Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I'm not sure it is a paradox. I think the key is whether you are selecting:

A. A new party leader and/or
B. A new PM/FM

The problem arises when you are selecting both and to my mind a party membership has no legitimate authority to select a PM/FM, although they do to select a new party leader. A PM/FM is actually selected on the basis of support from the parliamentary party (i.e. MPs or MSPs), although in many cases this is through the selection of those MPs at a general election. But constitutionally we don't actually vote in a PM/FM - nope we vote in members of parliament and they determine that there is an individual as PM and a government that commands the confidence of the house.

In opposition there isn't a problem because you are only selecting a new party leader - for them to become PM/FM will require a general election (or another mechanism) by which that individual commands the confidence of the house.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Wikipedia page says it is for "parliamentary duties", not policy development.

Largely the same thing - it is not for party political activities, i.e. campaigning. It is largely used for researchers who support the development of policies etc or for running the office of a parliamentary role holder - e.g. official leader of the opposition.

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

Don't know whether there is a Scottish equivalent, but the SNP do get considerable Short money's (£1.2M in 2020) - this is largely because they are a major opposition party in Westminster. They can use that money for policy development - for example to develop plans as to how they propose to operationalise independence. They would not be permitted to use that money on an active political campaign for independence (although that campaign may well be based on the policies they'd developed using the Short money).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Actually there is a Scottish equivalent:

https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2020/8/18/Scottish-Parliament--Assistance-for-Political-Parties--Bill#What-is-Short-money-#What-is-Short-money-

As far as I'm aware is is distributed via, and accounted for via, the parliamentary party - so similar to money used for MPs office expenses. So it would come close to the political party expenses or that accounting process.

[Nearly Sane]

Alex Massie on the farewell tour.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/96f5ec50-c73e-11ed-84e7-e2697ffed9a9?shareToken=ab053660884038ee2f5e5d102d50e4cb

[Nearly Sane]

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.

...

This seems to imply that you think it would be ok for the FM and the head of the Civil Service in Scotland to be married.

[Nearly Sane]

Disingenuous lying wee wanker

[ProfessorDavey]

This seems to imply that you think it would be ok for the FM and the head of the Civil Service in Scotland to be married.

Interesting thought experiment, but I'd suspect much less likely than FM and CEO of a political party being married. That's because those most active in political parties tend to eat, sleep and breath their politics so highly likely to ed up with someone like-minded in a party political sense as their whole lives revolve around the tiny bubble of their party politics.

A career in the civil service and a party political career are completely different things although they, of course, align in government. But as senior civil servants cannot be involved in party politics less likely that their worlds will revolve around each other as their careers develop.

But on the actual question - and I'm going to shift it to PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary as I know more about those roles.

Well on the one hand the role of the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary is to support the government of the day, its ministers and implement government policy. So in that respect, provided the boundaries between politicisation of the civil service are maintained to some degree the roles of PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary are a bit like a husband and wife, playing different roles to achieve a common goal. There probably wouldn't be too many issues with information flow as both the PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary would have very high level intelligence clearance and access to similar information.

I think where there would be issues would be the ability of the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary to give robust and candid advice to the PM if that person was also their spouse.

A challenge would be appointment - the PM appoints the Cabinet Secretary so it would be challenging to be confident that the process was fair and transparent. And the position is not a political appointment - by this I mean that there is no requirement that a Cabinet Secretary is replaced when a new government comes in - indeed there have been a number of examples of Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary serving under both tory and labour PMs.

Weirdly there might be more challenge if the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary was married to the leader of the opposition where you might worry more that confidential government/cabinet information would leak into the wrong hands.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it a legacy? And how can you graph the baby box?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64785030

[Nearly Sane]

A take from a former aide


https://archive.vn/3Yn8c

[ProfessorDavey]

If Forbes gets elected as leader I wonder what are the chances that she cannot be confirmed as FM as this requires the support of the Scottish Parliament. I think it is unlikely that the Greens would support her to be FM and given her lack of support amongst MSPs, there must be a fair possibility that a number of them wouldn't support her either. Worth noting that Forbes only gained the endorsement of 11 MSPs - that's just 17% of SNP MSPs.

It really would be popcorn time if she becomes SNP leader but cannot get the support to become FM.

[Nearly Sane]

If Forbes gets elected as leader I wonder what are the chances that she cannot be confirmed as FM as this requires the support of the Scottish Parliament. I think it is unlikely that the Greens would support her to be FM and given her lack of support amongst MSPs, there must be a fair possibility that a number of them wouldn't support her either. Worth noting that Forbes only gained the endorsement of 11 MSPs - that's just 17% of SNP MSPs.

It really would be popcorn time if she becomes SNP leader but cannot get the support to become FM.

Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday

I think if Yousaf is elected by the membership he'll get a majority as FM, given that the Greens will be on board and I think sufficient of the Yousaf non-endorsees will fall behind him given that it would be clear to them that he would have commanded a mandate from the membership and also has majority endorsement from the parliamentary party.

