The Greek and French elections have served to remind us that change remains the norm across Europe during these tough economic times. The majority of change across Scotland at last week’s council elections typically went from SNP to Labour, despite the winning tallies being in the Nats’ favour: Labour calling the shots at Edinburgh Council, Labour making council formation difficult in Aberdeenshire and Labour preventing change at Glasgow Council.
And, with the SNP losing a quarter of their voters from last year’s Scottish Parliament elections, Scots are certainly at least changeable.
With two and a bit long years until the referendum on independence, and mid-term European elections to be held between now and then, there are good reasons why the SNP should pre-empt change before the electorate rejects out of hand the constitutional change that a male and potentially stale SNP leadership is offering:
Salmond’s tenure
– It was David Torrance’s Sunday Mail article that provided the eye-popping statistic. I knew that Salmond had served the SNP considerably longer than the five years that he has been First Minister but 18 years as the leader of a party is a remarkable length of time. Putting it into perspective, that is as many years as John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Labour party put together. Many years at the top does not, in itself, mean that it is time to go, but it does significantly increase the chances that people have stopped listening to what you have to say. We’re not at that stage yet of course with a majority Government still fresh in the memory, but did Salmond win that election or did Subway-sheltering Iain Gray lose it? And can the SNP really take a chance that a party leader of twenty years can still sound fresh and inspiring with so much at stake?
Reaching out to West coast Scotland
– Linked to the above point, and the council election results bear this out, there are parts of Scotland that the SNP still can’t reach as convincingly as they would like to. Swathes of Glasgow and the West of Scotland voting No to independence in their droves leaves a relatively small part of Scotland that would need a good 70%+ Yes result, or higher, to see the SNP over the line. With an adopted home of Banff & Buchan for so long in his career, Salmond could not be perceived to be much further from the old Strathclyde region that Labour has done well to wrap its arms around. Nicola Sturgeon studied at Glasgow University, worked in Drumchapel Law Centre and is the MSP for Govan. The DFM could win more of Labour’s heartlands into considering independence while still keeping the existing Yes camp intact.
Father of the Nation
– Freeing Alex Salmond from the binds of being First Minister would allow the SNP’s greatest asset to take on a more avuncular, roving role. This would effectively elevate each senior SNP Minister up one position while still keeping the presence and gravity of Salmond himself. This softening of Salmond has been attempted with varying degrees of success before but, while the man has pulled the SNP up into the 30%-45% electoral mark, his marmite tendencies may well be the single reason why the pro-union voteshare will always be 50%+ if left unattended. Many Scots intend to vote No because they don’t take to or trust FM Salmond. There’s an easy way to rectify that, while still keeping Alex in the game.
Gender balance
– The gender of a political leader shouldn’t be an issue but if the SNP wants to paint itself as far removed from the London coalition, having a female leader would be an easy way to do that. Theresa May is the only high-profile female member of the UK Government and if recent form continues apace, she may have joined Liam Fox on the backbenches by the time 2014 comes around. Rich Oxbridge English men directing Scotland’s future and controlling Scotland’s wellbeing provides political leverage for the SNP and the unsatisfactory gender balance across both Parliaments could make Nicola’s position as party leader particularly, persuasively, propitiously progressive.
More open leadership
– Alex Salmond does well to hide his temper, he is a bit like Sir Alex Ferguson that way. His style of leadership has gradually permeated down and throughout the SNP such that even MSPs can be knee-knocking lambs refusing to step out of line for fear of incurring the FM’s considerable wrath. Nicola Sturgeon’s style of leadership is known to be more open, more consensual and considerably less intense. Creating a new country is much more enticing with such a person at the helm, creating a participative environment rather than an obedient one.
All of the above isn’t to say that Salmond is, nor should be, under any pressure to be leaving Bute House today, tomorrow, this year or next, but it won’t be long before he has to pull rabbits from hats in order to keep his leadership fresh and vigorous. Obstinate poll ratings on independence may lead to difficult decisions, including stepping aside to allow internal renewal.
