Interesting. I remember that, last time, the SNP promised that the Queen would remain head of state, given her popularity, even though the SNP was in principle in favor of having a republic. Any changes on that since Charles III took the throne? Do you think having this king makes it incrementally more likely that a Scottish independence vote would pass?
No, because I doubt the SNP will change from their pragmatic position that an independent Scotland should remain a constitutional monarchy. They made that change, back in the day, in tacit acknowledgement of the level of support for the monarchy in Scotland. That is, while they might prefer a republic, it’s not important enough to lose votes over. Independence is the thing. They can argue about the monarchy later.
Minor differences in the levels of popularity of whoever the current monarch is don’t change that basic calculation.
Love this guy
Love her response too
I know I said I wouldn’t endorse anyone as my successor, but….
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) February 15, 2023
😉🤣 https://t.co/rubcXQW7Fi
I suspect Andy Murray’s mother might also stand a chance :))
Couple of nitpicks - the next UK (Westminster) general election is due by the end of 2024, but the next election for the Scottish Parliament (Holyrood) isn’t until 2026, and AIUI the current SNP/Green coalition government seems pretty solid.
And, in Germany, Scholz wasn’t Merkel’s choice as a successor (he’s a Social Democrat). Her choice for party (the Christian Democrats) leader didn’t last long, and after defeat in the last election, they went for the less emollient sort of conservative that Merkel had tried to keep out. But yes, similar sort of situation to the SNP now.
On which, here’s the Guardian’s guide to runners and riders
Swinney has now dropped out, on the grounds that this is a time for change and not for an old stager like him.
There has obviously been no planning for this. The NEC has announced that nominations opened at midnight on the 15th/16th (i.e. before this timetable was announced!). The ballot will run from 13th March to 27th. I don’t know what this means for the decisive strategy conference the party has been building up to for ages which is due in the middle of voting. Does it stay on that date and become a hustings, will its decision bind the next leader (surely not?), or does it get moved.
Coupled with the fact that there’s obviously no successor in place, it really looks like Sturgeon has thrown her party a hospital pass. She is generally tactically astute but the more I think about the haste of her resignation, the more it seems like she really, really just wanted to get out.
The corollary is it seems like it will be pretty difficult to handle this transition well. There’s a real debate about the future of the independence movement that everyone agrees needs to take place; the likelihood that everyone is sufficiently happy with the outcome for their not to be infighting and a lack of strategic focus seems pretty small.
The headline is a bit dramatic compared to the article, but a good breakdown of the issue under investigation.
This is what I can’t understand. For such a wily operator as Sturgeon, and with her obvious heartfelt commitment to the cause of independence, did she not have any succession planning in mind? At all?
Very hard not to conclude that there is some big explanatory factor that we just don’t know.
I know. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this just smells weird.
Tends to happen when sturgeon goes past its ‘best before’ date.
Oh, well played
Who knows, maybe some backroom deal was made where she would be left alone if she simply resigned. Another possibility is that I watch too many crime movies. LOL
I hope not, because that’s “burn it all down” levels of corruption and I don’t know where I put my flaming torch.
They said that about Harold Wilson’s resignation in 1976. That Wilson had been presented with uncontrovertible evidence, but told that if he went quietly he could keep his reputation and his freedom.
The consensus among historians these days is that Wilson was exhausted after leading his party since 1963, and had ‘nothing left in the tank’.
If you’re interested in how Sturgeon’s record in government will be judged, this piece is a lengthy, mostly fair and very thorough case for the prosecution:
The point about soaring drug deaths is particularly worth noting, alongside the ferries fiasco.
This has gone from 0-60 very, very quickly in a way that only be described as: really quite funny, but also not.
At this stage we have three contenders. They are Humza Yousuf, Ash Regan, and Kate Forbes.
We’ll pass over Yousuf and Regan just now, and focus on Forbes. As mentioned, she belongs to a fundamentalist and really quite mad minor church, whose beliefs are the result of a series of schisms within the Church of Scotland: they are who is left once everyone remotely moderate has gone. There was a lot of speculation about how Forbes would finesse the question of her private religious beliefs and her public policy positions in a liberal, pluralistic society. She finessed it thus:
She did not stutter:
This has gone down like the proverbial cup of cold sick. Not least because the recent GRR bill is not yet law, and she has said she a) would not have voted for it and b) would not fight the UK government’s attempt to veto it. So the line that “I will respect the law of the land” doesn’t really reassure people who want to know what laws she will support in future.
There has been a minor stampede this morning of MSPs who were backing her suddenly discovering that far from being the shining future of the SNP and a leader who could be trusted with the torch of independence, Forbes is in fact a reactionary who has no place in modern politics. What, one wonders, the hell did they think she’d say, and why didn’t they check first if this was so goddam important to them:
But fastest on the U-turn was this guy:
Quick question: is this, like, a good thing for one of your senior campaign managers to be quoted saying on day one of your campaign:
Nevermind
Try that again.
The narrative has taken hold now. In this clip, Forbes’ actual answer is fair enough - her faith means she wouldn’t do this herself, but it doesn’t bother her that other people do it. But she doesn’t get that answer out cleanly so it now looks much worse than it actually is:
Wait, does her senior campaign manager look like this:
