2023 Scottish National Party leadership election

[Harlow]

Anyone looking at this election without context would assume the party is stuck in an electoral quagmire rather than being into a decade in to near uninterrupted success at the ballot box.

See also:  2022 UK Conservative Party leadership election, Parts 1 and 2

Well, the Conservatives were in a significantly worse polling position in both instances than the SNP are now (but maybe not for much longer...)

[Torrain]

New Ipsos Mori poll of the race for Channel 4:

• Forbes: 32%
• Yousaf: 24%
• Regan: 8%
• None of the above: 24%
• Don't know: 11%

Fieldwork 6-7th March (prior to the STV debate). Sample group is 1,503 Scottish adults - so sample group represents the Scottish electorate, rather than SNP selectorate.

Edit: forgot to mention, 583/1503 (38% of the sample) are registered SNP members.

[CumbrianLefty]

So take out Tory pro-Forbes people who will NEVER vote SNP, and its roughly level?

[Torrain]

Something like that? Honestly, between how hard it is to poll internal party races, and the impact of STV on the race, it's quite uncertain.

I mean, in the Truss-Sunak race last year, Truss was typically overrated and Sunak underrated by a fair margin, compared to the final outcome. And those were in decent polls with upwards of 8,000 party members. Here, the largest representative sample size we can get is like, 500 SNP members - or we're relying on general electorate polls.

Unless pollsters can get good internal numbers, and push the "don't knows", it just seems like a bad idea to put all that much stock in individual polls at this point - when 40% of respondents just don't give an answer.

I just think they're still worth posting in case we see significant movement, in one way or another - and I think the level of uncertainty is newsworthy in it's own right.

[afleitch]

Something like that? Honestly, between how hard it is to poll internal party races, and the impact of STV on the race, it's quite uncertain.

I mean, in the Truss-Sunak race last year, Truss was typically overrated and Sunak underrated by a fair margin, compared to the final outcome. And those were in decent polls with upwards of 8,000 party members. Here, the largest representative sample size we can get is like, 500 SNP members - or we're relying on general electorate polls.

Unless pollsters can get good internal numbers, and push the "don't knows", it just seems like a bad idea to put all that much stock in individual polls at this point - when 40% of respondents just don't give an answer.

I just think they're still worth posting in case we see significant movement, in one way or another - and I think the level of uncertainty is newsworthy in it's own right.

The SNP sample is voters, not members and the question is who people want for FM, and who would make a good FM, not SNP leader. So that makes the polling even less helpful at first glance.

However Humza performs strongest with SNP voters amongst who would make a good FM and has a wider lead on who SNP voters want as FM in 2019 voters over 2021 (which probably had some degree of Green recall) 6 points, rather than 1.

It's not really out of line with initial polling, or the SNP membership polling.

[JimJamUK]

I mean, in the Truss-Sunak race last year, Truss was typically overrated and Sunak underrated by a fair margin, compared to the final outcome. And those were in decent polls with upwards of 8,000 party members. Here, the largest representative sample size we can get is like, 500 SNP members - or we're relying on general electorate polls.

Unless pollsters can get good internal numbers, and push the "don't knows", it just seems like a bad idea to put all that much stock in individual polls at this point - when 40% of respondents just don't give an answer.

The SNP membership is only about 40% smaller than the Conservative membership (100000 vs 170000) so I don’t think it will be too difficult to get a decent sample if pollsters want to. The latter is the main obstacle, as the de facto first minister election is going to attract much less interest than the de facto prime minister election and a few pollsters have past experience sampling Conservative Party members while there’s been much less interest in the SNP membership.

[Torrain]

All fair points. Particularly, I should have waited until the full Ipsos article was out, to read the crosstabs, and get a sense for the internal SNP numbers, rather than skim the Channel 4 News article and speculated from there. Race does still feel quite unstable though, if Yousaf is leading by a single point (33% to 32%) over Forbes, amongst party voters.





On other matters - debate no.2 is tonight, at the end of the Channel 4 news - started around 19.20. Only available on Channel 4, or All4 (their streaming platform) right now.

