Thursday, April 27, 2023

What happened to the SNP the last time they had an unpopular leader?

The SNP have been here before.  Only in one specific sense, of course - they haven't been through this kind of financial and potentially legal crisis that a minority of commentators believe to be existential in nature.  But in relatively recent history they've chosen an unsuitable leader who the public didn't take to, and they eventually had to rectify that mistake - although it took a lot longer than it perhaps should have done.

It seems like a peculiar dream in retrospect, but for four whole years between 2000 and 2004, John Swinney was leader of the SNP.  I can recall Professor John Curtice periodically going on Newsnight Scotland in the early years of devolution pointing out something that SNP members simply didn't want to hear, and in many cases refused to hear - that Swinney was holding the party back, because he was the least popular of the four main party leaders.  He was less popular than Henry McLeish and later Jack McConnell, he was less popular than Jim Wallace, and he was less popular than even David McLetchie of the Tories.  

This was a "does not compute" reality for the SNP, because they had told themselves a very plausible-sounding story of why the Swinney leadership was going to work.  He was far less divisive than his predecessor Alex Salmond and offended almost no-one.  He had a dependable bank manager air about him and thus should be reassuring to moderate voters.  He was like the gentle older brother you looked up to, and thus would be more likeable than machine politicians offered up by Labour.  All of these things ought to have been true in theory but weren't true in practice, yet the SNP clung to the "ought to be" rather than the "is", and sometimes even blamed the party's failings on insufficient unity behind the Swinney project.  There are very clear parallels with the situation under Humza Yousaf, with loyalists telling themselves "he's an excellent leader, he was great at FMQs, he hasn't put a foot wrong, he's been flawless", etc, etc, etc, etc, and refusing to take heed of polls telling the opposite story.  

There are of course key differences between then and now.  In 2000, the SNP hadn't yet broken through to become the largest party, and were still a long way behind Labour, so the potential for an unpopular leader to do damage to the party's support was much less severe.  Swinney's election as leader hadn't been by anything like such a narrow margin and hadn't taken place in such controversial circumstances.  There also wasn't an obvious Forbes equivalent in the wings, ie. a much more popular alternative leader who clearly should have been elected instead.  Nicola Sturgeon was still too inexperienced, and Alex Salmond appeared to have ruled out any comeback, meaning that anyone who succeeded Swinney might be just as unsuitable as he was.

But eventually poor election results caught up with Swinney, just the same.  Four major elections occurred during his period in office, and all of them saw the SNP going backwards - exactly as you'd expect to happen under an unpopular leader.

2001 general election:

Labour 43.9% (-1.7)
SNP 20.1% (-2.0)
Liberal Democrats 16.4% (+3.4)
Conservatives 15.6% (-1.9)

Seats: Labour 56 (-), Liberal Democrats 10 (-), SNP 5 (-1), Conservatives 1 (+1)

Although the SNP managed to restrict their losses to one seat, that was an incredibly significant one seat, because it got the Tories back into the game after their total wipeout in 1997.

2003 Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

Labour 34.6% (-4.2)
SNP 23.8% (-4.9)
Conservatives 16.6% (+1.2)
Liberal Democrats 15.4% (+1.2)

2003 Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

Labour 29.3% (-4.3)
SNP 20.9% (-6.4)
Conservatives 15.5% (+0.1)
Liberal Democrats 11.8% (-0.6)
Greens 6.9% (+3.3)
SSP 6.7% (+4.7)

Seats: Labour 50 (-6), SNP 27 (-8), Conservatives 18 (-), Liberal Democrats 17 (-), Greens 7 (+6), SSP 6 (+5), Others 4 (+3)

The 2003 Holyrood result is fascinating in retrospect, because it did see an increase in overall pro-indy representation due to the strong list showings for the Greens, the SSP, and Margo MacDonald as an independent candidate.  That arguably paved the way to some extent for Alex Salmond's triumph in 2007.  But for the SNP as an individual party, 2003 was a horror show, and that can be largely explained by the public not viewing Swinney as a credible option for First Minister.

2003 local elections:

Labour 32.6% (-3.7)
SNP 24.1% (-4.6)
Conservatives 15.1% (+1.6)
Liberal Democrats 14.5% (+1.9)

Seats: Labour 509 (-42), SNP 181 (-23), Liberal Democrats 175 (+18). Conservatives 122 (+14), Others 234 (+33)

2004 European Parliament election:

Labour 26.4% (-2.3)
SNP 19.7% (-7.5)
Conservatives 17.8% (-2.0)
Liberal Democrats 13.1% (+3.3)
Greens 6.8% (+1.0)
UKIP 6.7% (+5.4)
SSP 5.2% (+1.2)

Seats: Labour 2 (-1), SNP 2 (-), Conservatives 2 (-), Liberal Democrats 1 (-)

It was, of course, the shock of the massive 7.5-point reduction in the SNP's share of the popular vote in the Euro election that led directly to Swinney's resignation.  

