SNP leadership election

[AlfieMoon]

SNP plays longer game in bid for Scottish independence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65425495

This sort of weak talk will be self-fulfilling in terms of the collapse of the SNP.
 

Sturgeon might not have managed to advance to a sustained majority of support for indy but the issue was front and centre so it’s fair to assume that this approach at least sustained the 45-50% polling. 
 

Stepping back from the issue only leaves an open door for the opposition to govern.  
 

It really has been a spectacular clusterfuck from the SNP. I noticed Tom Devine saying yesterday that it’s off the table for a generation. I didn’t want to accept that, but I’ve then read the linked article and realise I’m kidding myself. He’s right. 
 

The only hope is wholesale change at the SNP or some sort of alternative Indy party finding a place and credibility. 

[Ally Bongo]

You are right

The SNP is now a barrier to giving people in Scotland the choice,  never mind Independence

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/

Maybe Aaid can respond as it is addressed to those still under the spell

There's an article linked to prominently on the BBC News homepage this morning, entitled "SNP plays longer game in bid for Scottish independence" and stating that there has been a significant shift in position since Nicola Sturgeon was leader.  In what sense this is 'news' is a complete mystery, because it was clear from the day Humza Yousaf announced his leadership campaign that this is what would happen if he was elected - he promised to abandon all plans for winning independence and that is exactly what he has done.  Nor is it newsworthy to wheel out John Curtice with approving words about the SNP climbdown on independence, because he was always a fierce critic of Ms Sturgeon's de facto referendum policy and consistently urged her to ditch it and revert to ineffectually begging for a Section 30 order.  Whatever his pedigree as a polling expert, Professor Curtice has always been as unable as any of his fellow critics of the de facto referendum to explain exactly how begging for a Section 30 order is a superior plan given that the UK Government have already decided never to grant one in any circumstances.

Nevertheless, as I know from wading through astroturf propaganda in the moderation queue of this blog on an almost daily basis, Yousaf's supporters very much want us to believe that abandoning all plans to win independence does not in fact mean that all plans to win independence have been abandoned.  And the BBC are breathlessly reporting the "plan" to build a sustained supermajority for Yes and then ask for a Section 30 order as if it's somehow a real thing rather than a cover story to keep SNP members quiet while Yousaf gets on with non-independence-related stuff for whatever time remains of his leadership.  So if even the state broadcaster want us to take the non-plan seriously, it's about time some serious questions were answered to flesh it out, make it much less vague, and expand on the underlying thinking behind it.  Let's see if any passing Humza fans can oblige (although they may need to call HQ first to get a new script).

1) Do you honestly not understand why, two-thirds of a decade after Nicola Sturgeon first announced a referendum that has yet to be delivered, people burst out laughing when you say now is the time to *start* playing a longer game on independence?

2) As we self-evidently have been playing a longer game on independence over the last two-thirds of a decade, one that was supposed to at long last reach its culmination over the next 6-18 months with either a referendum or a de facto referendum, doesn't replacing that interminably slow process with a far slower one mean that you'd be more honest in calling your new plan "the eternity game"?

3) Isn't there a contradiction in the fact that you're demanding a big increase in support for independence before a vote on independence can be called when all the evidence suggests that big swings in public opinion are far more likely to occur after a vote is called and all-out campaigning is underway?  If we learned any lesson from 2014, that's the lesson. The biggest swing to Yes occurred only around 2-4 weeks before referendum day.

4) If you're now saying that it's only appropriate to request a Section 30 order after a sustained supermajority has been attained, why the hell has Humza requested a Section 30 at least three times already in the month he's been leader?  Can you honestly not see the plot-hole here?

5) What does a 'supermajority' mean in concrete terms?  Does it mean 52%?  55%?  60%?  A well known person down south suggested to me recently in all apparent seriousness that 75% would be a perfectly reasonable target number - surely you don't mean that?  We really do need you to set an exact target number and to stick to it, because if you continue with the current vagueness, the well-founded suspicion will be that no matter how high Yes support rises, you'll just say "that isn't enough yet, we'll know what enough looks like when we see it".

