2023 Scottish National Party leadership election

[YL]

Amazed at how SNP's wheels has completely fallen off in such a short time.

And yet, there is still no particular sign that it's in electoral danger.

Too soon to tell, I think.  A lot might depend on whether Scottish Labour is competent enough to take their chance.

[MABA 2020]

How bloody lucky can Starmer get? First the Tory meltdown and now a potential opportunity to take back some ground in Scotland if they play their cards right

[CumbrianLefty]

Amazed at how SNP's wheels has completely fallen off in such a short time.

And yet, there is still no particular sign that it's in electoral danger.

Because current polls still have each "side" assuming they will win the leadership election?

In fact this is arguably an extremely complacent assessment IMO.

Scottish Labour didn't collapse despite everything, either - until, one day, it did.

[Torrain]

Amazed at how SNP's wheels has completely fallen off in such a short time.

And yet, there is still no particular sign that it's in electoral danger.

That's not completely true. If we look at the polling aggregates for both Holyrood and Westminster, the numbers are tightening:

Polling for Scottish Westminster seats:


Polling for the Holyrood constituency vote:


Polling for the Holyrood regional list vote:


Obviously, there's a long way to go between now and the next elections to both Holyrood and Westminster. We could see a successful honeymoon period for the next FM, perhaps even one that they manage to parlay into an early Holyrood election. But... there's a softening of the numbers right now that we haven't seen in years.

In the last Redfield and Wilton Holyrood poll, Labour came within 3% on the regional list. Obviously I'd like to see numbers like that replicated, ideally in further polls from multiple polling companies before I start putting (metaphorical) stock in them. But it's certainly a break with the recent past.

[Torrain]

Mike Russell, President of the SNP has been appointed as interim-CEO, retaking the role he held prior to Murrell, in the 1990s. Russell himself has gotten some flack this week, after describing his political opponents as "enemies", a sentiment roundly criticised by opposition politicians:

As the SNP President I have told the National Secretary I support publishing membership figures. I also have full confidence in her & the external verification & count. I am disgusted by the abuse directed at SNP staff by individuals who damage our cause & aid our enemies

He's actually doubled-down on this sentiment tonight in an editorial for the National entitled: "Enemies is not too strong a word for some Unionists". In said article, he conflates unionists with the hard-right of the Tory party, implying Suella Braverman is representative of the No-voting population.

[Oryxslayer]

Amazed at how SNP's wheels has completely fallen off in such a short time.

And yet, there is still no particular sign that it's in electoral danger.

That's not completely true. If we look at the polling aggregates for both Holyrood and Westminster, the numbers are tightening:

Polling for Scottish Westminster seats:


Polling for the Holyrood constituency vote:


Polling for the Holyrood regional list vote:


Obviously, there's a long way to go between now and the next elections to both Holyrood and Westminster. We could see a successful honeymoon period for the next FM, perhaps even one that they manage to parlay into an early Holyrood election. But... there's a softening of the numbers right now that we haven't seen in years.

In the last Redfield and Wilton Holyrood poll, Labour came within 3% on the regional list. Obviously I'd like to see numbers like that replicated, ideally in further polls from multiple polling companies before I start putting (metaphorical) stock in them. But it's certainly a break with the recent past.

There's also a take that identity polarization means there are few voters who could actively move between parties in different camps. So the polls do show the Labour gains, Labour just can't usurp the SNP because they have a high floor and and the unionist votes will just be more fragmented. The polled Unionist majority is therefore the headline since it reverses the longstanding SNP + Green one.

[TheTide]

I've just had this random vision of the scene where a Tory backbench MP (don't off hand know the name of said MP) gets up during Thatcher's final PMQs and exclaims "Take your resignation back. You could wipe the floor with these people."

Not that that has any relation to this at all.

[Torrain]

Sturgeon's Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd has resigned.

