Next permanent Scotland manager

[vikingTON]

52 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

Forbes probably accepts that she will fracture the base. But I don't get where she thinks those votes are getting replaced from. She might be getting some light praise from anti-SNP pundits and some more 'eccentric' Unionists on Twitter at the moment, but they aren't going to vote for independence or even a Forbes-led SNP when it comes to the crunch.

I'm not convinced that there's a monolithic base there to be fractured - if there was, that process has been long underway since 2015. Sturgeon might have been able to maintain party discipline behind a winner, but it is a myth to think that everyone was buying into the SG's priorities - plastic bottles FFS. Forbes is the symptom and not the cause. 

It is also IMO a complete myth to pretend that there are further pro-independence votes to be gained by tacking to the left. I'm in favour of a proper, Scottish Socialist alternative, but that section of the Scottish electorate is mostly voting for independence either through the SNP or Greens already.

The downside of the last decade for the SNP in electoral terms is their loss of previous strongholds in the NE. They are not the same economic or socially liberal constituency as the ones who Sturgeon won over. That's what Forbes is gravitating towards. 

A capable leader needs to hold both constituencies, but Sturgeon was already losing that grip and we're not getting another Salmond (who successfully built that coalition in the first place). Continuity Sturgeon by an openly confessed inferior option is not going to do the job either.  

[welshbairn]

Kezia Dugdale is much more impressive in public appearances now at the fine old age of 41, maybe Kate Forbes at the age of 32 is just too inexperienced for a job as party leader.

[Colkitto]

So lets say Kate or Humza wins leadership. What's getting me up off the sofa to vote SNP in the next election in 2024? Same question for 2026. What would I actually be voting for - momentum?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

42 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'm not convinced that there's a monolithic base there to be fractured - if there was, that process has been long underway since 2015. Sturgeon might have been able to maintain party discipline behind a winner, but it is a myth to think that everyone was buying into the SG's priorities - plastic bottles FFS. Forbes is the symptom and not the cause. 

It is also IMO a complete myth to pretend that there are further pro-independence votes to be gained by tacking to the left. I'm in favour of a proper, Scottish Socialist alternative, but that section of the Scottish electorate is mostly voting for independence either through the SNP or Greens already.

The downside of the last decade for the SNP in electoral terms is their loss of previous strongholds in the NE. They are not the same economic or socially liberal constituency as the ones who Sturgeon won over. That's what Forbes is gravitating towards. 

A capable leader needs to hold both constituencies, but Sturgeon was already losing that grip and we're not getting another Salmond (who successfully built that coalition in the first place). Continuity Sturgeon by an openly confessed inferior option is not going to do the job either.  

The problem is that none of the 3 candidates look like a capable leader.

If I were still an SNP member I'd be spoiling my ballot.

Edited March 9, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Cheese]

Much of what you would expect from Humza, polished but not offering that much, while Regan is laugh out loud silly and probably the leader the nation deserves. Forbes shaded it for me. I thought she dealt with the religion/social stuff well enough. She's also learning to cloak the shift right economically with progressive language.

All in my non voting opinion of course.

[alta-pete]

3 hours ago, DrewDon said:

Forbes probably accepts that she will fracture the base. But I don't get where she thinks those votes are getting replaced from. She might be getting some light praise from anti-SNP pundits and some more 'eccentric' Unionists on Twitter at the moment, but they aren't going to vote for independence or even a Forbes-led SNP when it comes to the crunch. I also just don't think the voters who potentially are more amenable to independence and the SNP are waiting for them to elect a social conservative who is going to move the party to the right economically. 

^^^ me. Find me someone who can actually run the country rather than just saying ‘Independence! That’ll cure  all our ills, WM/Toaries are what’s holding us back’,’ and then I’m halfway in. Stop excusing/blaming, maybe try start doing? 

[moses1924]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

A capable leader needs to hold both constituencies

Is this possible though for any leader over a sutained period of time? I think parties can gain widespread support for a few elections and the SNP have probably held it together for longer than most but you cant appeal to all sides at all times

[git-intae-thum]

5 minutes ago, moses1924 said:

Is this possible though for any leader over a sutained period of time? I think parties can gain widespread support for a few elections and the SNP have probably held it together for longer than most but you cant appeal to all sides at all times

You can if there is a big enough issue to unite around.......and a leader capable enough to push that issue forward.

Salmond could.....Sturgeon couldn't. 

She knew that. That's why she jumped. 

[DC92]

Not sure I buy the idea that Salmond had broader appeal than Sturgeon.

Firstly, the SNP got more votes in 2016 and 2021 than they did in 2011. Slightly so in percentage terms, significantly so in raw numbers. The majority in 2011 was a fluke caused by the distribution of support between other parties and the vagaries of the AM system.

I'd argue the relative struggles in the north-east were an inevitability after the realignments in 2014 and 2016, regardless of leader.

Yes got thumped in the SNP's rural heartlands in 2014 with Salmond in charge and the Tories went on to completely absorb the sizeable pro-Union Lib Dem vote in Aberdeenshire by 2016. Brexit then saw a direct loss of support to the Tories in places like Moray/Banff & Buchan. These have always been Unionist areas where the SNP previously benefitted from fractured pro-Union vote and independence/Brexit not really being salient issues or even credible prospects previously.

