Next permanent Scotland manager

[welshbairn]

My worry about Kate Forbes isn't so much her medieval personal beliefs, with the party as it is she'd be out on her arse if she tried to make policy based on them. It's who she'd pick for her cabinet and the people surrounding her that worries me, say welcoming back the Alba nutters and fixing Cherry up with a Holyrood seat. No idea if she would or not, or if she'd have the power to do so, or if she'd even want to.

Edited March 15, 2023 by welshbairn

[Granny Danger]

9 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

I wouldn't dispute "Formidable Leader" but what about her untimely resignation? She certainly doesn't appear to have thought this one through.

At least when Salmond resigned everyone knew who his successor was going to be. 

Nicola's dropped the SNP right in the shit here, and the 3 candidates vowing to take over the leadership are hardly inspiring choices.

She may very well have set the independence cause back many years. Wasn't Scottish Independence meant to be her raison d'etra?

 

Yeah I’ve previously posted that the way Sturgeon resigned reduced my estimation of her.  Of course there could be personal reasons we’re not privy to but she certainly spent no time on a succession strategy.

[renton]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Yeah I’ve previously posted that the way Sturgeon resigned reduced my estimation of her.  Of course there could be personal reasons we’re not privy to but she certainly spent no time on a succession strategy.

Sturgeon's succession from Slamond is the exception rather than the rule. Most political parties from top to bottom don't like succession planning. At the bottom they don't like being denied a choice, at the top folk don't like being frozen out of a chance at the top job.

Salmond didn't have a succession strategy, Sturgeon simply made sure everyone knew she was next. 

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, renton said:

Sturgeon's succession from Slamond is the exception rather than the rule. Most political parties from top to bottom don't like succession planning. At the bottom they don't like being denied a choice, at the top folk don't like being frozen out of a chance at the top job.

Salmond didn't have a succession strategy, Sturgeon simply made sure everyone knew she was next. 

I can't think of any party with an obvious successor in the last couple of decades, except Brown from Blair but that didn't work too well. Most of them have been disastrous.

Edited March 15, 2023 by welshbairn

[renton]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I can't think of any party with an obvious successor in the last couple of decades, except Brown from Blair but that didn't work too well. Most of them have been disastrous.

Indeed, had Brown been able to accept his Swinney type status and Labour had simply bypassed him with a new generation, the last 13 years might have been drastically different.

Edited March 15, 2023 by renton

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, renton said:

Indeed, had Brown been able to accept his Swinney type status and Labour had simply bypassed him with a new generation, the last 13 years might have been drastically different.

I thought if Blair hadn't hung around like a bad smell for a third term, Brown might have had a chance to turn things around, we'll never know though.

Edited March 15, 2023 by welshbairn

[Trogdor]

5 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

If you have a choice between A, B and C then saying you want D is deflection.

You're the master of deflection.

[HTG]

I've said it before but if you have to discount all of the 45 MPs representing the SNP, you'll almost certainly reduce the calibre of the available options. I get the logic but Ash Regan wouldn't be anywhere near this if those 45 were able to participate. 

If this exercise tells us nothing else, it tells us that the best and brightest shouldn't be at Westminster. 

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

My worry about Kate Roberts isn't so much her medieval personal beliefs, with the party as it is she'd be out on her arse if she tried to make policy based on them. It's who she'd pick for her cabinet and the people surrounding her that worries me, say welcoming back the Alba nutters and fixing Cherry up with a Holyrood seat. No idea if she would or not, or if she'd have the power to do so, or if she'd even want to.

I assume you mean Forbes.

My hope is that whoever wins, we see the decentralisation of power within the party. There has been an iron grip on the levers of power. From Murrell, the NEC and Sturgeon. Its a chance to allow ordinary members to be a part of the process. I hope we get a newer/fresher cabinet with the odd old heid.