6) What does 'sustained' mean in concrete terms?  Does it mean six months?  A year?  Five years?  And are you saying that if even one outlying opinion poll shows Yes below the target figure (whatever the hell the target figure is), the sustained sequence is broken and we have to start all over again?

7) When you say "the barriers to independence will melt away" as soon as Yes support rises high enough, what does that mean in concrete terms?  Does it mean the UK Government will suddenly agree to negotiate an independence settlement there and then?  Does it mean they will agree to an independence referendum?  Or does it mean something else, and if so, what?

😎 Between mid-2020 and the early months of 2021, there was a sustained supermajority for independence.  Every single opinion poll conducted during that period showed a clear Yes lead, which at times rose as high as 56% or 58%.  (I remember it well, because I personally commissioned three of the polls during that long sequence, including the very first one in June 2020.)  So why didn't your prediction come true that the barriers to independence would melt away in those exact circumstances?  Why didn't it even come close to coming true?  Be careful before dismissively saying that the best part of a year is nowhere near "sustained" enough, or that 56%-58% is nowhere close enough to a "supermajority", because the implications of any such statement would be mind-boggling.

9) On what logical basis can you possibly argue that the UK Government would be more likely to agree to a Section 30 order if a sustained supermajority for Yes is established, given that they would have even less of an incentive to allow a referendum to take place once it looks unwinnable for the No side?

10) Why are you effectively contracting out Scotland's democratic voice to opinion poll firms mostly based in London?  There's no other way that a 'sustained supermajority' can be measured other than through public opinion polls, and yet London polling companies have a track record of unionist bias, unconscious or otherwise - most notably the notorious 'Kellner Correction' in the run-up to the 2014 indyref.  There's a particular question mark right now over whether weighting poll results by recalled votes in a referendum that took place a decade ago could be leading to a significant underestimate of the Yes vote.

11) If a simple 50% + 1 majority for independence is no longer sufficient for you, that means a substantial number of No voters will have to be won over.  Don't you understand, therefore, that this plan does not have a hope in hell of working until Yousaf is replaced as leader?  All of the polling evidence during the leadership election confirmed that any limited public sympathy for Yousaf is largely confined to voters in the Yes camp, and that No voters mostly loathe him.  To win over enough No voters to get a sustained supermajority, you'd need a leader like Kate Forbes, who polls showed was liked and trusted in substantial numbers across the constitutional divide.  Doesn't simple logic inexorably dictate that you're going to have to overcome your hang-ups about Forbes and unite behind her as leader sooner or later?  Always assuming, of course, that you're remotely serious about this so-called "plan to win independence" in the first place.

12) The whole reason Nicola Sturgeon promised a referendum back in 2016/17 is that Scotland was set to be dragged out of the EU against its will.  The point of the vote, therefore, was not to guarantee a Yes vote or to guarantee independence, but to guarantee the choice that Scotland was entitled to.  Are you now arguing that Nicola Sturgeon was wrong to say that Scotland had a right to choose between Brexit and EU membership as an independent country, and that we can only 'earn' that choice, very, very belatedly, if we can prove to you that we can be trusted to vote in the 'right' way?  That certainly seems to be your position, and it doesn't say much for your belief in the principle of democratic self-determination.

 

[exile]

What I don't understand, or must have missed, is what happened to the de facto referendum idea? From being something that was about to be debated and turned into a plan, it seems to have just disappeared as if it never existed.

I thought one of the advantages of a DFR was that you could lose one and another will come along. You could lose on pop vote but still win a landslide of seats. Which is no worse than a 'normal' GE, but a truer indication of absolute support for independence, than for example standing on 2019 Stop Brexit ticket.

