I spotted on Twitter that Bella Caledonia was trying to discredit Kate Forbes by pointing out who was talking her up - ie. Fraser Nelson, Alex Salmond and Chris Deerin. But I'd suggest it's equally instructive to look at who's trying to sabotage her - it's been a long time since we last saw a Bella/Wings axis. Stuart Campbell broke cover yesterday by revealing his agenda for the forthcoming days - he wants to undermine Ms Forbes at every turn and discredit her with silly jibes about "not working on the Sabbath" because he sees her as a threat to his own chosen one, Ash Regan. For the second time in a week, the message to Campbell should be "careful what you wish for", because I'd suggest the fundamental truth of this leadership election is that Ms Forbes is the only gender critical candidate (or potential candidate) who can win. Indeed, if she stands, the early indications are that she probably would win. So whether he realises it or not, by trying to deter Ms Forbes from standing or to minimise her vote if she does stand, all Campbell is doing is helping to clear a path for Angus Robertson and the continuity-Sturgeon (at least on the gender issue) faction.
I suspect Ash Regan understands perfectly well that she can't win, because she knows that she's nailed her colours firmly to the mast and identified herself completely with a position that only a minority of the membership agree with. The point of her standing would not be to attempt to win, but instead to lay down a marker by grabbing a substantial vote and thus demonstrating that gender critical feminism represents a significant minority within the SNP rank-and-file who are no longer going to put up with being ignored or vilified.
Thus, by going all in for Ms Regan and suggesting that no-one else will do as leader, Campbell is - not for the first time in his life - setting himself a near-impossible task. It's like he does this deliberately, so that when he falls light-years short of his objective yet again, he can go off in a huff, scream at the rest of the world for being raving lunatics because they didn't heed his sage counsel, and quickly revert to his comfort zone of trying to burn the whole Yes house down.
A considerably more constructive approach would be to recognise that 70% of what you want is not at all bad, and a hell of a lot better than 0%. Yes, Kate Forbes kept her head down during the later stages of the GRR Bill and used maternity leave as an excuse for abstaining even though she could have voted remotely, but here's the thing: that decision is a big part of the reason why she's still in contention at this stage. It was actually quite a shrewd thing for her to do, not only in terms of any personal ambitions she harbours, but also from the point of view of furthering her own ideals in the longer term.
Campbell wants her out of the race because she supposedly might "split" the gender critical vote, which he thinks should be uniting behind Ms Regan. That's sheer electoral illiteracy, because this contest will be conducted by preferential voting, not first-past-the-post. If both Ms Regan and Ms Forbes stand, gender critical SNP members can get the best of both worlds by giving Ms Regan their first preference and Ms Forbes their second preference - thus ensuring that Ms Regan lays down her marker and that Ms Forbes, rather than Angus Robertson, becomes First Minister. Whereas without Ms Forbes in the race, Ms Regan would still only get a minority vote and Mr Robertson would be almost assured of becoming First Minister (as long as he stands). How on earth is that a better outcome?
Just to reiterate, I still have no idea whether I'll end up wanting Ms Forbes to win. I feel that it is absolutely essential that the independence movement finds a leader who has BOTH of the following attributes: a) the type of indefinable 'X factor' that Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon possessed, and b) a credible strategy for winning independence at a brisk pace. I am reasonably convinced Ms Forbes has attribute a), but I have no information whatsoever on whether she also has b), and nobody I've spoken to seems to have much idea either.
* * *
An interesting article James. I find it sad that who supports trans rights more or less than other candidates should be a factor in deciding the new FM. It should be who can best deliver independence. Personally, I know who I would not like as FM and I'll wait to hear from any other candidates as to what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know the number of potential voters yet or is that still top secret SNP info. Also will the non voting plebes get to know the actual number of votes for each candidate and how the preferential voting has worked out. Or is that going to be an SNP secret.
