Next permanent Scotland manager

[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 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 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. 

[Ziggy Sobotka]

Thought my mum would have been a stick on for Humza but she's just shocked me by saying she's voted for Forbes. She is an arch Sturgeonite and Regan is her MSP.

[ICTChris]

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

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. 

 

The difference is that Swinney was leader of the SNP as a party when they were in opposition in Holyrood.  He didn't have any actual power, unlike whoever wins this election who will have substantial power.

[ICTChris]

2 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Thought my mum would have been a stick on for Humza but she's just shocked me by saying she's voted for Forbes. She is an arch Sturgeonite and Regan is her MSP.

That's odd she told me that she'd voted for Regan - JUST AFTER I FINISHED PUMPING HER THE OTHER NIGHT.  

If Tam Cowan is reading he can have that one for free.

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, Bodie said:

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.

The SNP carried a lot of votes - from people 'on the fence' - due to Sturgeon's personal popularity.  Hard to quantify it but a decent guess is that the Nationalist 'base vote' is 30% +/- 5.

The Nats are clearly 'not finished' as you say but they do have a long way to fall - and that includes a lot of voters switching parties.  Note, too, that if they're trying to reach rock bottom they're going the right way about it.

[ScotiaNostra]

58 minutes ago, virginton said:

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. 

Thats true, the lack of transparency caused by the top of the snp has created more issues than it would have just being upfront about everything

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

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. 

Other parties are just as secretive unless they're on the rise, the Tories refused to release the numbers right through Truss's campaign. Don't see the point myself, the Electoral Commission don't insist on it but it's a bad look.

[Crùbag]

Hopefully the membership stooshie stirred up by Forbes and Regan will be the death knell of their careers - not to mention Labour and Tory quoting them in their propaganda against ScotGov. Who cares how many members the party has? They could easily have got info on voter numbers internally and kept it all in-house. Ditto other parties. How many members Labour and Tory have is the least of the problems I have with these two arsecheeks.

Also sad, but not surprising, to hear the BBC wheel out that fat sex-pest Salmond to further keep the fire burning on the membeship issue. That's Alba who garnered 0.6% of the vote FFS...

[orfc]

3 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. 

 

Aye, but you don't have to live in Scotland to be a member. There'll be loads of SNP members down south who've joined precisely because they can't vote in Scottish elections as it gives them a sense of belonging.

wEN R teHy goNg 2 reLeas tOheS Figgyrz?

 

[Trogdor]

I see the Media Chief of the SNP has resigned. After publicly denying they had lost 30,000 members last month. Apparently it was out by a factor of 10.

Another human sacrifice to protect the charlatan in chief Murrell?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64993032

Edited March 17 by Trogdor

[vikingTON]

In what way was he acting in good faith? He's a spin doctor FFS. 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

4 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I see the Media Chief of the SNP has resigned. After publicly denying they had lost 30,000 members last month. Apparently it was out by a factor of 100.

Another human sacrifice to protect the charlatan in chief Murrell?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64993032

Thrown under the gravy bus.