 

[ParisInAKilt]

9) On what logical basis can you possibly argue that the UK Government would be more likely to agree to a Section 30 order if a sustained supermajority for Yes is established, given that they would have even less of an incentive to allow a referendum to take place once it looks unwinnable for the No side?

Exactly. They either don’t know what they’re doing anymore in terms of the next step in gaining in independence or just manipulating voters into keeping them in a job 
 

 

[AlfieMoon]

1 hour ago, exile said:

What I don't understand, or must have missed, is what happened to the de facto referendum idea? From being something that was about to be debated and turned into a plan, it seems to have just disappeared as if it never existed.

I thought one of the advantages of a DFR was that you could lose one and another will come along. You could lose on pop vote but still win a landslide of seats. Which is no worse than a 'normal' GE, but a truer indication of absolute support for independence, than for example standing on 2019 Stop Brexit ticket.

 

It was just the latest unionist ploy and was lapped up by many in the SNP which killed it stone dead. 
 

They spent 6 years denying a S30 and laughing, saying ‘now is not the time’, ‘what are you gonna do about it?’.  Sturgeon was continually pressured to break the deadlock and the moment that she finally talked tough (on a de facto ref), her own party sunk it. 

[hampden_loon2878]

Sturgeon has absolutely destroyed the party and independence and IMHO that was the plan, incompetence does not cut it 

[AlfieMoon]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

9) On what logical basis can you possibly argue that the UK Government would be more likely to agree to a Section 30 order if a sustained supermajority for Yes is established, given that they would have even less of an incentive to allow a referendum to take place once it looks unwinnable for the No side?

Exactly. They either don’t know what they’re doing anymore in terms of the next step in gaining in independence or just manipulating voters into keeping them in a job 
 

 

I think it’s the former rather than the latter.
 

They’ve had the accusation that promising independence/referendums is just manipulating voters into keeping them in a job (gravy train, etc., etc.). So the same accusation can’t be true when start to do the exact opposite. (ie. Not offering anything) 

Edited April 30, 2023 by AlfieMoon

[mcguffin]

This is a great listen. Brendan O'Neill asks Iain Macwhirter "What the hell is going on up there?".  (Macwhirter's answers covers everything from  oil, to the Salmond trial, to Nicola Sturgeon to the current 'state of affairs' of Humza Yousaf's SNP/Green coalition):

The unravelling of the SNP

Edited April 30, 2023 by mcguffin

[aaid]

26 minutes ago, mcguffin said:

This is a great listen. Brendan O'Neill asks Iain Macwhirter "What the hell is going on up there?".  (Macwhirter's answers covers everything from  oil, to the Salmond trial, to Nicola Sturgeon to the current 'state of affairs' of Humza Yousaf's SNP/Green coalition):

The unravelling of the SNP

Two hack journalists with no principles.   This would be the Iain McWhirter who last week invoked Magna Carta as fundamental principle of Scots Law.  

[exile]

1 hour ago, AlfieMoon said:

It was just the latest unionist ploy and was lapped up by many in the SNP which killed it stone dead. 
 

They spent 6 years denying a S30 and laughing, saying ‘now is not the time’, ‘what are you gonna do about it?’.  Sturgeon was continually pressured to break the deadlock and the moment that she finally talked tough (on a de facto ref), her own party sunk it. 

So would you put it down to the membership not pushing for it... Maybe there just isn't the appetite for it.

But I wonder if the next election could end up being a de facto de facto referendum, as there is nothing else to vote for. 

[mcguffin]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

Two hack journalists with no principles.

So you listened to the podcast then? That's quite a take.

Edited April 30, 2023 by mcguffin

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, mcguffin said:

So you listened to the podcast then? That's quite a take.

Nope.  The mere fact that Brendan O’Neill is involved is enough to put me off.  The man is an utter charlatan.

[AlfieMoon]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

So would you put it down to the membership not pushing for it... Maybe there just isn't the appetite for it.