Lloyd has been advising Humza Yousaf's campaign, but remained a paid employee of the Scottish Government. A meeting took place between Ash Regan and the Permanent Secretary for the Scottish Government yesterday, where she raised concerns that Lloyd was in breach of rules staring that no favours/promise can be given to encourage individuals to work for a prospective candidate.

Lloyd claims she has always planned to leave politics alongside Stugeon. But it's worth noting that she resigned within hours of the meeting, and 13 minutes after The Herald published a story revealing the meeting.

[Torrain]

There's also a take that identity polarization means there are few voters who could actively move between parties in different camps. So the polls do show the Labour gains, Labour just can't usurp the SNP because they have a high floor and and the unionist votes will just be more fragmented. The polled Unionist majority is therefore the headline since it reverses the longstanding SNP + Green one.

That's a fair position to take. Polarisation is always something to take into consideration.

I'm not entirely sure it'll ensure SNP hegenomy though. Even as recently as 2017, their vote dipped into the 30s (after Sturgeon's aborted attempt to set up a second referendum), leading to them losing a dozen seats. Without Sturgeon, and widening splits in the party base, it does feel like there's an opportunity for the country to take a wild swing in another direction (as seems to happen pretty frequently - see 1997, 2015, etc).

It takes two parties to decide an election though, one to win and one to lose. While the SNP appear weakened right now, it'll probably take a real improvement in Scot Lab's discipline and messaging to get themselves in shape for a comeback - and doesn't feel like we've seen that yet.

Definitely take your point on unionists out-polling the combined Greens and SNP - that would be a big moment. Especially if it denied the nationalist parties a combined majority at Holyrood. In those circumstances the election of a First Minister could turn into a real bunfight - and potentially end up with a sitation reflective of Scottish council elections, as we've seen in Stirling and Fife - with a Labour First Minister dependent on confidence and supply from both Lib Dems and Tories. Which would break a lot of brains, and potentially have big consequences for the next cycle.

[JimJamUK]

Definitely take your point on unionists out-polling the combined Greens and SNP - that would be a big moment. Especially if it denied the nationalist parties a combined majority at Holyrood. In those circumstances the election of a First Minister could turn into a real bunfight - and potentially end up with a sitation reflective of Scottish council elections, as we've seen in Stirling and Fife - with a Labour First Minister dependent on confidence and supply from both Lib Dems and Tories. Which would break a lot of brains, and potentially have big consequences for the next cycle.

I find it interesting that there has been very little discussion of this prospect over the years given it is very likely to happen should the SNP/Greens lose their majority. None of the unionists parties would back an SNP led government, and Labour is the only unionist party that could realistically lead a government (the Tories couldn’t get Labour backing, the Lib Dems are too small). You would think that the nationalists would want to play up this prospect given even indirect collaboration between Labour and the Tories could go down a like a bucket of cold sick among Labour-SNP swing voters.

[CumbrianLefty]

It takes two parties to decide an election though, one to win and one to lose. While the SNP appear weakened right now, it'll probably take a real improvement in Scot Lab's discipline and messaging to get themselves in shape for a comeback - and doesn't feel like we've seen that yet.

Though it is notable Anas Sarwar got good ratings even when SNP hegemony still seemed secure.

[Torrain]

Also worth noting - today was the day the SNP has earmarked, back in February, for their Special Democracy Conference, designed to rubberstamp Sturgeon's plans for a defacto independence referendum:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1637372902222823424
Feels like that was a political lifetime ago.

[afleitch]

Again, a strange if not now deliberate attempts to not ask SNP members what they think about everything.

You can find it if you look, or you know people. And it's quite far removed from recent developments.

Members are not happy that party organisers have been trashed or the idea that the votes we cast are suspect or invalid.

[CumbrianLefty]

It *is* surprising that no serious attempt seems to have been made to poll SNP members tbf.

[Torrain]

Members are not happy that party organisers have been trashed or the idea that the votes we cast are suspect or invalid.