While the SNP has successfully avoided the ‘game of drones’ leadership changes that Labour and the Lib Dems have endured of late, there is as much risk in a successful leader staying on too long as leaving too early. There may come a point where the SNP will need to speak up against an increasingly underdressed Emperor Salmond and bring forward change.
And no-one embodies change amongst the party’s leadership contenders more than Nicola Sturgeon.
#1 by Commenter on May 10, 2012 - 8:32 am
Great idea, but can we put out feelers to Gordon Brown? He’s got solid experience in taking over from a popular leader who’s lost his lustre. I think he could really turn things around for the SNP. Barring that, what’s John Major up to these days I wonder…
#2 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 10:22 am
Well, given the SNP hasn’t invaded another country and isn’t mired in sleaze, I suspect these are not fair comparisons.
Labour and the Tories ran out of puff; the SNP are more likely to do the same if Salmond stays on for too long.
#3 by Longshanker on May 10, 2012 - 9:55 am
The easy answer is yes.
He has been leader too long. The recent plutocratic baggage is going to stick in the craw of a significant number of peoples minds for a long time to come.
Anecdotally, there aren’t many women I’ve spoken to who think he’s a good thing. Most tend to lift their upper lip and say something along the lines of “he’s so smug”.
The SNP with Mr Salmond as leader does not engage the interest of the female vote. Polls back this up.
Nicola Sturgeon has proven herself as tough while also being prepared to be conciliatory.
Salmond is becoming a liability. Being prepared to lobby to help create a Murdoch monopoly was a fatal mistake.
Nicola for leader? Yes. Unreservedly.
#4 by Aidan on May 10, 2012 - 10:16 am
I’m not at all convinced that it’s going to be as simple as AS -> NS. This was, after all, attempted in 2004 and she was doing so badly against Alex Neil that Salmond did a quick volte face on his Sherman pledge.
#5 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 10:24 am
2004 was a long time ago. Nicola has had a meteoric rise in popularity while ‘cheeky chappie’ Alex Neil has bumped along ok. There should be a contest, but I can’t see anyone other than Nicola winning it, particularly with the referendum in mind.
#6 by Aidan on May 10, 2012 - 10:47 am
The referendum does change things a bit but the conventional wisdom was Nicola would win last time as well. There’s obviously a desire for a clean succession but the SNP membership do have a slightly contrarian streak…
#7 by GMcM on May 10, 2012 - 2:09 pm
She may have had a ‘meteoric’ rise in popularity within the SNP but not across the country.
I do think your view that longevity, while admirable in politics, can lead to staleness and this is definitely not what the SNP need going into the referendum, however, I feel that there is no-one else in the SNP at present to control the party in the way AS does.
He wasn’t always able to do this but getting the SNP into power, subsequently delivering a majority, has given him the opportunity to convince the nay-sayers in his party that only by sticking by him can they achieve their common dream. He has fundies and gradualists all in line behind him. When, as I think, the referendum is lost by those in favour of separation there will be nothing and no-one who will be able to contain those differences and channel them into one unified message (incl AS).
#8 by James on May 10, 2012 - 3:28 pm
I don’t know. He’s proper Marmite, whereas few people dislike her. She’s more open, more consensual, smarter, and more left-wing.
#9 by Gerard on May 10, 2012 - 9:00 pm
I’ve not spoken to anyone who likes her, with some preferring Salmond to her and this is in the areas where the SNP need to be winning (Lanarkshire and Glasgow).
A lot of people are not convinced by her and others think she comes across just as bad as AS in terms of arrogance and the ability to appear confrontational even when its not called for.
#10 by Stuart on May 10, 2012 - 10:27 am
8 years have passed. I don’t think you can really compare given how much has changed.
#11 by Barbarian on May 10, 2012 - 10:17 am
You are right about Salmond’s style of leadership. I have a rather reliable contact and the word is that you know Salmond is in charge.
But if Salmond stepped down, I think Alex Neil would try and topple Sturgeon. The SNP is in a bit of a catch 22 situation. At present, Salmond cannot make that extra step to independence. In addition, he has is getting damaged with his relationship to Murdoch, and if it turns out his phone has been hacked…well.