But I wonder if the next election could end up being a de facto de facto referendum, as there is nothing else to vote for. 

Nope. I’d guess that the membership would have been willing to have been led, so I’d put it down to the MP’s/MSP’s not backing it. 
 

As for the second point - there is not a chance of a de facto ref. It’s clearly not in Humza’s thinking and he’s walking the party back on the independence issue. There’s no chance he’s willing to go there. 

[mcguffin]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Nope

Okay. Got ya.
Out of interest are there any independence-supporting journalists, podcasts that you do listen to? Any articles on Scottish independence that you do read? Or are they all 'charlatans', 'hacks' or whatever unless they agree with your worldview?

Feel free to post some links. (To 'educate' us as you preached to a previous poster.)

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, mcguffin said:

Okay. Got ya.
Out of interest are there any independence-supporting journalists, podcasts that you do listen to? Any articles on Scottish independence that you do read? Or are they all 'charlatans', 'hacks' or whatever unless they agree with your worldview?

Feel free to post some links. (To 'educate' us as you preached to a previous poster.)

Do you actually know anything at all about Brendan O’Neill and his history?

[exile]

6 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Nope. I’d guess that the membership would have been willing to have been led, so I’d put it down to the MP’s/MSP’s not backing it. 
 

As for the second point - there is not a chance of a de facto ref. It’s clearly not in Humza’s thinking and he’s walking the party back on the independence issue. There’s no chance he’s willing to go there. 

I said a de facto de facto referendum. 😉

(If you can't get a referendum, make an election a de facto referendum. If you can't get an official de facto referendum, make an unofficial de facto de facto referendum...)

By which I mean, in principle, what would there be to stop the Yes movement mobilising to campaign for a SNP vote to mean a mandate for independence.  You might say the UK Govt would not accept it - but that is no worse than the objections to an 'official' DFR, and at least the vote would be put to the test.

It's often said that it's a campaign that sways opinion, then why not? If it is MPs/MPs who are the barrier, by-pass them. If it risks putting unionists off voting SNP (a reason SNP may fear a DFR), so be it.

[AlfieMoon]

1 minute ago, exile said:

I said a de facto de facto referendum. 😉

(If you can't get a referendum, make an election a de facto referendum. If you can't get an official de facto referendum, make an unofficial de facto de facto referendum...)

By which I mean, in principle, what would there be to stop the Yes movement mobilising to campaign for a SNP vote to mean a mandate for independence.  You might say the UK Govt would not accept it - but that is no worse than the objections to an 'official' DFR, and at least the vote would be put to the test.

It's often said that it's a campaign that sways opinion, then why not? If it is MPs/MPs who are the barrier, by-pass them. If it risks putting unionists off voting SNP (a reason SNP may fear a DFR), so be it.

You can’t bypass what a party do or don’t choose to put in their manifesto. Even if the party members vote for something at conference, it doesn’t force the leadership to adopt it in their manifesto. 
 

Humza is king and he’s not interested. Folk are going to have to get used to that until he is displaced, or another credible independence party come to the fore. 

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, mcguffin said:

This is a great listen. Brendan O'Neill asks Iain Macwhirter "What the hell is going on up there?".  (Macwhirter's answers covers everything from  oil, to the Salmond trial, to Nicola Sturgeon to the current 'state of affairs' of Humza Yousaf's SNP/Green coalition):

The unravelling of the SNP

Stopped listening when after 10 mins. I have concerns like any person with an open mind but a deaf man could tell its a total hatchet job . 
Iain MCWhirter saying how difficult it is for the media to to speculate about anything in Scotland due the contempt of court act, trying his utmost best  to make it sound like a dictatorship , and in the same breath then goes on to say that a police source told the SUNDAY MAIL that the police are now looking for jewellery, luxury pens, pots and pans and fridge freezers  . McWhirter quote : ‘What on earth was going on here. Was the SNP intending opening a department store. Chuckle chuckle’ . 