Would you have preferred Murrell, Foote and Lloyd stay in post - is there a sense amongst the members you know that they've been misrepresented/mistreated?

Again, a strange if not now deliberate attempts to not ask SNP members what they think about everything.

Are you thinking about the media, or this thread?

[afleitch]

Members are not happy that party organisers have been trashed or the idea that the votes we cast are suspect or invalid.

Would you have preferred Murrell, Foote and Lloyd stay in post - is there a sense amongst the members you know that they've been misrepresented/mistreated?

Again, a strange if not now deliberate attempts to not ask SNP members what they think about everything.

Are you thinking about the media, or this thread?

The media in general. This thread has been very well managed

Everyone and their granny postulated and gave interviews and wrote editorials about Kate Forbes views and how that interacts with society. But SNP members positions were not really asked.

We either hear from the mainstream press or from the half dozen SNP rentaquotes. We hear of 'sources' but never names. Of 'controversy' but nothing concrete.

We've been told, long before the leadership election what should  matter to us as members. But not been asked. In part because engagement with SNP voters/members and most of the media has broken down.

We have this

https://mobile.twitter.com/alisonthewliss/status/1637787294781304832

Here's my thoughts on quite a lot of the drama.

1. Members don't care about Murrell. It seems to really matter to people outside of the membership. They were all likely to have resigned after the election anyway.

2. Members have complained at SNP inaction in disciplining certain parts of the party who do nothing but brief against. The 'party machine' have actually treated certain people too leniently. They are aware that briefings against them, even the flimsiest, will guarantee headlines in the unionist press. There's form in this.

3. Membership numbers don't matter. People join and rejoin because it's easy to do so. We're in an election lull. While it's on the much lower end of estimations, no other party has yet to release it's contemporary membership status in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

4. It's likely most votes were cast in the first few days. Initially there were attempts by some to complain votes were being 'flipped' or couldn't be cast correctly until Twitter threads were hot with actual members saying that didn't match with their experience and sharing evidence. That initial attempt to detail the contest didn't get anywhere.

5. It's possible there is some communication of the raw numbers of who voted to party HQ and to candidates. That happens in union elections conducted in similar third party fashion for GOTV purposes. But nothing that indicates who was ahead. That would have led to some campaigns thinking say that 50,000 have voted with further outreach needed and planned for the next 50k. When the figures were announced, and it's say 70% and not 50% of the membership who have voted that caused panic. That's why one campaign have now walked back earlier comments about credibility.

6. It's possible therefore...and this could apply to both Humza and Forbes depending on how the numbers cut, that certain campaigns were focusing on appealing to voters who have left. And most of the votes have been cast. Party HQ gently reminded candidates that some pre-ejection briefings were not engaged with.

7. I know a lot of members (and this is subject to bias of course) who are absolutely raging about a very public spat. And those final voters are likely to determine the outcome.

[CumbrianLefty]

I do sort of have sympathy with the Record there tbh. Yes the Asylum Bill *is* very important, but at the moment there is one thing you might expect a prominent SNP parliamentarian to write about.

She is there to provide the Nat perspective, after all.

[MaxQue]

I do sort of have sympathy with the Record there tbh. Yes the Asylum Bill *is* very important, but at the moment there is one thing you might expect a prominent SNP parliamentarian to write about.

She is there to provide the Nat perspective, after all.

It's an UK "newspaper". They deserve no sympathy.

[Torrain]

Snip

Cheers - always interesting to get your perspective from inside the party.

Do agree that it's harder than it should be to get a sense of the party base's feelings, and the "rentaquotes" aren't all that helpful - would be nice to get a broader perspective than Mhairi Hunter's twitter account. Another poll or two would be nice - can't believe it's been over a fortnight since the last one.

I think we probably have different perspectives on the longer-term impact of the last few weeks. Certainly, if this contest challenges the "wheesht for indy" approach, and stimulates broader debate within the party, I'll feel a little more comfortable. But then again, as an outsider, that's not something I can/will be involved in.