But no one else in the party truly has the ability to take on the SNP’s opponents. Sturgeon is good, possibly the best of the rest but there have been times where she has been distinctly uncomfortable. That does not mean she cannot be a good leader, but in politics public image is important. Saying that, Lamont is far from stylish on camera but she’s been scoring points lately.
McAskil is damaged goods over Megrahi, whatever you may think. Russell has turned out disappointingly to be an arrogant minister over the education changes. Alex Neil is arrogant period. Swinney tried once and nearly ballsed everything up. Roseanna Cunningham prefers to wash her hair……
Sturgeon is the only alternative. But the SNP cannot change their leader now. However, if Salmond’s phone has been hacked, his position as FM would be untenable given that he refused to answer to the Scottish Parliament and would be appearing to defend Murdoch. That would give the SNP the opportunity to change leadership, which might help things.
#12 by R Pollock on May 10, 2012 - 10:24 am
I understand the reasoning behind this and I think there could be some important points to be taken from it. However, in the end I disagree. I disagree more for the reason that as much as I like Nicola Sturgeon she is not capable of knockout, inspring oratory. She is not capable of turning tables on a Paxman, a Dimbleby, an Alexander or an Andrew Neil. She barely scrapes a draw when confronted with these types. She stutters, isn’t calm and is often reduced to proffering a ‘line’. Salmond does on message lines too, but it’s wrapped up in a more natural way. This is going to be a bloody fight and I just don’t see Sturgeon delivering in those times.
However, there is an issue with the way that this referendum is portrayed by the media and perhaps by the SNP itself. It is portrayed as Alex Salmond’s idea, the SNP’s referendum etc. If this does not change the Yes campaign will definitely lose. I was not encouraged by Andrew Kerr of BBC Scotland referring to the launch of the Yes campaign later this month. He said: “the SNP are launching the Yes campaign…they want it to be broader”. That’s the point though, the SNP can’t be launching this!
Alex Salmond brings in far more votes than he loses but if the media continue to paint this as his thing it’s impossible to see a majority going for it. The only positive from I can from Jeff’s suggestion is that it will move Salmond away a bit and give the media a new angle to look at this. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s how it would be portrayed.
#13 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 11:00 am
A good argument Ross. I might be wanting to have my cake and eat it here but Salmond could still do his share of Newsnights and Question Times to win those debates and put his rhetoric to the best use, without being First Minister. The best analogy I can come up with is the Baroness Shirley Williams who does an excellent job selling the Lib Dems on such shows.
Nicola could get on with running Scotland and Alex could get on with selling Scotland. Both profiles would be high which should be to the SNP’s advantage.
You raise another good point though, how would the media spin it. I suspect you are correct in that it would be diametrically opposed to how the SNP would wish it. That might not be any better than to how Salmond is currently portrayed though (friend of Murdoch, focussed solely on independence, arrogant etc).
#14 by Douglas McLellan on May 10, 2012 - 10:59 am
This is actually a very good idea. If I vote for independence (likely) then it will be despite Alex Salmond, not because of him. I find his arrogance at FMQs and in media interviews, with that little “you are asking a stupid question chuckle” an epic disappointment.
#15 by Alastait on May 10, 2012 - 11:01 am
Quite Simply No.
We are at the beginning of the most challenging period in 300 years. There is a possibility that we can fight and win out independence through the ballot box.
We are just about to launch the Indyref campaign and you think NOW! is the time to consider changing Leader. having a devicise leadership campaign, retiring our strongest political force.
Remember when Salmond was in London and the best we could hope for was “Tactical Voting” now we dominate the Scottish Parliament in a way that was intented never to be possible.
Taking your football metaphor. You wish to retire our top striker, who brought us our first league success because we only won 1 nill at the Council elections.
Not winning Council Elections in the Central Belt by making as many gains as we wanted will not have any impact on #Indyref. These are often influenced by Local Issues and personalities. After banning sectarian Songs there was a massive internet campaign in Old Firm football circles stimulated by the usual suspects targeting the SNP as being anti Glasgow. I received political emails from people who usually show no interest in politics.
