Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779

Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)

Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.

Just seeing this on a different site:

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/03/09/snp-leadership-latest-betting/

Suggests that Regan is 4th in the betting in a 3 horse race! Blimey, that takes some doing and also demonstrates Joanna Cherry's judgement as she is the only MP or MSP to have endorsed Regan.

I think the betting for Yousaf/Forbes looks about right - Yousaf favourite but not overwhelmingly.

[Nearly Sane]

Just seeing this on a different site:

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/03/09/snp-leadership-latest-betting/

Suggests that Regan is 4th in the betting in a 3 horse race! Blimey, that takes some doing and also demonstrates Joanna Cherry's judgement as she is the only MP or MSP to have endorsed Regan.

I think the betting for Yousaf/Forbes looks about right - Yousaf favourite but not overwhelmingly.

What does it demonstrate about Cherry's judgement?

[ProfessorDavey]

What does it demonstrate about Cherry's judgement?

That she seems to consider someone with no (other than her) support from parliamentary colleagues and with tiny support from the electorate to be the most suitable person to lead the SNP (and therefore be leader of those parliamentary colleagues) and also be first minister (and therefore need to command respect of, and ultimately votes from the wider electorate).

[Nearly Sane]

That she seems to consider someone with no (other than her) support from parliamentary colleagues and with tiny support from the electorate to be the most suitable person to lead the SNP (and therefore be leader of those parliamentary colleagues) and also be first minister (and therefore need to command respect of, and ultimately votes from the wider electorate).

Surely you endorse the person you think is best for the job rather than the most popular?

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely you endorse the person you think is best for the job rather than the most popular?

When the job involves leading a political party, including its elected members and leading a government that requires the broader support of the electorate then I would have though that having the confidence of those parliamentary colleagues and the wider electorate is an absolutely key attribute for the best person for the job. It isn't a case of popularity, but that the individual has the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues and the electorate.

I'm struggling to see how someone whose job is to lead can be the best person in that leadership role if they don't have the confidence of their colleagues - but presumably Cherry doesn't think that matters.

[Nearly Sane]

When the job involves leading a political party, including its elected members and leading a government that requires the broader support of the electorate then I would have though that having the confidence of those parliamentary colleagues and the wider electorate is an absolutely key attribute for the best person for the job. It isn't a case of popularity, but that the individual has the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues and the electorate.

I'm struggling to see how someone whose job is to lead can be the best person in that leadership role if they don't have the confidence of their colleagues - but presumably Cherry doesn't think that matters.

so in order to choose to endorse someone you should wait to see who most of the other MPs and MSPs do before endorsing anyone. Can you see the problem with your logic?

[Nearly Sane]

New poll of Scottish public


https://news.stv.tv/politics/kate-forbes-leads-humza-yousaf-by-eight-per-cent-among-scottish-public-in-snp-race-channel-4-poll-finds

[ProfessorDavey]

so in order to choose to endorse someone you should wait to see who most of the other MPs and MSPs do before endorsing anyone. Can you see the problem with your logic?

Don't you think that MPs and MSPs talk to each other, and will have done for years so it would be pretty clear to anyone who is engaged with his or her colleagues what their opinion of the candidates is. If you have to wait for a formal endorsement to understand views on candidates then that suggests you aren't really engaging with your colleagues. And maybe that it Cherry's issue - she certainly seems pretty detached from her colleagues.

[ProfessorDavey]

New poll of Scottish public


https://news.stv.tv/politics/kate-forbes-leads-humza-yousaf-by-eight-per-cent-among-scottish-public-in-snp-race-channel-4-poll-finds

Showing Forbes ahead amongst all voters and Yousaf marginally ahead amongst SNP voters - don't think there is any assessment of SNP members.

Rock and hard place - go for Forbes who has more support in the wider electorate but doesn't have the support of her parliamentary colleagues or go for Yousaf who has the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues but isn't favoured by the wider electorate.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't you think that MPs and MSPs talk to each other, and will have done for years so it would be pretty clear to anyone who is engaged with his or her colleagues what their opinion of the candidates is. If you have to wait for a formal endorsement to understand views on candidates then that suggests you aren't really engaging with your colleagues. And maybe that it Cherry's issue - she certainly seems pretty detached from her colleagues.

