's a bit different from liking Marmite.

That is often used as a defence, but that rather relies on the Blair 'we don't do god' approach, which doesn't really cut it if you have indicated that her religious beliefs are more important than her political ones. Actually I thought that Forbes, rather than rely on the 'personal beliefs' approach she justified things on the 'collective responsibility' of cabinet approach. Now that works for a rank and file cabinet minister, it doesn't really work for the leader/First Minister who will be expected to lead, relying on others to follow via collective responsibility rather than rely on it themselves.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given this has already happened perhaps 6 weeks might be too long.

So someone doesn't like Cherry and is therefore not saddened by her decision not to stand - so what.

And realistically she would have had zero chance of winning, not least because she isn't an MSP so wouldn't that effectively prevent her from being First Minister as well as leader of the SNP

[Nearly Sane]

So someone doesn't like Cherry and is therefore not saddened by her decision not to stand - so what.

And realistically she would have had zero chance of winning, not least because she isn't an MSP so wouldn't that effectively prevent her from being First Minister as well as leader of the SNP

Just to help you out that isn't just a random someone


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wishart

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to help you out that isn't just a random someone


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wishart

I do know who Wishart is NS - indeed I actually have some of his records from his days with Runrig.

But what is your point - Cherry is a pretty controversial character within the SNP - indeed there was strong speculation that she might jump ship to Alba at one point. The notion that one of her parliamentary colleagues might not be particularly enamoured by her is hardly news and Wishart and Cherry have history - I think we all know that. She seems to have made enemies of large swathes of the party which is another reason why she'd have no chance.

Actually the whole notion of 'ruling yourself out' of standing when you had no chance anyhow speaks of a level of misguided self importance.

[Nearly Sane]

I do know who Wishart is NS - indeed I actually have some of his records from his days with Runrig.

But what is your point - Cherry is a pretty controversial character within the SNP - indeed there was strong speculation that she might jump ship to Alba at one point. The notion that one of her parliamentary colleagues might not be particularly enamoured by her is hardly news and Wishart and Cherry have history - I think we all know that. She seems to have made enemies of large swathes of the party which is another reason why she'd have no chance.

Actually the whole notion of 'ruling yourself out' of standing when you had no chance anyhow speaks of a level of misguided self importance.

Using 'someone' and not noting who Wishart was as if it didn't show the divides in the party is disingenuous at best.

[ProfessorDavey]

Using 'someone' and not noting who Wishart was as if it didn't show the divides in the party is disingenuous at best.

Not meant to be disingenuous - maybe I should have include a  at the end of the sentence.

I was and am well aware of who he is and their prior history - they are hardly best buddies are they.

But I still think that Cherry publicly announcing that she isn't going to stand smacks of self importance given that I couldn't see how she could legitimately stand unless the SNP are going to separate the role of party leader and First Minister. And that's before you consider that she is neither a darling of her Scottish and Westminster parliamentary colleagues, nor, I suspect, of the membership at large.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps - now I might be wrong, but my impression was that Forbes' religious convictions seem rather more prominent compared to Yousaf. I think Forbes has been clear that her religious belief are more important than her political belief/career. Has Yousaf made any similar kind of statement - maybe he has, but I not aware if that is the case.
That is often used as a defence, but that rather relies on the Blair 'we don't do god' approach, which doesn't really cut it if you have indicated that her religious beliefs are more important than her political ones. Actually I thought that Forbes, rather than rely on the 'personal beliefs' approach she justified things on the 'collective responsibility' of cabinet approach. Now that works for a rank and file cabinet minister, it doesn't really work for the leader/First Minister who will be expected to lead, relying on others to follow via collective responsibility rather than rely on it themselves.

This seems to miss the point. I have no doubt gor many reasons that Yousaf is effectively a 'cultural' Muslim. That doesn't stop either his religion being more well known than Forbes to the genetral public, nor the issue being something that will be raised by Forbes's supporters in the event of a competition with both involved. Yousaf would then be placed in a position of stating how important hos teligious values are to him, and that may cause issues with some of his core support. Tbh, I think his main problem is his record as a minister. Forbes gets by with less record but that has its own issues.


Just to note the 'we don't do god' is surely a Campbell approach rather than a Blair one?

[Nearly Sane]

Not meant to be disingenuous - maybe I should have include a  at the end of the sentence.

I was and am well aware of who he is and their prior history - they are hardly best buddies are they.

But I still think that Cherry publicly announcing that she isn't going to stand smacks of self importance given that I couldn't see how she could legitimately stand unless the SNP are going to separate the role of party leader and First Minister. And that's before you consider that she is neither a darling of her Scottish and Westminster parliamentary colleagues, nor, I suspect, of the membership at large.

Flynn also ruled himself out because there has been some talk of changing the rules to allow MPs to stand.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note the 'we don't do god' is surely a Campbell approach rather than a Blair one?

It is - but Blair clearly stood by that mantra - although he was known to be religious, I don't think he brought this overtly to his politics. In that regard he is like all sorts of politicians, where their religion may be a clear motivational 'background music' but the there is no evidence that specific religious positions were brought to bear in their political judgements. Forbes isn't like that - she has been clear about her religious convictions, their importance to her not in a backgrounded kind of manner, but very much 'foregrounded' so that they clearly influence her record of support on certain social matters.

[Nearly Sane]

It is - but Blair clearly stood by that mantra - although he was known to be religious, I don't think he brought this overtly to his politics. In that regard he is like all sorts of politicians, where their religion may be a clear motivational 'background music' but the there is no evidence that specific religious positions were brought to bear in their political judgements. Forbes isn't like that - she has been clear about her religious convictions, their importance to her not in a backgrounded kind of manner, but very much 'foregrounded' so that they clearly influence her record of support on certain social matters.

