That Humza Yousaf has failed as leader of the SNP should not be a surprise to anyone.
Yousaf was chosen as the SNP establishment candidate following the now unsurprising resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as party leader, with the obvious intention of keeping the coterie of advisors that had been close to her in continuing political power within the party.
His only obvious strengths at that time was that he had that powerful backing, and that he was not either Kate Forbes, who might be charming but is fiscally and socially conservative, or Ash Regan, who refused to follow the party line on gender-related issues.
None of these candidates were able to bring together the wide diversity of opinion within the Scottish independence movement that had, fortuitously, until that time been able to compromise around a single party leaders with the charisma to lead that movement, excepting the period of office of John Swinney, who was leader from 2000 until 2004.
Alex Salmond has an extraordinarily astute political brain, and still has as far as I can see, albeit that the prospect of his returning to any form of office would seem to be remote.
Perhaps Salmond demonstrated this ability most particularly when preparing a successor for office. Sturgeon flourished under his leadership and then succeeded him before seeking to break the man who had provided her with her opportunity in life. The message should have been heeded at the time. Salmond was found not guilty. Sturgeon had revealed her ruthless desire to control. She never had any intention of preparing a successor for office, and the mess that has followed her own demise is, as a consequence, her most serious and damaging legacy for the cause of independence.
As a consequence, in the moment of considerable stress for those who believe that Scotland should leave the union, discussion is turning to appointing John Swinney as leader of the SNP, despite his obvious failure in this role in his previous period when holding this office.
Joanna Cherry remains sidelined, which is another SNP own goal, because she is both competent and possessed of serious political appeal to a broad range of people.
Forbes is unreformed.
Regan is now with Alba.
Excepting Stephen Flynn, who is proving to be an astute political operator in Westminster, albeit with some difficulty in holding his group together, there are no other obvious candidates to turn to, whatever some might think of their chances. And Flynn cannot lead from Westminster. It's as if the Union was set up to undermine the SNP.
So, Scotland has a rudderless independence cause.
I don't  think that this undermines that cause, which is being as strongly supported as it has been for a decade, odd aberrational polls apart. However, this does gift yet another opportunity to Labour, which they neither deserve or need given that their current range of policy options are no answer to any issue facing Scotland, let alone the UK as a whole.
So, It is time for the independence cause to reflect. It is suffering because of the requirement to very largely identify with a particular political party, whose policies are by no means universally popular, and whose fiscal stance is contemptuous of its membership, just as is Labour's. First-past-the-post at Westminster is proving as problematic for Scotland as it is for the rest of the UK.
Nothing will solve this problem in the short term. The SNP is in a mess right, and will remain so for the tine being. In that case, it is time for those who believe in independence to make clear precisely what the reasons for supporting it are and to make that clear to any sustainable SNP leadership when it emerges, which I doubt that it will do as yet.
There is a long game to play in Scottish politics. Labour might win in the short term. The Tories are a spent force. But, Labour's period of popularity might be short lived. The time for pragmatic policy to achieve independence will come, but not yet. And until the narratives surrounding that pragmatic politics have been firmly fixed the delay is not a problem. It is more like an opportunity, not least to get over the toxic legacy of Sturgeon. But it may take time for that to become apparent.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The fall of Yousaf is the mere “amuse bouche”. The entrée will be served on Thursday, in the English local elections. Filleted red meat, served rare. Then they will serve the pudding on Friday; Sunak on toast.
By Saturday? Yousaf? ………….Who? Who?
The Labour hypocrisy in contemporary news bulletins continues to be disappointing……
SNP has always had a broad church membership …. Some of whom are quite right wing – but till recently constrained by rigid centralised control. It seems that approach has facilitated “fixing-up” adversaries, subdued critical appraisal of party governance and prioritised policies that have limited support whilst key traditions (eg education) have performed poorly. Bad combination. Pity.
What will not be covered as some enjoy this state of affairs far too much is that there is a demo this Saturday for all those favouring independence irrespective of party.