I'm sure they do but you seem to be arguing that you should just go along with the majority view. And that it's bad judgement if you don't. Is that really your position?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure they do but you seem to be arguing that you should just go along with the majority view. And that it's bad judgement if you don't. Is that really your position?

I'm not arguing that at all. I am saying that if you want to be a leader of a group of people who already know you (as would be the case for the SNP and parliamentary colleagues) your ability to lead will be determined to a large extent by the confidence those people have in you already. And that will already be a known thing as MSPs (and likely MPs too) will already have a pretty clear view on the competence and leadership skills of Forbes, Yousaf and Regan from their working relationships with them over the past years. All that is already baked in before a single person endorses anyone.

It is absolutely clear that MSPs and MPs don't have confidence in Regan's ability to lead, and I imagine that isn't a new view but one that they've held for a while as they know and have worked with her. And that is critically important - if you don't take note of that you end up with Corbyn - a leader that most of his parliamentary colleagues thought was useless before becoming leader and still thought was useful once he had become leader. Cherry is an MP - she will have seen the effect first hand in Westminster, yet it doesn't seem to bother her that Regan does not have the confidence of her parliamentary colleagues. Or maybe she is so detached from her parliamentary colleagues that she's never had the conversation about what others think about potential leadership candidates.

[ProfessorDavey]

Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779

Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)

Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.

Something to note on the endorsement.

Both Forbes and Yousaf are Cabinet Secretaries with junior ministers working underneath them. These junior ministers probably have the best insight into the leadership skills of their respective Cabinet Secretary.

Both of Yousaf's junior ministers have endorsed him, none of Forbes four junior ministers have endorsed her. Make of that what you will.

[Nearly Sane]

'The SNP is living in a fantasy land'

https://archive.vn/74hAY

[ProfessorDavey]

'The SNP is living in a fantasy land'

https://archive.vn/74hAY

Lot to agree with in this.

I think Salmond and Sturgeon devised a mantra around competence - effectively let's get into government, be trusted on delivery and then independence with naturally flow from that. And indeed all seemed to be working well ... except the spanner in the works that the 2014 referendum didn't got the right way.

But the current candidates seem to have forgotten this (very sensible) strategy. Or perhaps the issue is that it is much harder - firstly because the candidates need to be speaking to the narrow SNP membership who are presumably far more obsessed with independence than wider SNP vote, let alone the overall electorate. But there is another issue - the SNP have now been in power in Scotland for 12 years. When you've only been in power for a couple of years it is possible to say 'trust us, it is early days fixing the mess we inherited. But look we've made a good start'. But that argument doesn't really work as the SNP has been in power for over a decade and and the candidates are all firmly fixed to that record.

Same problem that the tories have had, particularly in 2019 and 2022 - candidates who cannot really market themselves as a change candidate as they were all at the cabinet table when failure was happening.

[Nearly Sane]

The SNP have managed to maintain the idea that any failings are caused by Westminster, and to be fair, Westminster have done a lot to help them.

[Nearly Sane]

More polling of Scottish voters


https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/03/10/news/poll_almost_half_of_scots_say_snp_candidates_have_not_made_independence_case-3125230/

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with this from Iain MacWhirter


https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/get-back-its-ok-to-be-muslim-but

[ProfessorDavey]

The SNP have managed to maintain the idea that any failings are caused by Westminster, and to be fair, Westminster have done a lot to help them.

But there is also the 'the last lot screwed this up, we will fix it' argument - but that only works for a party who has recently come to power. The SNP cannot use that anymore, although they could have 10 years ago. So this removes a key target to hang their failures on - the previous government. In a devolved assembly you can always blame the government in Westminster if it is of a different political colour, but the SNP can no longer blame their predecessors at Holyrood for failures as they once could.

[Nearly Sane]

But there is also the 'the last lot screwed this up, we will fix it' argument - but that only works for a party who has recently come to power. The SNP cannot use that anymore, although they could have 10 years ago. So this removes a key target to hang their failures on - the previous government. In a devolved assembly you can always blame the government in Westminster if it is of a different political colour, but the SNP can no longer blame their predecessors at Holyrood for failures as they once could.

They very rarely did, that's the point. They used the 'It's all Westminster's fault' from the start. In one sense, it wasn't even political cunning, it's what follows from one approach to Scottish independence. Amazingly it held through Covid when the actions were essentially the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree with this from Iain MacWhirter


https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/get-back-its-ok-to-be-muslim-but

Nope - he's missing the point.

