Next permanent Scotland manager

[D Angelo Barksdale]

There's certainly electoral decline in the post for the SNP but I doubt they're finished.

I think it's more likely turnout will be affected rather than folk switching to other parties, although Labour will no doubt pick up a few. This would affect them more at Westminster elections than Holyrood.

[Jacksgranda]

15 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

Conservative and unionist imo. 

I don't think I've ever voted conservative in my life, other than perhaps when the UUP were aligned with the conservatives (2009 -2012 Ulster Conservatives and Unionists).

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

There was a peak around the time that the inquiry was going after Sturgeon (lots of people joined in solidarity).

Am I being whooshed here?

Surely you aren't referring to the inquiry into the Salmond debacle where the SG failed the nine complainers and you're saying people joined the SNP to support the FM? If so, they were wrong 'uns and I'm pleased they have left the party. For any rational sentient being it should have had the opposite effect.

To-date no-one has taken accountability for that failing and the chief architect of the debacle got a nice golden parachute from the SG upon her retirement. 

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I don't think I've ever voted conservative in my life, other than perhaps when the UUP were aligned with the conservatives (2009 -2012 Ulster Conservatives and Unionists).

I was thinking UUP for you.

[Leith Green]

13 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Am I being whooshed here?

Surely you aren't referring to the inquiry into the Salmond debacle where the SG failed the nine complainers and you're saying people joined the SNP to support the FM? If so, they were wrong 'uns and I'm pleased they have left the party. For any rational sentient being it should have had the opposite effect.

To-date no-one has taken accountability for that failing and the chief architect of the debacle got a nice golden parachute from the SG upon her retirement. 

There is no doubt that the SNP membership spiked when NS was dragged across the coals via the inquiry, whether you like it or not, its a fact.

Many people thought that the likes of Jackie Baillie  - for political reasons - was trying to blame NS for everything that happened in those cases (p.s she deffo tried to nail the real wrong un, Salmond, but they were not bright enough to catch her out).

Anyway, off out for lunch.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I say this as someone really quite anti SNP, but there should be no problem at all with her saying things have been a fucking shambles and she’s here to improve them.

The honesty should be commended rather than a stick to beat her with.

It depends where that honesty is coming from. If someone is coming into a leadership campaign from the backbenches, or at a push a minor cabinet role, I think that'd be a reasonable place to come from to make those criticisms. It would make sense coming from Regan as she had resigned from her cabinet post months ago, though as it turns out she's incapable of making coherent points anyway.

Kate Forbes however was appointed to the second most important post in the cabinet three years ago, controlling the purse strings for every other department. Unless her argument here is that things have only gone to shit since July 2022 while she's been on leave and everything she's now deriding as a shambles was fine before that date, the unacceptable performance of the government is a direct reflection on her as a senior member of it.

You can make the argument that change is needed without saying everything has been shite for years. However if you do sincerely believe everything is shite and/or want to say so, along with your refreshing honesty you're going to have to either make sure you can't be held responsible for that shiteness or explain how you've recognised your own responsibility for it and would have done things differently.

When the topic being discussed is the state of the NHS she can pin that one area on Yousaf more than herself, but it's all still a reflection on her as well and she's failed to address that.

[Abdul_Latif]

12 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

It depends where that honesty is coming from. If someone is coming into a leadership campaign from the backbenches, or at a push a minor cabinet role, I think that'd be a reasonable place to come from to make those criticisms. It would make sense coming from Regan as she had resigned from her cabinet post months ago, though as it turns out she's incapable of making coherent points anyway.

Kate Forbes however was appointed to the second most important post in the cabinet three years ago, controlling the purse strings for every other department. Unless her argument here is that things have only gone to shit since July 2022 while she's been on leave and everything she's now deriding as a shambles was fine before that date, the unacceptable performance of the government is a direct reflection on her as a senior member of it.

You can make the argument that change is needed without saying everything has been shite for years. However if you do sincerely believe everything is shite and/or want to say so, along with your refreshing honesty you're going to have to either make sure you can't be held responsible for that shiteness or explain how you've recognised your own responsibility for it and would have done things differently.

When the topic being discussed is the state of the NHS she can pin that one area on Yousaf more than herself, but it's all still a reflection on her as well and she's failed to address that.

A fair counter, though I suspect much of her argument will be that the closed ranks / secretive nature of the party under Nicola Sturgeon was not working.

