Yousaf has at least half-listened to SNP members about using the election to win independence - but for the plan to work *without* him being replaced by a more popular leader, he'll have to dispense with the destructive factionalism and bring his rivals back into government

For the three months since the nightmare scenario unfolded in late March, I've been consistently saying that the SNP needed to do *at least* one of two things to have any realistic chance of avoiding a dreadful result at the general election next year - they needed to either replace Humza Yousaf as leader, or to U-turn on the decision to ditch Nicola Sturgeon's de facto referendum plan.  They've now sort of half-done the latter - the details of the plan are a dog's breakfast, but nevertheless, if Yousaf sticks to his word (admittedly a very big if) and puts the phrase "a vote for the SNP is a vote for Scotland to become an independent country" in the opening line of the manifesto, and if that proposition receives majority support at the election, it would represent a mandate for independence in exactly the same way as would have been the case if the Sturgeon plan had been successfully implemented.  So in my view it counts as "good enough", although as I said the other day, all the ambiguities and grey areas are unhelpful because they may prevent Yes supporters from taking the notion that this is a vote on independence seriously.

But the million dollar question is this: having taken one of the two steps that had a chance of turning things around, is this enough for the SNP without taking the other step too?  In other words, will the good sense of becoming a born again independence party be sufficient on its own to counterbalance Yousaf's personal unpopularity and thus avert general election defeat?  I still have my doubts.  In the comments section of this blog, "YesIndyref2" suggested it would now be a mistake to continue pressing for Yousaf's departure because that might lead to his independence plan being watered down or abandoned.  That's absolutely a very real danger, and so in normal circumstances I would agree with the logic, but in this particular case the Yousaf leadership problem is so severe that it trumps all other considerations. The net personal ratings in polls consistently show that he is less popular than Anas Sarwar, and often show that he is less popular even than Keir Starmer, which is a major handicap when there is already considerable momentum behind Labour.  Having a theoretically workable independence plan is of limited value if you are 80-90% sure that the SNP are heading for defeat on the current trajectory.

There is, however, a middle option between the status quo and ditching Yousaf altogether that could at least be tried first to see if it solves the problem, and frankly it's an option that should have been a no-brainer even on 29th March.  Yousaf should swallow his pride and put an end to the folly of trying to run a government comprised of second-raters almost solely drawn from his own faction of the party.  That would mean inviting Kate Forbes and Ash Regan into the Cabinet, along with probably one or two of Forbes' key supporters, and yes, it would also mean offering them senior positions with considerable influence, because it's already been established that they will not just accept any old tat.  For a unity Cabinet to work, it would have to be an informal coalition between distinct wings of the SNP, with the balance of power accurately reflecting the strength of those wings in the leadership vote - ie. Forbes and her allies would need to wield power in proportion to the 48% of the vote she received.  Yousaf's derisory offer to her in March treated her as if she had received 10% of the vote, and thus it was hardly surprising that she declined.

A unity Cabinet would have any number of positive effects.  It would transform morale among the substantial minority of the SNP membership who feel with absolute justification that the leadership election was stolen from them by underhand means.  It would reduce the public perception that the SNP is a divided party, which is absolutely crucial, because one of the oldest and truest electoral maxims is that parties seen as divided rarely win elections.  It would for the first time at least challenge the public perception that the SNP leadership is continuity Sturgeon in all but name, which is important given the polling evidence that Sturgeon is now a somewhat discredited figure.  And it would ensure that Kate Forbes' popularity with the public starts working in favour of Yousaf and the SNP.  Now, there's a limit to the latter benefit - politics is so presidential these days that you can't get the full advantage of having Kate Forbes as leader without actually having Kate Forbes as leader.  But if the SNP presented themselves as having a much more collective leadership than in the past, and if Forbes was clearly established as the second most important person in that collective leadership, she could at least help to offset some of Yousaf's unpopularity.

Yousaf and his seemingly rather naive advisers lacked the nous back in March to recognise that their plan for faction-only rule weakened rather than strengthened their pet project (ie. the ill-defined "progressive agenda" and the identity politics stuff).  It weakened the SNP as an electoral force, and anything that has that effect is bound to result in a change of leadership sooner rather than later.  They seemed to imagine that demoting or sacking Kate Forbes would be like flicking a switch that automatically transformed her into a diminished and marginalised figure, but in truth her political importance is derived not from any job title but from the fact that she came within a whisker of winning the leadership on an explicit platform for change.  What her de facto sacking has actually transformed her into is a Queen Over The Water figure who is totally unsullied by the unpopularity of any decisions made by the current administration, and who is thus perfectly placed to pick up the pieces when and if Yousaf crashes and burns.  It's in Yousaf's own overwhelming interests to change the dynamic his own handiwork has created.

Lastly, just a thought for anyone who is still in despair about independence because they think the SNP are bound to fall below 40% of the vote at the general election, no matter how central independence is to the campaign, and no matter what (if anything) is done to address the Yousaf problem.  Remember this: all that really needs to happen is for the SNP leadership to be convinced that seeking an outright mandate for independence helped to save at least some seats that would otherwise have been lost.  If it's established that the strategy was clearly a vote-winner rather than having a neutral effect or being a vote-loser, it becomes much more likely that the SNP will use it again at the 2026 Holyrood election, where it's far more plausible that 50% + of the vote can be achieved, especially bearing in mind the ongoing strength of the Green party on the list ballot. By then, it's entirely possible that a Labour government at Westminster will have entered into a period of mid-term unpopularity, and in any case Holyrood elections are 'home fixtures' for Yes parties and there'll be fewer distractions from the independence message.  So there's actually a strong incentive for the independence movement to ensure that the Yousaf plan 'works' next year, at least within the confines that it's realistically possible for it to work, which is probably more about winning a majority of seats than it is about winning a majority of votes.

*  *  *

I launched the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser for 2023 a few weeks ago, and the running total has now passed £1800.  The target figure is £8500, however, so there's still quite some distance to travel.  If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue by making a donation, please click HERE.  Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.