Forbes, well, not so much!

And for completeness Regan's final total of MSP endorsements was a big fat zero - with the maverick Cherry the only SNP parliamentarian to endorse her in either Westminster or Holyrood.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday

Here's a thought.

If Forbes gets elected by the members I wonder whether the Conservatives in Holyrood get her over the line for FM - she is, after all, effectively a conservative except on the issue of independence, which she's kicked into the long grass. Now that really would be popcorn time.

[Nearly Sane]

Some interesting stuff in here


https://www.focaldata.com/blog/can-yousaf-or-forbes-save-the-snp

[Nearly Sane]

Here's a thought.

If Forbes gets elected by the members I wonder whether the Conservatives in Holyrood get her over the line for FM - she is, after all, effectively a conservative except on the issue of independence, which she's kicked into the long grass. Now that really would be popcorn time.

They don't need an absolute majority though so that seems an unlikely proposition. You need to have more votes than the other candidates combined. Labour haven't put up a candidate, I think, since 2007 preferring to stay out of it. If they were to follow that then the SNP candidate would likely be elected first ballot - unless there are 2 SNP candidates!

I suspect Ross will be put forward for the Tories, not sure if Alex Cole Hamilton will go for it but given Willie Rennie tried the last 2 times  quite possibly yes.

The lack of any MSPs in the Regan camp means that it's almost certain that she has no chance of a nomination.


I'm not sure that in the event of 2 SNP candidates that the split would be even enough to alliw a situation where it came down to Forbes v Yousaf, where your megapopcorn scenario might tempt the Tories.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

They don't need an absolute majority though so that seems an unlikely proposition. You need to have more votes than the other candidates combined. Labour haven't put up a candidate, I think, since 2007 preferring to stay out of it. If they were to follow that then the SNP candidate would likely be elected first ballot - unless there are 2 SNP candidates!

I suspect Ross will be put forward for the Tories, not sure if Alex Cole Hamilton will go for it but given Willie Rennie tried the last 2 times  quite possibly yes.

The lack of any MSPs in the Regan camp means that it's almost certain that she has no chance of a nomination.


I'm not sure that in the event of 2 SNP candidates that the split would be even enough to alliw a situation where it came down to Forbes v Yousaf, where your megapopcorn scenario might tempt the Tories.

OK - hadn't understood the details of the process.

What, in your view, is the likelihood of Yousaf being put forward as well as Forbes if the letter wins the members vote, but only through second ballots and by a whisker.

[Nearly Sane]

OK - hadn't understood the details of the process.

What, in your view, is the likelihood of Yousaf being put forward as well as Forbes if the letter wins the members vote, but only through second ballots and by a whisker.

The original idea floated for that was that Sarwar would stand and enough might vote for him without ot being large numbers. I haven't heard any suggestion that they would nominate Yousaf in that scenario. I don't know their constitution well enough but think it might be arguable that such a nomination may be a breach of it, though I think thf same would apply for voting for Sarwar.

I think if Forbes wins the ballot she would be elected as FM as well but where she might then have issues is people refusing to serve in her cabinet.

[Nearly Sane]

Sarwar saying no mandate for new FM - the generalised hypicrisy on this is stunningly tedious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65080560

[ProfessorDavey]

I think if Forbes wins the ballot she would be elected as FM as well but where she might then have issues is people refusing to serve in her cabinet.

I think you may be correct - her support amongst SNP MSPs is at Corbyn-like levels.

[Nearly Sane]

Euan McColm on the prospects of the next SNP leader


https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/snp-leadership-contest-next-leader-cannot-bank-on-goodwill-held-by-nicola-sturgeon-euan-mccolm-4079689

[Nearly Sane]

Spectacular idiocy from Jim Murphy

[ProfessorDavey]

Spectacular idiocy from Jim Murphy

Looks like standard politics to me.

Your opponents change their leader mid term when in government. If you feel your opponents are in a weak position of course you will claim that a new leader has no mandate and that their policy positions aren't what the electorate voted for. That allows a call for an election, which is, of course likely to be rejected. So you can follow an attack line that the new leader has no mandate and refuses to seek one from the electorate.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yousaf wins ... 52% to 48% in the second round. Hmm - sure I've heard those percentages before!

[Nearly Sane]

Looks like standard politics to me.

Your opponents change their leader mid term when in government. If you feel your opponents are in a weak position of course you will claim that a new leader has no mandate and that their policy positions aren't what the electorate voted for. That allows a call for an election, which is, of course likely to be rejected. So you can follow an attack line that the new leader has no mandate and refuses to seek one from the electorate.

I get that you are happy to accept glaring hypocrisy as ok, but I wonder that you were happy to do that on this level when Gordon Brown took over?

[Nearly Sane]

Close to the start of this thread I said Yousaf had no chance of winning. I had forgotten that political parties are often a collection of idiots. I was wrong. Mea feckin culpa. While I wish I wasn't, the alternatives were also shocking.