The previous leadership has tried to sell some internal utopia where all are in agreement to the electorate, and if we didn’t already know, it’s now being proven beyond doubt that is not the case.

Kate Forbes would simply have to state that while she believes in the party, she doesn’t believe it was being led properly.

[Eddie Hitler]

24 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

It depends where that honesty is coming from. If someone is coming into a leadership campaign from the backbenches, or at a push a minor cabinet role, I think that'd be a reasonable place to come from to make those criticisms. It would make sense coming from Regan as she had resigned from her cabinet post months ago, though as it turns out she's incapable of making coherent points anyway.

Kate Forbes however was appointed to the second most important post in the cabinet three years ago, controlling the purse strings for every other department. Unless her argument here is that things have only gone to shit since July 2022 while she's been on leave and everything she's now deriding as a shambles was fine before that date, the unacceptable performance of the government is a direct reflection on her as a senior member of it.

You can make the argument that change is needed without saying everything has been shite for years. However if you do sincerely believe everything is shite and/or want to say so, along with your refreshing honesty you're going to have to either make sure you can't be held responsible for that shiteness or explain how you've recognised your own responsibility for it and would have done things differently.

When the topic being discussed is the state of the NHS she can pin that one area on Yousaf more than herself, but it's all still a reflection on her as well and she's failed to address that.

I'm not a fan of Forbes but I think this is drivel.

You are (whether you like it or not) saying that ONLY backbenchers can ever come in on a platform of "change" or levy criticism of the record under the last leader.

This would be a recipe for someone advocating "change" (needed or not) almost never having a chance to win such an election - unless they were previously a very "big beast" who'd gone to the backbench and was trying a comeback (which does not happen that often) because they will almost certainly be dismissed as "fringe", "not well known enough" etc etc.

In other words, it's a recipe for stasis.

Again, not a fan of Forbes, but it rather strikes me that her input into most major policies must have been pretty minimal, as she was not part of the main "clique" at the top of the SNP. 

You can argue as to whether she was "principled" in not stepping down if she didn't agree with government direction. It does not follow at the same time that she was "up to her neck in it, so how dare she say now that she thought we were a bit rubbish?". She might have been of the Cabinet, but it's unlikely she had Sturgeon's ear, so can hardly be deemed to be "closely associated" with all her initiatives, other than budgetary ones which she herself delivered with the outgoing FM's agreement.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I was thinking UUP for you.

They always get one of my votes, except in a GE.

[thisal]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

I think the whole "membership numbers" schtick has been massively overblown.

There was a peak around the time that the inquiry was going after Sturgeon (lots of people joined in solidarity).

Yep, they have dropped since then, but the SNP still has huge per capita membership numbers versus every other party.

While Labour are certainly looking like the party to gain any lost SNP voters, the notion that masses of people who previously wanted Independence are voting in droves for the Unionist parties is just tinfoil hat stuff.

 The membership numbers is certainly overblown. SNP membership at the 2014 referendum was 25000. It rose rapidly from then to a peak of 125000 in 2019 and is now at 72000. To put that into context the latest House of Commons Library figures are:-

Lab 432000 0.9% of electorate

Con 172000 0.4% of electorate

SNP 72000 1.8% of electorate. (16th Mar) 

Labour has fallen from 523000 since Starmer took over. 

 

[Dunning1874]

17 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I'm not a fan of Forbes but I think this is drivel.

You are (whether you like it or not) saying that ONLY backbenchers can ever come in on a platform of "change" or levy criticism of the record under the last leader.

I'm not, because I think there's a difference between someone saying they represent change while making criticisms of the record of an outgoing leader and going as far as Forbes did. You can say you think the government isn't performing well enough, a change of direction is needed and explain how you'll bring that about to resolve this without saying that half the things your government has responsibility for are a total shitshow and your overall record is mediocre.

For the record I think she has a point (although for different reasons I imagine) but that doesn't stop me thinking it's a wild point for someone in her position to make, which is also making a rod for her own back if she ends up winning.

[Trogdor]

If you are running as a change candidate its inevitable you will end up criticising what came before. That's only natural. Added to that, being bound by collective responsibility makes it hard to know what ministers really think anyway.

There is a lot to criticise Forbes for, but criticising her for pointing out where the SG has not done enough or not prioritised the right areas, isn't really legitimate. 

