2023 Scottish National Party leadership election

[Torrain]

Election timeline, according to Sky News’ Joe Pike:
https://mobile.twitter.com/joepike/status/1626326000131883009

[Torrain]

It’s not a comparison those in the party will welcome, but Alex Salmond was Party Leader whilst he was an MP and not MSP for a wee while. Sturgeon, as Depute* Leader took on his role in Holyrood until he was elected to the Scottish Parliament in his own right at the next election. Not ideal for a party leader who would want to be First Minister, but viable if they pledge to lead the party into a snap election (although that’s it’s own kettle of fish).

Alternatively, you engineer a job-swap, between the MP and their constituency MSP counterpart, DUP-style. Risky if one/both seats are marginal, but leaves you with the moral high-ground, to an extent.

* not Deputy, it’s a Scots thing (via the French, apparently?)

[Torrain]

State of the Race (as of 11am, Feb 20th):

Running:

• Ash Regan (former Community Safety Minister, resigned over the Gender Self-ID Bill)
• Humza Yousaf (Health Secretary)
• Kate Forbes (Finance Secretary)

Officially Out:

• Stephen Flynn (Westminster Leader)
• John Swinney (Depute First Minister)
• Joanna Cherry (former Home Affairs Spokesperson) - endorsed Forbes/Regan
• Neil Gray (Minister for Culture, Europe, International Development) - endorsed Yousaf
• Keith Brown (SNP Depute Leader)
• Màiri McAllan (Environment Secretary)
• Angus Robertson (Constitution Secretary, former Westminster Leader)

[Torrain]

Alex Salmond has written an editorial for the i newspaper, proposing a Forbes/Regan ticket for FM/Deputy FM.

At this stage in his career, I’m not sure whether he intends to help/hinder them with his public support.

His sentiment was almost immediately echoed by frequent Salmond-defender, and longtime pal Joanna Cherry, so take that for what you will.

[Torrain]

Alex Salmond has written an editorial for the i newspaper, proposing a Forbes/Regan ticket for FM/Deputy FM.

At this stage in his career, I’m not sure whether he intends to help/hinder them with his public support.

Given his dire level of support in the public these days you would think the latter, but his continued profile and founding of a supposedly serious political party suggests he somehow thinks the former.

Aye - that feels like a fair assessment.

In fact it could be argued that all of Salmond’s highest highs, and lowest lows, can be traced back to his supreme self-confidence. The sort of self-confidence that helps a party build up from an electoral ebb, to the effective one-party rule of the past decade. But also the sort of self-entitlement that leads you to form weird, bitter rivalries, break-away parties, and engage in some ***allegedly*** awful behaviour.

[Torrain]

Humza Yousaf has officially announced:
https://mobile.twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1627084149071945730
So has Ash Regan:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627187050213478405

[Torrain]

Neil Gray out - endorses Yousaf.

[Torrain]

Màiri McAllan and Keith Brown have both declined to run. Unless a dark horse candidate is about to emerge, it sounds like we’re only waiting for Forbes and Robertson to declare their intentions.

[Torrain]

Fwiw Ian Blackford is also a member of the Free Church

Aye - but he’s been actively rebuked by high ranking members of the Free Kirk for taking a liberal line on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

From 2019:

Former Free Church moderator the Rev David Robertson accused Blackford of “putting forward an elitist ‘progressivist’ agenda which will be the death of Scotland”.

He added: “You have put us, at best, on the road to nowhere — at worst it is a highway to Hell.”

Speaking in a personal capacity, Robertson said Blackford had to be “called to repentance” as he had “openly advocated the killing of children in the womb, and has publicly rejected the teaching of Jesus as regards marriage”.

If he refused, he said his membership in the church should be suspended.

“It is inconceivable that someone who claims to be a follower of Christ should so publicly refute his teaching. I would expect members in the church to uphold scriptural standards and teaching. There are issues that are of secondary importance but there are some issues that are so important that church discipline should be involved. If a member was in an adulterous relationship or was a racist, we would ask them to repent and turn away from their sin.”

When asked whether they agreed with this sentiment, the Kirk’s representatives said that it was up to Blackford’s local parish whether to censure him or not.

[Torrain]

Here we go…
https://mobile.twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1627318073240715266

[Torrain]

What’s the wider context of the free church within Scottish society?

Are they as interesting as the Plymouth Brethen?

They’re the 1/3 of the Church of Scotland who walked out in 1843, led by Thomas Chalmers. This set included most of the highlanders and Gaelic-speaking populace at the time. They were mostly angered by a system that allowed landowners to help pick local preachers. Chalmers was big on community links and support, but this had the side-effect of making them inward looking and perhaps too big on self-reliance. They then merged and demerged with several other small denominations, leading to the current iteration.

A lot of Free Kirk congregations are resistant to things that would be seen as normal in even other conservative denominations. Many still sing only the original 150 songs from the Book of Psalms, and until very recently (2010), it was forbidden to accompany worship with instruments, even the organ. When a family friend was married in one of their churches, she went down the aisle in silence.