These demos are rarely reported … But are large gatherings.
The ast is very true
The National does cover them
The BBC usually pretends that they have not happened
BBC Radio Scotland News, increasingly expressing their deep ignorance with extravagant openness, are now insisting that they do not know how the SNP can govern without a majority or a coalition. The Scottish Parliament was designed to make majority rule very difficult (the SNP once only managed to wreck the rule book); coalition is not compulsory. The system has run on a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement, or simple negotiation. This is how it is supposed to work. The weakness is that the mind-set of everybody except the SNP is essentially Westminster and Unionist; Government requires an absolute majority.
The obsession with absolute majority is a function of the tyranny of Party; and Parties are essentially only interested in Party. Party in politics is essentially corrupt, and cannot reform.
The weakness of Holyrood is that it is still too Party dominated. The form of PR; the list system is designed to serve Party interest first, indeed Party is formally built in to the system – ironically, it isn’t in Westminster, but by custom and use, modern Party has corrupted Westminster; which was why Westminster chose de Hondt (STV, which keeps power with the voter should be applied). Second, coalition agreements should simply be banned in Holyrood, it only serves Party; and coalition gives too much Party power to very minor Parties (potentially with very, very bad effects). All Parties are run by small cartels representing narrow interests, and are by nature politically too corruptible.
The BBC in Scotland is staggeringly inept when it comes to Scottish politics.
Or rather, staggeringly biased, which makes it look inept.
This diagnosis is 100% on target, but so long as the power to address it lies with those who benefit from its continuance, nothing can or will change. This is the real impasse that stifles democracy in the UK as a whole, not just in Scotland.
My view from well south of the border might be that the SNP might have done a lot better if it had concentrated on running a competent administration and started looking like a potential Government for an Independent Scotland
It has done that
It has run a better government than Westminster within the massive constraints imposed on it by Westminster
Your view is, I am afraid to say, typically English and fails to appraise the evidence. The MSM undoubtedly feeds you this line, but for all the SNP’s faults – and it has many – your claim is not justified
Absolutely correct. I was once criticised by my own M.S.P for saying the S.N.P were a competent party of Government. Apparently he thought they were better than that, but to my mind that was sufficient. The reason John is falling for that line, is simply because the media in general don’t publicise the many positives of the Scottish Government. One example, no doctors on strike in Scotland.
There is a current anti-SNP fest going on – based on nothing but anti-Scottish prejudice and Westminster oriented MSM propaganda. John Boxall’s comment is typical. Let’s replace that with just two outstanding facts. The SNP government has achieved and protected the provison of expanded HE provision with higher outcomes and without univeristy fees; it has also halted and reversed the process of NHS privatisation and restored and vastly improved the Scottish NHS which is – once again and at a much improved level – a genuine NHS for Scotland. Those two achievements alone mark the radical difference SNP government has made to Scotland. Both are in searing contrast with – not only with what Tory goverment has done to Brexitania but also with the absence of effective policies from their clueless Labour would-be successors. Those are just two of the many reasons that the SNP has had such a long run of political success and – despite current, tough leadership challenges – will have again. Meanwhile the building round of Independence marches will show yet again that the YES movement retains the dominant momentum in Scottish politics – and will prove the game changer across these islands and beyond. Independence is normal – and it is coming and within the EU at that.
Agreed. The cause of Scottish independence transcends the SNP, but the cause of independence has been co-opted too much by the SNP, to the point that it has very effectively cornered the market in ‘we (the SNP) are the independence movement’. It has been a top down affair, and as the party has struggled, so (rather ignorant people south of the border) assume independence is waning along with the SNP’s difficulties.
As a strong supporter also of Welsh independence and YesCymru, (as well as Scottish and English independence), in Wales, Plaid (obviously though it’s far more limited political success and the fact that it hasn’t yet made a solid breakthrough outside north and west Wales) is just one (albeit very important) factor of the growing independence movement. Wales has an influential independence group within Welsh Labour – Labour for an Independent Wales – which is part of Welsh Labour and has (miraculously not (yet) been kicked out of Labour by Starmer!).