The difference between Yousaf and Forbes isn't that one is muslim and one is christian - no the difference, as it seems to me, are their personal views and also their indication of whether they would legislate on the basis of those views, where they align with a religious orthodoxy. From what I've seen Forbes personal views are pretty extreme and she has also indicated that her religious views are more important than her political views and that she would have voted against, for example gay marriage. By contrast Yousaf's personal views, as far as I can see are far more socially liberal and I know there has been a bit of a row over why he wasn't present for the final vote on gay marriage, but he certainly voted in favour of it earlier on and he certainly didn't vote against as Forbes said she would have done.

So the lazy comparison of muslim vs christian doesn't stack up. It is Yousaf vs Forbes, not muslim vs christian. If you want a comparison you'd need to compare Forbes with a muslim with similar personal views to her and a similar desire to bring those views into her or his political decision making. Not sure we have an easy comparison there in the SNP.

Or you'd need to compare Yousaf with a christian with socially liberal views and a willingness to bring those views into his or her political decision making. Oh, how fortunate, we have a perfect comparison - Ian Blackford, from the same church as Forbes yet socially liberal and willing to support socially liberal political decisions. Have Blackford and Yousaf had radically different treatment linked to their religion - nope - so it isn't about muslim vs christian but the actual views and actions of the individuals who may be muslim or christian.

So his headline: 'it’s ok to be Muslim but not Christian in the SNP' - is totally wrong, as Blackford and I guess a whole raft of other christians in the SNP would demonstrate. I think the point is that it is OK to be socially liberal in the SNP but not socially conservative - and a socially conservative muslim would probably get as much flak as Forbes, just as a social liberal christian (Blackford) gets as little flak as Yousaf.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - he's missing the point.

The difference between Yousaf and Forbes isn't that one is muslim and one is christian - no the difference, as it seems to me, are their personal views and also their indication of whether they would legislate on the basis of those views, where they align with a religious orthodoxy. From what I've seen Forbes personal views are pretty extreme and she has also indicated that her religious views are more important than her political views and that she would have voted against, for example gay marriage. By contrast Yousaf's personal views, as far as I can see are far more socially liberal and I know there has been a bit of a row over why he wasn't present for the final vote on gay marriage, but he certainly voted in favour of it earlier on and he certainly didn't vote against as Forbes said she would have done.

So the lazy comparison of muslim vs christian doesn't stack up. It is Yousaf vs Forbes, not muslim vs christian. If you want a comparison you'd need to compare Forbes with a muslim with similar personal views to her and a similar desire to bring those views into her political decision making. Not sure we have an easy comparison there in the SNP.

Or you'd need to compare Yousaf with a christian with socially liberal views and a willingness to bring those views into his or her political decision making. Oh, how fortunate, we have a perfect comparison - Ian Blackford, from the same church as Forbes yet socially liberal and willing to support socially liberal political decisions. Have Blackford and Yousaf had radically different treatment linked to their religion - nope - so it isn't about muslim vs christian but the actual views and actions of the individuals who may be muslim or christian.

And yet Yousaf's lying about arranging a meeting to avoud the vote on same sex marriage is entirely ignored.

[Nearly Sane]

Another poll

[Nearly Sane]

In one sense this is just stating the obvious, but in a more specific view of the race thos is a reaction to Yousaf having been pulled into talking about snap elections by trying to appeal to Regan's supporters for the possible transferred votes. Meanwhile Forbes places herself more as the continuity candidate, and also implied criticism of Yousaf's competence.

This has lead to some of Regan's supporters arguing that Forbes is Plan B of continuity to Yousaf being Plan A, which again is somewhat stating the obvious, but they then go on to opine that it's effectively been a conspiracy to keep Regsn out from day 1, and both Forbes and Yousaf are in on it.




https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/12/snps-kate-forbes-signals-scottish-independence-vote-could-be-years-away

[ProfessorDavey]

Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1634692615785332736

Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
Forbes: 14 (11/3)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 37 (14/23)
None: 4 (4/0)

I think this means that Yousaf has a majority of MSPs now supporting him. I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for Regan - surely she must have one supportive friend amongst her MSP colleagues

[Nearly Sane]

Polling for Westminster and Holyrood