They’re an interesting bunch to know. I did a lot of Scripture Union stuff as a kid, and went along to a Christian Union when I was at a Scottish Uni, so I rubbed shoulder with a number of them. Mostly very cheery, generous people who go a bit, well, …DUP if the conversation veers toward social issues. Some adjusted to Uni life well, others got sucked down the Jordan Peterson rabbit hole.

They’re not as hardline as the Brethren though - nobody is. The Free Kirk have, after all, moved past the whole “women must wear headscarves in church” thing. From experience - In a room full of Free Kirk people, the kid from a Brethren background is the one sitting in the corner with his arms crossed, complaining the approach is too modern.

I should note - I tried to get onto several websites run by the Kirk in order to source/double-check some of the claims here. But I was met by this banner:

This website is closed today in observance of the Lord’s Day. Please do visit again on any other day of the week. Ordinarily all our churches are open for worship, and all are welcome.

There follows a lengthy quotation from the Synod meeting that decided that the internet should not be used on the Sabbath.

[Torrain]

Little bit of outsider pressure on the race:

The Greens would ask their members whether they should leave the coalition if Forbes is elected. I presume the same would hold true for Regan - but no one expects her to win (not that Forbes is a clear frontrunner either).

Essentially, the party is saying that a motion to withdraw from the coalition would be discussed at party conference this year, and delegates would be pressed on the party’s commitment to various policy planks in their manifesto, namely their approach to LGBT rights and abortion clinic buffer zones.

Previous SNP governments have survived as minority administrations - most notably the first Salmond ministry, which lasted a full term with only 36% of seats. But the collapse of the Bute House Agreement would send some pretty bleak signals to the party base, and would be used as fodder by the opposition in a flash. Unclear exactly how votes of confidence, or election of the new First Minister would play out in that scenario.

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627653377046839301
Sounds like Regan doesn't put too much stock in the SNP-Green coalition...

I mean, it’s not hard to wind Patrick Harvie up. But this? This is bait.

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1627715360215400449

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1627736323665559552?s=20
She’s definitely honest, because this couldn’t be politically dumber.

Hold your horses - we haven’t even touched on abortion yet…

[Torrain]

For a start, Sarwar has a sense of humour (although I imagine part of that is the fact that a healthy sense of self-deprecation is a necessity for a Scot Lab politician these days). Yousaf, on the other hand - not so clear.

There’s also the fact that one of them was responsible for controversial hate speech legislation, and presided (poorly) over NHS Scotland through a particularly rough period - while the other *didn’t*.

[Torrain]

I think this is called “the full Tim Farron”:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1627948437864951808

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisGreenNews/status/1628040621960179713
This is going to be quite something…

[Torrain]

One of the less-discussed issues with a Robertson candidacy is that he's ensnared in the Salmond mess - to a poorly-clarified extent.

In his own words - he's been aware of "Salmond’s perceived inappropriateness" towards women since 2009, when representatives from Edinburgh Airport asked him to intercede with the then-First Minister after an undisclosed incident with female staff.

[Torrain]

Would it be fair to categorize Yousaf as continuity Strurgeon-ism?

Aye - he's in line with Sturgeon's social policy on most fronts (in contrast to Forbes and Regan), and seems to be on decent terms with the Greens (especially compared to the other candidates), actively seeking to preserve the coalition. He's also a gradualist on independence, rather than a fundamentalist like Regan now claims to be (she's moved to the "50% +1 vote for the SNP and Greens represents a Yes vote, and should immediately trigger negotiations about the breakup of the UK, without a referendum" position).

He does keep saying "I'm my own man", when asked if he's the Sturgeon continuity candidate. But that's the go-to line for any candidate trying to distance themselves (there's an entire 1990 Spitting Image sketch about John Major repeating those exact words so frequently he's portrayed as an malfunctioning android).

I'm sure there would be differences, but a Yousaf premiership wouldn't represent the u-turn that a Regan premiership would - or the political uncertainty that Forbes now carries.

[Torrain]

No great change in the race this past two days (aside from more Forbes discourse), although some factional stuff seems to be ticking away in the background:

• Kirk Torrance, who was the lead Alba Party candidate for the Highlands and Islands Regional List, has signed up as a campaign strategist for Ash Regan. Torrance was an advisor to both Salmond and Sturgeon, up to the 2016 Holyrood election. He’s now apparently left Alba.
• Erin Lux, head of Out For Independence (the SNP's LGBT wing) has lodged a formal complaint with the SNP's National Secretary against Kate Forbes for comments made in her Channel 4 interview. She claims Forbes breached the new definition of transphobia adopted by the party's NEC in 2021, by stating the following: "I believe that a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman."
• Depute FM John Swinney has indicated he won’t endorse until nominations close - but is widely understood to be backing Yousaf (there’s been reports of him lobbying MSPs on Yousaf’s behalf in the Times and elsewhere.

Nominations close tomorrow - Regan has announced that she’s hit the threshold, and very hard to see either of the other two candidate failing to meet it either.