[mcguffin]

22 minutes ago, aaid said:

Okay. Got ya.
Out of interest are there any independence-supporting journalists, podcasts that you do listen to? Any articles on Scottish independence that you do read? Or are they all 'charlatans', 'hacks' or whatever unless they agree with your worldview?

Feel free to post some links. (To 'educate' us as you preached to a previous poster.)

 

22 minutes ago, aaid said:

Do you actually know anything at all about Brendan O’Neill and his history?

Let me rephrase the question: What journalists who write or speak about Scottish Independence do you listen to?
What podcasts and articles do you recommend? (Or do you have to do a historical background check on them first before you can recommend anyone?)

[aaid]

1 minute ago, mcguffin said:

 

Let me rephrase the question: What journalists who write or speak about Scottish Independence do you listen to?
What podcasts and articles do you recommend? (Or do you have to do a historical background check on them first before you can recommend anyone?)

I listen to, and read, opinion pieces from loads of different people from all different perspectives. However, if you stick something up by Brendan O’Neill, Stuart Campbell, Barrhead Boy or a few others, it’s a waste of my time to even look at it.

[mcguffin]

4 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Stopped listening when after 10 mins. I have concerns like any person with an open mind but a deaf man could tell its a total hatchet job . 
Iain MCWhirter saying how difficult it is for the media to to speculate about anything in Scotland due the contempt of court act, trying his utmost best  to make it sound like a dictatorship , and in the same breath then goes on to say that a police source told the SUNDAY MAIL that the police are now looking for jewellery, luxury pens, pots and pans and fridge freezers  . McWhirter quote : ‘What on earth was going on here. Was the SNP intending opening a department store. Chuckle chuckle’ . 

That's a fair take. I interpreted that as Macwhirter's dark humour (rather than him actually 'enjoying' the state we are in and makig fun of it). But I may be wrong of course.

But if you can grit your teeth, it's worth a  listen through to the end.  (The parts about the oil economy, and the Salmond trial are quite interesting).

And to be honest, there's not so many podcasts on the go at the moment that are dealing with Scottish Independence.  So I just listen to what's available. (I enjoy Lesley Riddoch's weekly podcast for example).

[mcguffin]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

I listen to, and read, opinion pieces from loads of different people from all different perspectives.

Any actual examples?

[TDYER63]

10 minutes ago, mcguffin said:

That's a fair take. I interpreted that as Macwhirter's dark humour (rather than him actually 'enjoying' the state we are in and makig fun of it). But I may be wrong of course.

But if you can grit your teeth, it's worth a  listen through to the end.  (The parts about the oil economy, and the Salmond trial are quite interesting).

And to be honest, there's not so many podcasts on the go at the moment that are dealing with Scottish Independence.  So I just listen to what's available. (I enjoy Lesley Riddoch's weekly podcast for example).

Ok, will continue with it later 👍

[Hertsscot]

46 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

You can’t bypass what a party do or don’t choose to put in their manifesto. Even if the party members vote for something at conference, it doesn’t force the leadership to adopt it in their manifesto. 
 

Humza is king and he’s not interested. Folk are going to have to get used to that until he is displaced, or another credible independence party come to the fore. 

As much as some in the party are self congratulating themselves due to a small rise in membership, they really should be thinking about why they lost many more members in the first place. I suspect many if the tens of thousands of members who left did so because they felt they weren't listened to by the leadership and that they wanted the leadership to take a less gradualist approach to independence.l

[aaid]

31 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

As much as some in the party are self congratulating themselves due to a small rise in membership, they really should be thinking about why they lost many more members in the first place. I suspect many if the tens of thousands of members who left did so because they felt they weren't listened to by the leadership and that they wanted the leadership to take a less gradualist approach to independence.l

Is that just you projecting your own views onto the entire former membership?

*I* think there’s likely to be lots of different reasons why people resigned, some personal, some policy driven, some personality issues.