How to Proceed:
I would agree that elevating Nicola and other SNP ministers to taking on more media appearances and demostrating the wealth of talent within the ranks and showing this is not the AS show will be positive in appealing to as wide a support base as possible. (Whole mix of Ethnic, Gender, Nationality, Accents)
We also need to engage ministers at street level, meeting people, answering questions, door knocking, attending public events and engaging with the undecided.
Every day more and more people are persuaded the benefits of Independence. As the numbers grow so will the people who like to be with the crowd start to gravitate towards indy.
We also need to get the Greens and everybody else on the platform so this cannot be painted as a SNP only campaign.
The campaign needs to be smart and avoid devisive policies. No campaigning on a more socialist Scotland, a nuclear Free Scotland, Greener Scotland, LGBT friendly Scotland, more or less Religious Scotland.
The campaign should be on a better Governed Scotland, One with a full time Government thinking about Scotland’s people everyday, all day. With the levers of power to deliver.
A government that understands the challenges facing our rural areas, inner cities, businesses, schools, working mums and old people.
This should be sharply contrasted with Etonian Dave, George Osborne, Tory Upper Class Twits, house of Lords, London centralisation of power, etc.
The attack on Labour should be more subtle and be focussed on association with Tories, sharing a platform with the tories, etc.
Look at the Lib Dems. They destroyed themselves. It was not attacks on them that killed their vote. It was political suicide by political association.
The thought of being out of a job, out of power will divide and split the Labour camp. They are always consistent on personal self interest. As soon as they realise that Keeping the Union would also mean they would be personally unelectable due to association with Tories they will split ranks. Once Labour MPs start endorsing IndyRef Yes this will split the fight to Voting No with the Tories or Yes with SNP/Labour.
#16 by CW on May 10, 2012 - 1:59 pm
“After banning sectarian Songs there was a massive internet campaign in Old Firm football circles stimulated by the usual suspects targeting the SNP as being anti Glasgow. I received political emails from people who usually show no interest in politics.” Absolutely, and Labour did their best to exploit this. See the following:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/opinion/council-chief-citys-parade-plan-is-flawed.17535913
#17 by BaffieBox on May 10, 2012 - 11:18 am
Ive written on this before: http://baffiebox.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/alex-salmonds-resignation/. As with everything else, it’s never black and white.
It would be a monumental gamble for the SNP to lose Salmond. He’s nowhere near toxic enough to justify it this far out from the referendum, but depending on the circumstances, losing him closer to the referendum could have quite an impact on the YES campaign.
There is absolutely no way the party will drop him unless they really had to. For right or wrong, the SNP are a party who are absolutely united in the goal of independence and it will take something monumental to remove him. The Murdoch/phone-hacking scandal has the potential to topple him but despite what the opposition think, they arent close as yet. The Leveson appearance and whether he was hacked will go a long way to sealing his fate but I think they NO campaign could have been doing with this scandal much nearer 2014 if they wanted to kill Salmond off as an influential figure in the referendum.
Ultimately, when you balance it up and despite his polarising personality, he is still the best leader Scotland has at this point in time. Sturgeon is an able deputy and may in time go on to be a great leader of party and country, but I see no genuine appetite to put that to the test voluntarily.
#18 by Colin on May 10, 2012 - 11:19 am
Sorry Jeff but I think you might be losing it here. This on the back of your comment the other day saying Johann Lamont was the best out of the past 3 Scottish Labour leaders!
For a start – look at Salmond’s approval ratings. They have consistently been excellent. Have you in anyway been able to ascertain how the wider public view of Sturgeon? I am a big fan of hers, and it would appear the chattering classes are too. She may also gather support from left leaning supporters of other parties. However, Salmond’s appeal is a lot wider than that – people who don’t necessarily like him think he does a good job, they know he will stand up for Scotland etc. He is seen as being capable of outmanoeuvring with the big players and as a ‘serious’ politician. Does all of that transfer to Sturgeon? I don’t think so. I know some of that sounds sexist, but its the reality of the politics of the UK.
Also – is Sturgeon as talented a politician as Salmond? With the exception of the recent Murdoch mess Salmond’s judgement and political timing has been exceptional. It would be a huge risk assuming Sturgeon shares the same talent.