[Torrain]

JimJamUK hit most of the points I was going to make in response to Zinneke's questions, but just a couple of additional thoughts:

• Some attempts to prepare for the future went array - see Derek MacKay's scandals, Angus Robertson failing to launch after returning to politics, and the loss of decent, Sturgeon-allied MPs like Stephen Gethins.
• Personally, I think Sturgeon is in the tank for Yousaf - and has been for a while. Witness the broad support for him from Scottish government ministers, and close Sturgeon allies in Westminster like Allison Thewliss (who ran for Westminster Leader at Sturgeon's apparent behest), and Swinney's non-denial that he'll endorse Yousaf once nominations close. It would certainly explain how he kept being appointed to better cabinet posts, despite a number of public stumbles, (no pun intended), and no clear alternative successor being groomed.
• Regan and Forbes clearly have some crossover support - and if it was an FPTP election, I think there would be more pressure on Regan from figures like Joanne Cherry to endorse Forbes instead of running herself and splitting the vote on *that issue*. But, I do think a number of Forbes voters may just let their ballots exhaust, rather than flip to Regan, especially those spooked by her "every election is a defacto referendum, but only if we get enough votes!" thing.
• The gradualist approach pioneered under Salmond and Sturgeon seems to be the best way to hold together the Yes, Undecided and Soft-No coalition that keeps the SNP in the lead. We saw in 2017 that Sturgeon's sabre-rattling about IndyRef2 was a bit of a vote-killer - a defacto referendum could be far more damaging, especially if the Labour Party have finally found their way into electoral relevance again up here.

[Torrain]

Ahead of nominations closing at midday today, we have our first three-way poll of the race, by Opinion Matters for BIG Partnership:

Kate Forbes: 28%
Humza Yousaf: 20%
Ash Regan: 7%
Don’t know: 31%
None of the above: 15%

Note: poll sample is SNP voters, rather than party membership. 71% of party membership is over 50 though, so who knows how this all plays out in practise...

[Torrain]

Bit of yellow-on-yellow in the media again. Alex Neil, former Scottish Health Secretary, is reopening the discussion about Humza Yousaf's absence from the vote that legalised gay marriage in Scotland. Neil (now a Forbes supporter, to be clear) was minister tasked with shepherding the bill through Holyrood, and is stubbornly insisting that Yousaf (who voted for the initial reading of the bill) came under pressure to abstain on the final vote.

He asked if he could be skipped from the vote, and the First Minister gave him permission, and it was agreed he would arrange a ministerial appointment which would be timed for the day of the debate and the vote, so that he would have cover.

I thought to be honest at the time it was a bit disappointing, because it was a matter of principle. He’s parading himself as being very much in favour of equal marriage. Why did he deliberately not vote for it? There’s no doubt in my mind that that is what happened. I was the cabinet secretary in charge of the Bill and it was a free vote, so I had to know and be sure that we had the majority."

The MSP for Glasgow Pollok voted in favour of the principles of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1 in November 2013, but was the only minister to miss the final Stage 3 vote on 4 February 2014.

At the time, gay marriage was opposed by many Muslim leaders in Scotland. Mr Yousaf was the minister for external affairs. His diary records show that on 14 January 2014, he was asked by the then minister for parliamentary business, Joe FitzPatrick, to attend Holyrood for the gay marriage vote.

But 48 hours later, Mr Yousaf himself requested a meeting with the Pakistan Consul General in Glasgow on the same day as the vote, thereby creating a diary clash. It was not until a week later, on 24 January, that Mohammad Ashgar, a 69-year-old Scot with a history of mental illness, was sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan.

*

Asked at the time why he had been absent from the vote, Mr Yousaf wrote on Twitter: “Had ministerial engagement arranged beforehand but signed pledge, voted for stage one and v public about my (continued) support!”

Asked if his absence had been “unavoidable”, he added: “Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid.” This was in spite of Mr Yousaf setting up the meeting almost three weeks in advance, and before Mr Ashgar had even been sentenced in Pakistan.  

Yousaf, in response, restated his support for same-sex marriage, but the Herald notes that he did not deny the claims made by Neil.

[Torrain]

While we're on the subject... Ash Regan *may* have a bullying problem.

Journalists from the Scotsman tried today to get answers from the candidate about longstanding reports (first published back in the Herald in 2019) that she requires staff in her office to sign multiple NDAs on leaving - with these staffers also receiving large severance packages, sometimes stretching to £2,000 or £6,000 "goodwill packages".

One staff member was given a £6,000 compensation payment as part of a settlement agreement, which included a non-disclosure clause, after complaining they had been discriminated against on the grounds of disability, and in another case an employee was given more than £2,000 as a ‘good will payment’ when they quit their post.

They cited victimisation and bullying from within the MSP’s office - not by the MSP - as part of their reason for leaving and said their job was no longer tenable.

One SNP source told the Herald on Sunday: “She [Ash] needs to control what is going on in her office.

When asked this afternoon whether she was a bully Raab Regan refused to respond.