So that carries two lessons for the present-day.  Firstly, there is a way in which an SNP leader can be toppled, although because it depends on the leader ultimately being self-aware enough to read the room and fall on his sword, it may be harder to dislodge the famously arrogant Humza Yousaf than it was to dislodge Swinney.  And secondly, there is such a thing as a good election to lose.  If the SNP hadn't done so poorly in 2004, they probably wouldn't have taken power in 2007, because Alex Salmond would never have returned to the helm.  

But here's the thing: the SNP were incredibly lucky to have found an election that was shocking enough to persuade Swinney to go, but that had no wider consequences.  They didn't even lose seats in the European Parliament, and if they had done, it wouldn't have mattered much in the overall scheme of things.  Losing 20, 30 or 40 Westminster seats next year certainly would matter, and would hobble any leader who replaces Yousaf.  That's why it's so important, if at all humanly possible, to dislodge Yousaf before that disaster actually occurs.

*  *  *

Scot Goes Pop relies on donations to continue:

Direct payments can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

If you don't have a Paypal account, last year's fundraiser page is still open for donations, and can be found HERE.

15 comments:

  1. In Swinney's case it is an interesting one, in that he did have an air of dull competence.

    The problem is of course how politics is presented to the voters via the media and confrontational style at Westminster, both of which are built around FPTP.

    We can see that UK politics values charisma more than competence. Given the current an dlong term problems of nothing the UK and Scotland, performance politics won't solve any of them. What we really need is competence but what we seem to be getting from HY is neither charisma or competence.

    I think the only politcian in my adult lifetime who managed both was first term Blair, though I'm thinking that he was largely the maitre'D for a competent *team*, all of whom were frittered away as the Cool Britannia and Iraq War took precedence.

    I'm not entirely sold on Kate Forbes, but I accept that she appears the best. It's important though that the team is built up with competent people that she has confidence in.

    Another thing about KF which worries me is her young age. I'd like a national leader to be in their 40s at least as to my mind that's really when you can deploy your competence in your career and pass that style onto others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Latest (admittedly old) YouGov, Scottish Westminster sub-sample (174 respondents) 18th - 19th April are catastrophic for SNP.
    Con 20%, Lab 35%, LibDem 11%, SNP 19%, Green 11%, other 3%.
    Way too early to detect firm direction of travel but next YouGov sub-sample can’t be far off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John REDACTOR MAN Swinney in his heyday was less popular than Tory Taxi Man McLetchie and that sums him up. Swinney was never for independence - just a time waster working an easy career on the back of people wanting independence.


    Sturgeon/Swinney/Blackford/Russell/Oswald/Robertson/Somerville/Smith/Yousaf/Wishart/Murrell/Ruddick/McCann and more - all parasites on the independence movement who have ruined all the progress made in the Salmond years. As I said in a previous post they have taken us backwards to the year 2000 but now there is no sign of anyone with the quality of Salmond as a possible new leader. Oh and the vast majority of the membership are happy to vote for two leadership candidates neither of whom have any plan or strong inclination to achieve independence only months away from a previously promised no ifs no buts referendum. The current leader Yousaf who claimed he would be first activist and attend the Glasgow AUOB march now chooses to go to London to pay homage to the english king. A party of independence - laughable and sad at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr Campbell was right about one thing - an unpopular leader is electoral death. Still, Humza's there for at least 6 months - he has some time to turn the farcical SNP around but not a lot. I was watching HIGNFY and even I laughed a few times at the SNP accountant jokes - if I'm luhing, the average person will have a grimmer view - expect a downturn in popularity very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not just the SNP which is in desperate need of a popular, courageous, trusted and charismatic leader, it's the independence movement as a whole. It's obvious Yousaf does not hold our nation's independence as paramount. At the moment neither does his party. A sorry state of affairs. The pro independence supporting public is being treated abysmally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is correct. To win we need a figure who is (1) competent, (2) charismatic & (3) not aligned to the SNP.

      Delete
    2. Tommy Sheridan? ;)

      To be honest, it’s hard to see how anyone leads the movement in the current state we find ourselves. Or indeed there being much of a movement to lead. We need a campaign to rally around. We need our mojo back.

      With this SNP? With this continuity leadership? Fat chance.