However, Vaughan Gething has not made the best of starts as FM, and looks to be less accommodating of the independence movement than Mark Drakeford.
Sentiment for Welsh independence is encouragingly growing (around 30%), and it is grassroots up and thus has a potential resilience to the ebbs and flows of the cause being too tied to one party.
In both Scotland and Wales, independence sentiment is in majority support amongst the young, so the independence cause has a lasting future, that will hopefully be achieved (in both countries) in the next 20 years.
As an independinista without party loyalties, but with an over developed sense of irony, I am disappointed that the partition of Britain will not be negotiated by a Muslim and a Hindu.
That we have seen chaos within the SNP, but no dimunishion of the support for independence is a very good long term indication of the direction of travel.
Those aged 16 to 26, who are overwhelmingly in favour of independence, have not had an opportunity to vote for it. This is not sustainable.
I shall vote SNP in an fptp election regardless of the leader as I have done for 50 years. Once we escape from the imperial wreckage, a more nuanced and democratic vote will be possible.
I don’t know anybody in my regular social millieu who treats the BBC as anything other than hostile foreign propaganda. Well except for “in our time” of course.
Entirely agree with your last paragraph. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into full legal force yesterday here. Shutting down forever (unless Ireland succeeds in its court case v the UK state) all avenues of pursuing justice for those affected by UK state human rights atrocities and violence during the UK military Operation Banner (1969-2007).
An Act opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland and one that, like the Rwanda Act, breaks international law.
If the BBC covered this dark historical event I must have missed it.
Unsurprisingly, I think this Act entirely wrong
There seems to be an interesting if untold story of Welsh Independence and Devolution.
AFAIK there were some pre WW1 devolution proposals put forward by Lloyd George with Sir Henry Hayden Jones MP having an involvement.
However there is also the issue of the ‘permeability’ of the Border that Scotland does not have
Support for independence has not waned as the SNP have suffered their electoral slide, and still ranges from 48-55% in most polling over the last year or so.
There has always been a ‘soft’ vote element to both SNP and Slabs which seems to migrate, but Indy support has remained fairly solid.
The regular well attended marches for Indy are more than SNP rallies. Of course, these are largely unreported, so the English based political elite just do not register the level of the continued underlying support for independence. This includes Labour.
The independence movement is not chained to the SNP. YES Scotland tried before the 2014 Indyref to operate as an freestanding entity, detached from SNP party management, but was pretty much hijacked by the party, and party cliques. That was Salmond’s error, and his powerplay which failed, but which then continued under St Nicola, whose character defects have led us to where we are now.
The SNP is large enough to have several factions and cliques within, and the split between WM and Holyrood politicians has only made party management more difficult, and will continue to do so.
The BBC’s English based news editorial input is both ignorant and relentlessly unionist in bias.
Chris Mason really doesn’t get Scottish politics at all, and Nick Robinson ought to think about a move to GB News, his commentary is so conservative and uninformed.
Radio Scotland coverage over the last two days has been much more nuanced, and detailed because they know the personalities, and there are certainly several commentators who do support Indy in their commentariat.
But, as reported above by JSW, BBC Scotland is asking the wrong questions, as Holyrood was constituted to prevent a single party majority, and speculating on how that might be achieved is pointless, as government will have to involve cross party support anyway, and has done throughout its existence.
Very few of my Indy friends still support the SNP, and many never did, being more to the left or coming from environmentalism. In 2014 over 30% of SLab supporters voted for Indy, so the nature of the movement is across party lines at popular support level.
I can see no way that either of the English centric unionist WM parties will permit Indyref2 so we have no way of seeking a majority vote through a second referendum. We are scunnered and left with the SNP as having only a managerial role at Holyrood, or a future Slab / LD coalition. Both will be neoliberal anyway.