Campbell interrupted Blair to say that when he thought Blair was 'doing god'. Though given Blair what 'doing god' might mean is another question

[ProfessorDavey]

This seems to miss the point. I have no doubt gor many reasons that Yousaf is effectively a 'cultural' Muslim. That doesn't stop either his religion being more well known than Forbes to the genetral public, nor the issue being something that will be raised by Forbes's supporters in the event of a competition with both involved. Yousaf would then be placed in a position of stating how important hos teligious values are to him, and that may cause issues with some of his core support. Tbh, I think his main problem is his record as a minister. Forbes gets by with less record but that has its own issues.

Sure I get what you are saying but that would effectively be just plain old fashioned racism. But once you step back from good old fashioned racism the differences are that Forbes is really, really religious in a manner that I don't believe Yousaf, Sunak or Khan are (to pick three non-white politicians). And more significantly Forbes appears happy to foreground her religious beliefs in her political judgement in a manner that Yousaf, Sunak or Khan don't.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure I get what you are saying but that would effectively be just plain old fashioned racism. But once you step back from good old fashioned racism the differences are that Forbes is really, really religious in a manner that I don't believe Yousaf, Sunak or Khan are (to pick three non-white politicians). And more significantly Forbes appears happy to foreground her religious beliefs in her political judgement in a manner that Yousaf, Sunak or Khan don't.

i think that works as long as you don't make your religion part of your campaign approach, and certainly Yousaf has highlighted his being a Muslim in the past, as had the SNP in talking about inclusiveness. If it's significant it's going to then look odd to campaign against someone who happens to be a Wee Free on their religion.

[Nearly Sane]

The interesting thing, imo, here is the general haunting of Scottish politics by religion. It's not that long ago that thd SNP were seen a.Protestant party, and Gordon Wilson was a Wee Free member. The party changed hugely to the extent that when Ulsterisation of Scottish politics is now talked about, the SNP are very much seen as RC biased.

[ProfessorDavey]

i think that works as long as you don't make your religion part of your campaign approach, and certainly Yousaf has highlighted his being a Muslim in the past, as had the SNP in talking about inclusiveness. If it's significant it's going to then look odd to campaign against someone who happens to be a Wee Free on their religion.

But I don't think that the issue is Yousuf being a muslim or Forbes being a wee free per se. No it is her views on matters such as abortion, gay rights, transgender rights etc that are the issue. I know that these are driven by her religious conviction but it is the views that are problematic if she wants to be the leader of a party that is seen largely as progressive and socially liberal.

Exactly the same problems beset Farron - his religious views were at odds with his party.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I don't think that the issue is Yousuf being a muslim or Forbes being a wee free per se. No it is her views on matters such as abortion, gay rights, transgender rights etc that are the issue. I know that these are driven by her religious conviction but it is the views that are problematic if she wants to be the leader of a party that is seen largely as progressive and socially liberal.

Exactly the same problems beset Farron - his religious views were at odds with his party.

Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.

Not true at all - let's not forget that he was selected to be leader of a major (if the LibDems are major) political party. The problem was that the values of that political party were fundamentally opposed to his values (driven by his religion) on some major social issues. He'd have had no issues in some other parties, notably the tories and UKIP etc where those views on social issues were pretty mainstream. But problem for Farron is that some of his other values and views would have been incompatible with UKIP and, probably, the tories.

So it isn't really that he was unacceptable in a broader sense in society, but that his values were incompatible with the party he was trying to lead on those issues.

And I note you have conveniently ignored May in your list of recent PMs - she was probably similarly as religious as Farron, but she had no issues as her religious values didn't really rub up against the values of the party she led.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.

What nonsense.

I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm

[ProfessorDavey]

What nonsense.

I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm

Indeed - and over recent decades we've had a much greater proportion of active worshiping christians as PMs than in the general populace and our current PM is also actively religious, albeit not christian. So no evidence of secularist bias against religious PMs. So from Thatcher onwards in terms of active religiosity we have:

Thatcher - yes
Major - probably not, although he was happy to suck up to an old school kind of christianity
Blair - yes
Brown - yes
Cameron - only when magicFM was in range!
May - yes
Johnson - probably not, except for weddings, notably his own
Truss - no
Sunak - yes

[ProfessorDavey]

Major shift in polls in Scotland.

For Westminster election - post-Sturgeon resignation puts SNP on 38%, just 2% above Labour who are now on 36% - tories down at 16%. For comparison the 2019 election had SNP on 45%, Labour on just 18% and the tories on 25%.

This could massively shift the situation for a UK general election with Labour winning back a whole raft of seats they lost in 2015 and have failed to regain since. Hugely increases the likelihood of a Labour overall majority.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10236610/labour-snp-next-general-election-poll/

[Nearly Sane]

Major shift in polls in Scotland.

For Westminster election - post-Sturgeon resignation puts SNP on 38%, just 2% above Labour who are now on 36% - tories down at 16%. For comparison the 2019 election had SNP on 45%, Labour on just 18% and the tories on 25%.

This could massively shift the situation for a UK general election with Labour winning back a whole raft of seats they lost in 2015 and have failed to regain since. Hugely increases the likelihood of a Labour overall majority.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10236610/labour-snp-next-general-election-poll/

The crucial thing about numbers like that is they are critical mass for people thinking that voting for Labour in Scotland may be the difference in what the govt is in Westminster.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

The crucial thing about numbers like that is they are critical mass for people thinking that voting for Labour in Scotland may be the difference in what the govt is in Westminster.

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.