I think no.6 is an underrated point. I dipped into the LBC debate last night, and was struck by just how different Forbes and Yousaf seem to view the base. She seems to have a very "Moray" perspective of the party base, that feels very pre-2017, whereas Yousaf's conception of the party feels tied to a more activist approach you might see in Edinburgh or Glasgow (based on some friends I knew through uni). I do wonder whether both are guilty of extrapolating experiences in their own constituency onto the broader party. Agree that it won't be until we have the results breakdown that we know where, between those perspectives, that the party membership really lies. 

One question - I've felt very uneasy about making any sort of real prediction about the outcome, for lack of decent polling as much as anything else. I'm pretty sure Yousaf gets the most first preference ballots, with Forbes in second and Regan lagging below 20%. Beyond that, it seems all to play for. Interested to hear if you have any gut instincts about the final tally?

[CumbrianLefty]

I do sort of have sympathy with the Record there tbh. Yes the Asylum Bill *is* very important, but at the moment there is one thing you might expect a prominent SNP parliamentarian to write about.

She is there to provide the Nat perspective, after all.

It's an UK "newspaper". They deserve no sympathy.

Yes, you know me for my staunch defence of the British press

(though strictly speaking the Record is a Scottish newspaper rather than a "UK" one)

[Torrain]

Here's the map of endorsements as they currently stand:


Notably, Yousaf has been endorsed by a majority of SNP MSPs (33/64).

If Forbes were to defy conventional wisdom and win, I have to imagine she would be faced with the same problem that Corbyn faced after his 2016 vote of no-confidence, and Truss struggled with throughout her tenure - if a majority of your caucus have decided that the best candidate is someone else, discipline often starts poor, and tends to trends downwards from there.

[CumbrianLefty]

Latest polling shows all three candidates with significantly lower approval ratings compared to when this contest kicked off. Forbes still ahead (though not commandingly) amongst all voters, but Yousaf at least matches if not surpasses her when it comes to actual SNP supporters.

Whoever takes over rather has their work cut out, one feels.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From an outsiders perspective a really fascinating thing about this contest has been the way in which the SNP's very unusual internal culture - shaped in response to the party's great crisis in the early 1980s - has collided with the usual pressures for transparency and openness that come with being a party of power in a liberal democracy. As well as all the drama, it makes the result harder to read than might otherwise be the case and means that, no matter what happens, the party will change fundamentally as a result of this experience.

[Torrain]

Ah, Cumbrian Lefty beat me to it. Just came here to post the Ipsos numbers...

Toplines are largely the same as before (Forbes best amongst general public, Yousaf best amongst SNP voters, no group has a net-positive approval of Regan), but with all three worse off than a month ago.

Slightly amused that the "approve" numbers amongst 2021 SNP voters add up to 97% (Yousaf 38%, Forbes 37%, Regan 22%) - it's almost as though they used the question as a defacto leadership vote. Of course, you shouldn't read the numbers that way, because that wasn't the question, and SNP voters are likely rather less Yousaf-favoured than SNP members. But still - kinda intruiging.

[afleitch]

Ah, Cumbrian Lefty beat me to it. Just came here to post the Ipsos numbers...

Toplines are largely the same as before (Forbes best amongst general public, Yousaf best amongst SNP voters, no group has a net-positive approval of Regan), but with all three worse off than a month ago.

Slightly amused that the "approve" numbers amongst 2021 SNP voters add up to 97% (Yousaf 38%, Forbes 37%, Regan 22%) - it's almost as though they used the question as a defacto leadership vote. Of course, you shouldn't read the numbers that way, because that wasn't the question, and SNP voters are likely rather less Yousaf-favoured than SNP members. But still - kinda intruiging.

Unfortunately, we can't compare this poll to the poll for Channel 4 as this poll asks for favourables. The Channel 4 poll asked who would 'make a good FM'.

So again, there's nothing to go on because no one is asking either the right people or consistent questions...