[Torrain]

Debate tonight has overall been a bit more sedate:

• Forbes opened with a spiel about how she was proud of the government's record, trying to shut down criticism for her comments on Tuesday. Neither she or Regan would endorse Yousaf's time in office - although he quickly praised their work as ministers when asked.
• Yousaf landed some good hits on Forbes' comments about his record - pointing out that Douglas Ross had made those comments a centerpiece of First Minister's Questions today.
• Regan going for the incredible canned line of "we need Bravehearts, not faint hearts."
• Guru-Murphy started by asking Yousaf how he was dealing with being "spectacularly unpopular". He said he had "momentum", and had quadrupled his support.
• All three candidates said they'd back President Andy Murray over King Charles as head of state in the medium-long term.
• Extended discussion about the influence of faith on candidates' politics. Most notable moment came when Forbes contorted to avoid saying whether she believes abortion is wrong. She also backed herself into the "I have lots of gay friends/colleagues" argument at one point.

Yousaf probably wins this one by default, because he could lay out a fairly standard party line on social issues, while Forbes struggled to reconcile personal and party politics onstage. He also just seemed more comfortable and laid-back than Forbes for much of the debate.

Full debate now posted to YouTube here.

[afleitch]

I mentioned before that it clearly sticks in the craw of a lot of the commentariat that (* Humza Yousaf (* is closer to the median voter than Kate Forbes or Ash Regan.

The latter two come off as very odd. One is tuned to the moon and the other has the presence of someone who should be twice the age she is.

[afleitch]

Wow

https://mobile.twitter.com/RodentWild/status/1633956771080421376

[Torrain]

Had a double-check, and Gordon Bell is a Free Kirk spokesman in the same way Humza Yousaf is a minister in the Salmond government - they aren't now, but they were in 2014.

https://twitter.com/HannahMargBrown/status/1633962730116771843
(Brown was the journalist originally cited by "Wild Rodent" before she deleted the linked tweet).

I'll grant you - it's pretty poor politics to put a man like Bell (who once described expanded abortion access as "infanticide" in the Herald) in charge of your rapid-respones media strategy. And publishing a response to Back Off Scotland *after* saying you've already done it does undercut the whole "radical honesty" thing that was one of Forbes' major defences.

[afleitch]

Good hustings.

Hosted by the Scottish Trades Union Congress so a left leaning audience.

Both Humza and Forbes in command of the issues; nothing suggestive of a right leaning perspective from Forbes at all; Humza was at times more cautious when it came to investment. He did however know the groups/organisations, reports, sources and individuals by name that came up in the discussions, which as I keep pushing is important to consider when it's a membership vote. Comes across as affable, Forbes as wonkish but genuinely earnest.

Ash Regan was not bringing it. Quite awkward, but a polite audience.

[Torrain]

Few developments:

• Deputy First Minister John Swinney has endorsed Yousaf, as has SNP Westminster Leader Stephen Flynn.
• Ash Regan announces the other candidates can’t “commit” to the job of First Minister because they have young children - because I guess we’d gone a good 48 hours without her saying something wild.
• Yousaf has said that under his premiership the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution would be tasked with promoting independence… which feels like something of a political/legal minefield - given they’d be drawing on public funds to broadcast a party-political position. Also worth noting that the Constitution Secretary has oversight on election policy in Scotland, which seems like a conflict of interest, to put it mildly.
• Yousaf has also suggested that a snap election could be held, in the same interview, after previously ruling it out.

[CumbrianLefty]

Regan did a reverse Leadsom, then.

[Coldstream]

Presumably Regan’s supporters will all go to Forbes in round 2, so Yousaf has to get 50% of the vote to win?

[JimJamUK]

Presumably Regan’s supporters will all go to Forbes in round 2, so Yousaf has to get 50% of the vote to win?

Not all will give further preferences, and certainly not all will preference Forbes instead of Yousaf. Some Regan voters will find Yousaf more likeable than Forbes, they might not like Forbes’ religious social conservatism, can’t see much difference between them on independence etc. Basically, voters have a lot of different reasons they may back a candidate (and at times are just plain weird) so a decent minority of Regan voters will exhaust and/or transfer to Yousaf in the 2nd stage rather than do the supposedly ‘logical’ choice of transferring to Forbes.