The old brigade and Tartan Tory wing of the party are all endorsing Forbes, but she would not be out of her comfort zone in the Scottish Tories, apart from the Indy issue, and will have considerable difficulty in retaining the support of the social democratic and democratic socialist wings of the party, with a conservative social and economic agenda.
Nor is there much prospect of the Green ‘zealots and extremists’ (as described by true blues like Fergus Ewing who loathes all environmentalists) continuing to fully support the SNP with a leader from the right, as the background noise will just be too loud. Issue by issue maybe, but that is a reactive not proactive role. We are all worse off.
Paradoxically, the internecine struggles within the SNP might actually force the Indy movement to revitalise itself.
A reconstituted civic based Indy movement with the aim of a full constitutional convention 5-10 yrs away would gather and sustain momentum in a way that the SNP cannot, and might be the only possible option for regaining the momentum for independence.
I agree with much of your analysis. But we are treading water wrt getting independence not only because of NS but possibly more because Salmond took us to a referendum too early and having lost we are now in a constitutional and legal logjam. The omni-competent, sovereign and fundamentally undemocratic UK Parliament (where, simple arithmetic says Scots or anyone else will always be outvoted by England) backed by a Supreme Court which seems seems to sup from the same cup will, for the foreseeable future, deny another referendum.
Yes, the referendum was closer than many thought it would be, but starting from support at only the high twenties was always going to be difficult. Perhaps if Salmond had a more modest ego he would have done the hard work of building support and dealing with all the difficult questions that were going to come up, such as on currency, and which would be used by project fear to great success, before setting a date.
2017 might have produced a vastly different result….
And so the SNP are stuck without another referendum while using an election, whether for WM or HR is not unproblematic. For them there is no easy fix. A constitutional convention, organised by Civic Scotland, as suggested by Prof. McCorquodale and others may be the way forward and could be legally acceptable to international opinion.
Are you aware of the work being undertaken by Salvo and Liberation.scot wrt Scots sovereignty and other means of restoring Scots Independence?
No
Has anyone worked out the impact of Scottish/Welsh Independence & Irish Unification on the rump UK/England?
Not that I know of
England is in denial
8 ways an independent Scotland could spell U.K. economic disaster –
https://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/
The answer to your question, John, is assuredly – “yes” – successive Westminster governments of all three ‘main’ parties have and that is one of the main reasons why the opposition to Scottish Independence is so deep and desperate. South Britain’s political, social and wealth elite know that they will not only cut a rather paltry figure internationally but that they will also be very substantially poorer.
Under Sturgeons control, the SNP made huge changes to how the SNP was managed, turning it from a democratic party with very significant decision influencing powers held by it’s members, to one in which power was centralised within a small clique within the SNP, leaving it’s members effectively voiceless and the SNP deeply undemocratic. What happened to the SNP after 2014 was deliberate, systematic and utterly ruthless.
“Membership unhappiness about the continual erosion of its power led to a rebellion in 2020 when a slate of candidates was elected to the NEC (the SNP’s National Executive Committee) on a ‘democratic reform’ ticket. They won overwhelmingly. So unhappy was the Leadership with this turn of events that it proposed to respond by… reducing the number of representatives to the NEC that the Membership could elect.”
“This was proposed with another package of draconian measures, including the ability for the NEC to appoint a Committee which could change the constitution of the Party without asking the permission of Annual Conference. This would mean that leadership-controlled bodies can change any rule they want any time they want without reference to the membership – total control forever.”
Until the degree of control over the political means to independence again becomes democratic, independence will only continue to burn brightly in the background. While the public continue to show huge support for independence (no doubt thanks in no small way to the political situation at Westminster and economic situation of the UK), the SNP’s mantra since 2014 of There Is No Alternative (to the SNP) as a means to independence, is a political dead end.
https://robinmcalpine.org/how-democracy-was-stripped-from-the-snp/
That is all true, control freakery has dominated, however, Robin McAlpine is hardly an unbiassed observer
Playing the man and not the ball. Tedious.