70% will always be better than 0% but you can also hope for a 100% independence supporter this time. Is that too much to ask for from the party of Scottish independence or are we destined for more can kicking from time wasters.
I am coming to the idea that the Leader of the SNP and FM should NOT be the leader of the Indy movement in any way shape or form. Part of the problem we have at the moment is that too much is invested in a single personality. I think it was Peter A Bell who complained at the outset of covid that it was not Sturgeon's place to call off Indy campaigning. He was right. That was the job for the Indy movement itself.
ReplyDeleteThe job of the SNP leader is to run the SNP for the benefit of the SNP. The job of the FM is to run Scotland for the benefit of Scots. The job of the leader of the Indy movement is to move us to Indy. Putting that last job into different hands gives us continuity [I'm in this for the long haul, but only if needs be]. It is invidious that only the SNP get to choose the leader of the Indy movement. And no, it shouldn't be AS either, unless he relinquishes leadership of Alba.
You're correct that Peter A Bell did want to keep Yes campaigning going in March 2020, at a time when people were being told (rightly) to completely keep away from each other unless it was absolutely essential.
DeleteJust to be totally clear, James, my own position is that the lockdown was right at that stage of covid. What was wrong was for Sturgeon to take it upon herself to explicitly stop Indy campaigning and act as leader of the Indy movement. The lockdown imposed by her as FM should have been sufficient. It's an illustration of the conflation of the FM role with that of leading the Indy movement and I feel strongly that this is a link which should be broken.
DeleteAnd just how would you propose the Yes movement go about selecting its leader, then?
DeleteRe selecting a leader of the Indy movement, I have no idea, but the first step is to ensure a vacancy by not letting it fall into the lap of the SNP leader by default! Which is quite inadequate of itself as a process.
DeleteNo, the first step is to think things through.
DeleteYou have no idea who would be eligible to stand, or how they would be nominated, or who by and that's just the candidate selection side. You presumably want "all yes voters" to have a vote, but don't have any idea how to go about registering that electorate or ensuring that unionists don't mess about with the process.
If you're talking about all 1.5-2 million Yes voters being able to cast a vote, that's an event on the scale of a national election. Those are not cheap or easy to organise. If you're just talking about politically active Yes campaigners, then they're virtually all already affiliated with one of four pro-Yes political parties. What you're effectively asking for in that case is an unified Yes party. Its leader would likely replace the SNP leader and become the FM anyway.
Oh and by the way, who would elect said Indy movemnent leader?
DeleteRe February 19, 2023 at 1:43 PM No, I am not asking for a unified Yes party. I am asking that the leadership of the Yes movement is outwith any political party. I am more bothered that this is outside any political party than about the debate as to how it is chosen. I don't remember any election for the leader of the 2014 campaign, so no need for a gold standard on that.
DeleteIf you want such a thing to happen, you'll have to work out how that can be done and explain it. It doesn't seem possible, practical or useful for the amount of effort and resources it would require.
DeleteFor my twopence, that sort of work would be better off invested in campaigning among undecided and No voters rather than creating a Yes Pope. Besides, remember "be careful what you wish for" - there's a possibility that Nicola Sturgeon would be the most popular person for such a role, lol.
Noted that you disparage the idea of a 'Yes Pope'. Currently, that role is with the FM, along with being SNP leader. Which makes the FM more of a trinity than a pope. Getting it down to a Yes Pope would actually cut down the concentration of focus on one person.
Deleteyour on the money son!
ReplyDeleteHello IFS. Its very simple be a member of the SNP and you get a vote on the next SNP leader.
ReplyDeleteActually it's not that simple at all, because the cut-off date has already passed.
DeleteHello Rosewell I'm sure you meant well but it would be for the next leader+1.
DeleteI was under the impression that the voting system for leader and all other offices in the party was decided by the people who count the votes.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Indy Movement should set up their own party? It would be interesting to see how that would work out.
ReplyDelete