[Coldstream]

Presumably Regan’s supporters will all go to Forbes in round 2, so Yousaf has to get 50% of the vote to win?

Not all will give further preferences, and certainly not all will preference Forbes instead of Yousaf. Some Regan voters will find Yousaf more likeable than Forbes, they might not like Forbes’ religious social conservatism, can’t see much difference between them on independence etc. Basically, voters have a lot of different reasons they may back a candidate (and at times are just plain weird) so a decent minority of Regan voters will exhaust and/or transfer to Yousaf in the 2nd stage rather than do the supposedly ‘logical’ choice of transferring to Forbes.

Sure, but I meant almost anyone who’s paying attention would put Regan-Forbes. The two are quite plainly closer than either is to Yousaf.

[afleitch]

Regan is such a 'unique' candidate, there's actually little overlap or lack of with either Humza or Forbes. And the GRC issue has been a dud. No idea what Regan supports will do as I've genuinely never met one.

[Zinneke]

Regan is such a 'unique' candidate, there's actually little overlap or lack of with either Humza or Forbes. And the GRC issue has been a dud. No idea what Regan supports will do as I've genuinely never met one.

You've never met an ALBA voter?

[afleitch]

Regan is such a 'unique' candidate, there's actually little overlap or lack of with either Humza or Forbes. And the GRC issue has been a dud. No idea what Regan supports will do as I've genuinely never met one.

You've never met an ALBA voter?

Genuinely, no.

[Torrain]

Following the opening of voting today, and ahead of tonight's debate, we've got some new polling from YouGov (PDF here). Most headlines are focusing on the independence numbers (No leading 47-39%), with some commentators (of course) honing in on the broad disapproval of the Gender Recogntion Act (56% disapprove, 26% approve) but the questions about the candidates are rather more relevant here.

Obviously, as a poll of the general Scottish public, this won't help us much in forecasting the race, but it is interesting from the standpoint of considering the challenges Sturgeon's successor is going to have establishing themselve as a leader...

Do you think they are a strong or weak leader?

Strong Weak Don’t Know

Forbes 28 22 49

Regan 13 26 61

Yousaf 19 39 41

Are they trustworthy or untrustworthy?

Trustworthy Untrustworthy Don’t Know

Forbes 30 27 42

Regan 13 26 61

Yousaf 18 42 41

Are they competent or incompetent?

Competent Incompetent Don’t Know

Forbes 37 20 43

Regan 17 24 61

Yousaf 22 40 38

Do you think they would be a better or worse First Minister than Nicola Sturgeon?

Better Worse About the Same Not Sure

Forbes 17 33 21 28

Regan 8 38 18 35

Yousaf 6 46 20 27

[CumbrianLefty]

Though its admittedly not her primary pitch, Regan seems rather closer to Yousaf than Forbes when it comes to economic matters - and I'm sure there are other areas where that is true too.

Expecting her transfers (if relevant) to go en masse to either candidate is likely foolhardy.

[afleitch]

On that particular question, Humza has a net positive of +10, compared to -4 for Forbes and -10 for Regan amongst 2019 SNP voters. So again, similar pattern.

It's all very well for Forbes to be -10 with Tories and Humza -76... they aren't going to vote for us

[afleitch]

Voted.

[Coldstream]

I’m watching the debate, I’m obviously very far from the target audience so I can’t claim any insight as to who is “winning” in terms of SNP members. But man Yousaf is bad, like a stereotype of an untrustworthy politician, can’t answer a question and keeps talking about how great he is - and he keeps repeating himself.

Forbes is quite clearly running as a right wing candidate, which I can’t imagine is a good idea for the members? Particularly on JK Rowling, I know Labour members wouldn’t vote for someone like that. But who knows, maybe SNP members are less bothered than us. She’s probably the person you’d feel most confident about sticking up on TV - and she’s the only one who seems to be interested in reaching out besides the base.

Regan seems like she’s an Alba Twitter troll. She’s more impressive than I thought she’d be, but that may be more down to low expectations.