      Delete
  6. It was nice to see Sandy Brindley, mouthpiece of the alphabetties and boss of the Scottish Government funded Rape Crisis Scotland get put in her place on Scotland Tonight by a female advocate who actually is involved in all aspects of rape trials. Brindley gives the impression that the current 51% conviction rate she quoted should be 100%.
    The move to change jury numbers to 12 instead of the traditional Scottish 15 is just part of a long term removal of any differences between Scotland and England. Scotland changes to be the same as England. The anglicisation of Scotland - bit by bit over centuries. The same with the move to change from proven and not proven in Scotland to the same as England guilty and not guilty.
    The worst change is the removal of juries completely for rape cases. The Advocate put Brindley right about all the myths she spouts.
    Brindley gives the impression she would prefer if a judge replaced a jury and the judge was given a target of 99.9% conviction rate. Brindley actually says " we know that juries can be particularly reluctant to convict in rape cases". Talk about sweeping generalisations. In Brindley's world all judges will have no bias and all juries are completely biased against women.
    Of course Brindley being financed by the Scottish government says the bill is great. She would say that wouldn't she. No bias there from Brindley. Poor show from Scotland Tonight not making it clear for viewers where Brindley's funds come from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you hold the view that you cannae trust the people to take part in a jury then the next step may be you cannae trust the people to elect a government.

      Delete
  7. I went along to see Steven Flynn speak at the North Ayrshire SNP constituency meeting this evening. I've been vacillating about what to do with my membership since the nonsense about an October indyref, since Humza, since all the arrests and investigations, but just haven't got round to doing anything about it - then this came along and I thought "I might as well see what the party's Westminster leader has to say".

    On the plus point he spoke well, he was engaging, he answered questions as best he could. No complaints there.

    On the downside it's abundantly clear THERE'S NO PLAN. Just keep doing the same things as before and hope for a different outcome. The general gist was "the polls will probably narrow before the GE, we could well get a Labour minority government, in which case we'll have some leverage for a S30". Runner-up prize is...hope Labour get a majority government in which case hope they're not like the Tories and say no. Chap doors, deliver leaflets, release the odd ScotGov "policy" paper and get to the magical 55%-60% in the polls, at which point Westminster definitely HAVE to say yes to a S30 then.

    There's nothing much more to it than that, as far as I can tell. Nothing that says the SNP might be learning that doing the same thing over and over isn't working and isn't likely to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He gets points for honesty, I'll give him that. That's been the plan all along: 'convince' enough Scots to our side that Indyref2 becomes inevitable. Only, how do you convince them while doing absolutely nothing? Haven't they all had time to see what SNP government is like, what Brexit results in, and how Covid turns out? Is the plan now to see if a glass bottle return scheme convinces them of independence?

      Gradualism at this stage is putting the cart before the horse. We need action to make our case, and then the consensus comes: in the referendum campaign and result, by whatever form it takes.

      Delete
  8. Humza will get about as much rope as Swinney did, with similar results. Well, except for the (temporary) ray of sunshine that was the emergence of a wide front of pro-independence parties with representation in Holyrood. Colin Fox is a good man, but he’s never getting elected again. Or anyone under the Alba banner.

    By the way: wasn’t it the “Men in Grey Kilts” who came for Swinney rather than his free, honourable and evidently right choice to resign immediately after his last election? I’m sure I recall that phrase being the talk of the town back then. He didn’t do a Salmond.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I well remember the 2003 elections yes Swinney was unpopular and they lost seats but the pro independence forces gained seats 6 SSP seats and very nearly 8 Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party stopped 2 more, 7 Greens and 4 pro Indy independents it was a rainbow parliament. Humza will be sacked after the next general election when the SNP will lose 20 plus seats and they will lose control of the Scottish Parliament next time when they will lose seats to Labour and Alba who are already showing up at 5% in the polls. Independence will be delayed for a generation and that is Sturgeons legacy!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Looney Tunes are being Looney on WGD. First up is DrJim who obviously still loves his Nicola even though she faked it as an independence leader, ran away and left one almighty mess behind her. True love by Jimbo right enough. DrJim has this to say:- " I reckon there's a new role coming for the best and most influential political communicator Scotland's ever had now she's free. "

    What Sturgeon is free! - never knew she had been arrested. Jimbo in his Looney mindset still thinks Sturgeon will deliver independence.

    Other Looneys now want de facto referendums eg Hamish and Capella but the Looneys voted for the candidates who ignored referendums. Even worse big time Looney Hand and Shrimp says:- " I don't have an issue with the concept of a de facto referendum but I think it unwise to declare a specific election as the referendum. It might be better if the SNP and the Yes movement consider every election hereafter a de facto referendum." Now that was the policy of Ash Regan but the Looney didn't vote for her. Like the rest of the Loonies they voted for other candidates.

    Every time I think the WGD numpties cannae be any more stupid they just keep on lowering the bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Update.
      Hand and Shrimp says he wasn't electing the leader based on that specific issue. In other words who had the best and only plan for independence was just a specific issue to the Shrimp You know like a side issue. No idea what his primary issue was but it ain't getting independence and that seems to be the way for these numpties who kid themselves on they support independence. They have been fooled in to thinking that someone who can handle themselves at FMQs is what they want. Someone who is experienced at defending failure and a waste of public funds.
      No doubt at some point the new Minister for Independence will give us a 12 point plan for independence that does not involve a horsebox but will have plenty of carrots at selected points.

      Delete