The new leader also has to tell the Greens to GTF or get back in their box (I'm looking at Humza here!). They only poll so well on the list because of the SNP and its time they were reminded of that.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Trogdor

[ScotiaNostra]

The more Humza speaks the less likely it seems he will win. That early boost in ratings he was claiming as some personal achievement was down to Forbes spectacularly blowing up her own campaign on the first day. Every debate, every interview his chances look to be reducing. 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, ScotiaNostra said:

The more Humza speaks the less likely it seems he will win. That early boost in ratings he was claiming as some personal achievement was down to Forbes spectacularly blowing up her own campaign on the first day. Every debate, every interview his chances look to be reducing. 

Pretty well agree with that, especially after the last couple of TV debates, but the word is that most members voted on Monday when they got the emails. During the early hustings I thought he looked streets ahead as a competent politician, now he looks shaky and just repeating the same soundbites, and Forbes has got into her groove, but it could be too late for her.

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, HTG said:

I've said it before but if you have to discount all of the 45 MPs representing the SNP, you'll almost certainly reduce the calibre of the available options. I get the logic but Ash Regan wouldn't be anywhere near this if those 45 were able to participate. 

If this exercise tells us nothing else, it tells us that the best and brightest shouldn't be at Westminster. 

That's a small part of what finished off Labour in Scotland, the idea that anyone with ambition should go for Westminster rather than Holyrood.

Edited March 15, 2023 by welshbairn

[wirez]

Seems a perfectly reasonable enough request to know exactly how many potential SNP members and votes are out there.

Having Murrell run the election is in itself a farce.

Imagine Carrie Johnson running the election for BoJo's successor but not letting anyone know what the membership numbers were to elect a new PM?

He needs to pack his bags with his wife and take no further part.

 

[wirez]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Sturgeon's succession from Slamond is the exception rather than the rule. Most political parties from top to bottom don't like succession planning. At the bottom they don't like being denied a choice, at the top folk don't like being frozen out of a chance at the top job.

Salmond didn't have a succession strategy, Sturgeon simply made sure everyone knew she was next. 

He did have a succession strategy.

Just turned out it was shite.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, wirez said:

Having Murrell run the election is in itself a farce.

Murrell isn't running the election, the National Secretary Lorna Finn is, and an outside company has been hired to arrange the vote and the counting.

[Leith Green]

1 minute ago, wirez said:

Seems a perfectly reasonable enough request to know exactly how many potential SNP members and votes are out there.

Having Murrell run the election is in itself a farce.

Imagine Carrie Johnson running the election for BoJo's successor but not letting anyone know what the membership numbers were to elect a new PM?

He needs to pack his bags with his wife and take no further part.

 

Yes, Carrie Johnson and Peter Murrells situations are exactly the same.

After all, she is the CEO of the Conservative Party, isnt she?

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, wirez said:

Seems a perfectly reasonable enough request to know exactly how many potential SNP members and votes are out there.

Having Murrell run the election is in itself a farce.

Imagine Carrie Johnson running the election for BoJo's successor but not letting anyone know what the membership numbers were to elect a new PM?

He needs to pack his bags with his wife and take no further part.

 

What an incredibly uninformed post!

[wirez]

2 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Yes, Carrie Johnson and Peter Murrells situations are exactly the same.

After all, she is the CEO of the Conservative Party, isnt she?

What difference does that make?

He should have stepped down by now. In fact, immediately when Sturgeon was elected FM to be honest.

It has been a strange situation ever since then, especially in a political party running the country.

Put the optics onto Labour, Tories etc... It just does not sit right. Never has.

[wirez]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

What an incredibly uninformed post!

Hardly as ignorant and uninformed as pensioners voting for Brexit.

Plenty did though.

[welshbairn]

I don't think the Tories ever revealed their number of members for the Truss vote, likely because they had membership open to anyone on the planet if they paid a wee bit extra. I don't get why the SNP don't just publish the numbers though.

Edited March 15, 2023 by welshbairn