Even then, the SNP won Moray, both Perthshire seats, both Angus seats and 2/3 Aberdeenshire seats at the last election. They've not exactly collapsed.

I'm not saying they haven't lost votes in those areas that Salmond would have kept, but those losses have been more than offset by gains in the central belt where there are more people and more seats.

Edited March 10, 2023 by DC92

[Dunning1874]

11 hours ago, virginton said:

The downside of the last decade for the SNP in electoral terms is their loss of previous strongholds in the NE. They are not the same economic or socially liberal constituency as the ones who Sturgeon won over. That's what Forbes is gravitating towards. 

A capable leader needs to hold both constituencies, but Sturgeon was already losing that grip and we're not getting another Salmond (who successfully built that coalition in the first place). Continuity Sturgeon by an openly confessed inferior option is not going to do the job either.  

The issue with pivoting to regain those strongholds from the Tories is how you do so/whether it's even possible to do so without in turn sacrificing some of the post-2014 gains in the central belt, the latter constituency being more important for parliamentary elections and considerably more so in the scenario of any future referendum.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

7 hours ago, DC92 said:

Not sure I buy the idea that Salmond had broader appeal than Sturgeon.

Firstly, the SNP got more votes in 2016 and 2021 than they did in 2011. Slightly so in percentage terms, significantly so in raw numbers. The majority in 2011 was a fluke caused by the distribution of support between other parties and the vagaries of the AM system.

I'd argue the relative struggles in the north-east were an inevitability after the realignments in 2014 and 2016, regardless of leader.

Yes got thumped in the SNP's rural heartlands in 2014 with Salmond in charge and the Tories went on to completely absorb the sizeable pro-Union Lib Dem vote in Aberdeenshire by 2016. Brexit then saw a direct loss of support to the Tories in places like Moray/Banff & Buchan. These have always been Unionist areas where the SNP previously benefitted from fractured pro-Union vote and independence/Brexit not really being salient issues or even credible prospects previously.

Even then, the SNP won Moray, both Perthshire seats, both Angus seats and 2/3 Aberdeenshire seats at the last election. They've not exactly collapsed.

I'm not saying they haven't lost votes in those areas that Salmond would have kept, but those losses have been more than offset by gains in the central belt where there are more people and more seats.

Also, didn't Salmond literally lose a seat himself in the NE? Not the greatest argument for him having broader appeal tbh 

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, DC92 said:

Not sure I buy the idea that Salmond had broader appeal than Sturgeon.

Firstly, the SNP got more votes in 2016 and 2021 than they did in 2011. Slightly so in percentage terms, significantly so in raw numbers. The majority in 2011 was a fluke caused by the distribution of support between other parties and the vagaries of the AM system.

I'd argue the relative struggles in the north-east were an inevitability after the realignments in 2014 and 2016, regardless of leader.

I for one am not saying that Salmond had a broader reach than Sturgeon - but he was the one who put the coalition together in the first place in 2007 and above all in 2011. Sturgeon inherited and expanded the reach of that existing alliance in the short term, but her focus on centre left issues to out-Labour Scottish Labour accelerated the loss of support in NE Scotland and other former heartlands IMO.  

[vikingTON]

52 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The issue with pivoting to regain those strongholds from the Tories is how you do so/whether it's even possible to do so without in turn sacrificing some of the post-2014 gains in the central belt, the latter constituency being more important for parliamentary elections and considerably more so in the scenario of any future referendum.

That's not true at all, as shown by:

1) The SNP actually securing an outright majority of seats, in a broader coalition of support across the country in 2011. Sturgeon 'failed' to do this because the list system establishes diminishing returns on any party that is focused on particular regions of the country. To maximise seats, you need to be strong enough to get a big chunk of constituencies and the list vote across the whole country. 

2) The lost votes on the left do not magically revert to the unionist cause. If the independence movement is to support a plurality of views, then it makes complete political sense for the SNP to tack to the centre ground - the real centre, not the Jimmy Reid myth that Scottish Twitter punditry asserts. This leaves clear water between them and the Greens (and, with any luck, another party that is not obsessed with plastic bottles, veganism and gender identity) as distinct pro-independence voices. 

 

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, moses1924 said:

Is this possible though for any leader over a sutained period of time? I think parties can gain widespread support for a few elections and the SNP have probably held it together for longer than most but you cant appeal to all sides at all times

Which raises fundamental questions for the Sturgeon Continuity wing and their stunning 'let's wait until 99.99% of the public support us through demographic replacement before we push for a referendum' strategy. 

 

[Trogdor]

How much longer has this debacle got to run?

[Rugster]

2 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

How much longer has this debacle got to run?

End of the month I think the winner is announced.

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, Rugster said:

End of the month I think the winner is announced.

[Jacksgranda]

13 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Debateable. She did say she wouldn't reduce taxes on individuals or businesses, which rules out one tactic for increasing growth, that she says all her other plans like eliminating child poverty depend on. So still no further forward on her plans to do anything differently from the stability of the continuity candidate mediocrity of the status quo.

There

[Savage Henry]

24 minutes ago, Rugster said:

End of the month I think the winner is announced.

“winner” doesn’t seem quite right.  

[Rugster]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

“winner” doesn’t seem quite right.  

Very true.