Its also inevitable that opposition parties would use it. That always happens in leadership elections. Its to be expected. 

I think its more stark because Humza is running as continuity/business as usual. So he is loathe to criticise the previous administration as that is where he draws his support. Which makes Forbes points stand out more. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Trogdor

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

If you are running as a change candidate its inevitable you will end up criticising what came before. That's only natural. Added to that, being bound by collective responsibility makes it hard to know what ministers really think anyway.

There is a lot to criticise Forbes for, but criticising her for pointing out where the SG has not done enough or not prioritised the right areas, isn't really legitimate. 

Its also inevitable that opposition parties would use it. That always happens in leadership elections. Its to be expected. 

I think its more stark because Humza is running as continuity/business as usual. So he is loathe to criticise the previous administration as that is where he draws his support. Which makes Forbes points stand out more. 

I can see where you're coming from, but after slagging off the record of the SG to then claim that the party can't be trusted to run a fair election, with zero evidence, isn't the best way to get members on your side. I think she's shown herself to be politically inept from the first week, was thinking she was just about becoming a credible candidate until this latest blunder.

[Trogdor]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I can see where you're coming from, but after slagging off the record of the SG to then claim that the party can't be trusted to run a fair election, with zero evidence, isn't the best way to get members on your side. I think she's shown herself to be politically inept from the first week, was thinking she was just about becoming a credible candidate until this latest blunder.

Frankly, I don't think any of them are credible. Hence I advocate a spoilt ballot.

Whoever wins will be doing well to survive to the next Scottish election in 2026. Depending how the SNP do in the next Westminster election the new leader could be out next year.

If they aren't engulfed in scandal first. Given their collective propensity for gaffes and incompetence.

I don't think we'll be in lettuce territory unless by some cruel twist of fate it was Regan.

[Granny Danger]

Going by this thread Yousaf is the least liked option of the anti-SNP/Independence brigade.  Another reason I am glad I voted for him.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Granny Danger

[scottsdad]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Going by this thread Yousaf is the least liked option of the anti-SNP/Independence brigade.  Another reason I am glad I voted for him.

 

What are all the others reasons?

[Ludo*1]

I now feel that whomever gets the gig is very much just a placeholder appointment much like Swinney after Salmond the first time round was. 

Allow the next one to take the brunt of comparisons to Sturgeon and then a new, stronger candidate or return of Sturgeon in a few year time.

Think it's ridiculous that the SNP have got themselves in this spot but I don't think any of the three stand much chance of reinvigorating the party. They will do a lot of damage but how much is the question. Personally, I think Humza will do the least amount of long term damage to the party but that's about as positive as I can get. He'll still be utter shite.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

What are all the others reasons?

Least worst option.  Quite a common approach when deciding who to support politically.

Not a nut job, not a conservative, not a homophobe.

There were others potential candidates who would have been a better option but you can only choose from those who choose to put themselves forward.

 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, thisal said:

 The membership numbers is certainly overblown. SNP membership at the 2014 referendum was 25000. It rose rapidly from then to a peak of 125000 in 2019 and is now at 72000. To put that into context the latest House of Commons Library figures are:-

Lab 432000 0.9% of electorate

Con 172000 0.4% of electorate

SNP 72000 1.8% of electorate. (16th Mar) 

Labour has fallen from 523000 since Starmer took over. 

 

The only reason why it became an issue at all is because the SNP top brass refused to release them for so long. It's a minor demonstration of the toxic fixation with secrecy under that useless slaphead Murrell. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

I'm not, because I think there's a difference between someone saying they represent change while making criticisms of the record of an outgoing leader and going as far as Forbes did. You can say you think the government isn't performing well enough, a change of direction is needed and explain how you'll bring that about to resolve this without saying that half the things your government has responsibility for are a total shitshow and your overall record is mediocre.

For the record I think she has a point (although for different reasons I imagine) but that doesn't stop me thinking it's a wild point for someone in her position to make, which is also making a rod for her own back if she ends up winning.

You can't do the incremental change argument effectively fully 16 years into the SNP's term in office - and in any case, the establishment incremental change pick was always going to be Yousaf. 

Whether guided by the same policies or not, Forbes' gambit is straight out of a Tory leadership playbook - burn the old regime to the ground and act like it's nothing to do with the new boss. Which if nothing else has proven rather successful in election history.