I also think some of the comments above are true. This would be the beginning of the end for the snp, tearing itself apart. Salmond could go after the referendum, sure thing. But earlier than that would be electoral suicide.
(None of this is an attack on Nicola, I think she is great. She’s just not Salmond and the snp needs him right now)
#19 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 11:45 am
Thanks Colin, always nice to hear a suggestion one is “losing it”. Incidentally, which of Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander and Johann Lamont do you think makes for the best Labour leader? Maybe that’s a separate post in itself but I’d be surprised if you didn’t think it was a close call.
I of course can appreciate your view that Alex Salmond is the best person to take the SNP into this referendum and you make good points that Nicola may not have the same talents for the job. I don’t necessarily disagree, but it’s a rare incumbent that wins an election these days. The SNP managed it last week and were quite right to boast about it accordingly. I’m not so sure they’ll pull it off for the referendum over two years away, with Euro elections to get out of the way beforehand.
There’s a been a few occasions where I’ve breezily asked non-political fellow Scots which way they’d vote on independence. The majority of the No’s (sample size tiny I grant thee) have come with the explanation that they don’t trust Salmond. Now, the personality of the leader of the day is not a valid reason for voting against constitutional change in my book but, nonetheless, that is the challenge the SNP faces. We saw that Nick Clegg was the main reason the AV referendum failed, do you really think the independence referendum could be any different? There might be something a bit ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ for the SNP to march onto Autumn 2014 with the same leader, the same tactics and the same obstinate 30%-40% poll ratings.
And remember Salmond would still be an MSP, those talents you mention would still be put to good use. He could be Minister for the Referendum which’d be enough to soften his domineering style as FM and challenge Scots to find other reasons to vote No.
A year and a bit from now, if poll ratings for independence remains slumped, particularly due to a West of Scotland drag, making a change might not be the worst thing in the world.
#20 by R Pollock on May 10, 2012 - 2:13 pm
I absolutely agree about the problem of many people in the No side equating independence with one man. A man they don’t like, for whatever reason. There is a real issue with some people assuming that this is Salmond’s idea, Salmond’s referendum. How to counter that is a good question. I doubt Jeff that giving Salmond the brief “minister for the referendum” would dissasociate the big yin from independence. Personally, I think that’s the worst thing we could do. It would entail the media to simply concrete further the idea that it’s his thing. Suicide.
As I say, I get what you mean but really feel that a subtle change of presentation and a radical manouvering to a broader movement are the key. Not getting rid of a hugely forceful figure.
#21 by Don McC on May 11, 2012 - 7:22 am
While it’s easy to accept that Gray was, overall, a disaster, Wendy didn’t get enough time to show her full potential and it’s too early to grade Lamont just yet. She did get off to a poor start and any improvement has been slow and torture to watch. She has got lucky with events (and the ever faithful MSM) but her crowing over Glasgow (she does realise their vote went down?) does her no favours. Neither do the personal attacks which simply prove she has no political arguments or policy arguments or any original ideas, she just re-iterates that she hates Salmond ever FMQ. That will get her through the short term (a lot of people don’t like Salmond either) but, longer term, she’ll run into a brick wall with nowhere to go except to re-iterate how much she hates Salmond.
#22 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2012 - 11:53 am
Surely Nicola has been damaged (even if only slightly) by the debacle that is the council elections in Glasgow and the West of Scotland?
My impression is that Nicola was going to win it for us, the Glasgow SNP team was very much masterminded (!) by Nicola, and of course Alison Hunter, Nicola’s agent, was such a great leader of the SNP in Glasgow….
#23 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 12:00 pm
Good point John, didn’t think of it that way. You’ve certainly turned my argument that the bad result in Glasgow is a reason to get Nicola in as FM on its head.
I think a lot of the blame has to sit with Alison Hunter though and, agent to Nicola or not, you can’t really share that blame out. The rookie comment that winning Glasgow was to be a stepping stone to independence was a body blow for the SNP’s chances.
#24 by Indy on May 10, 2012 - 5:37 pm
You need to blame John Mason for that then. G Matheson read out the introduction to the SNP’s 2007 council manifesto which specifically said that winning would be a stepping stone to independence. JM was leader at that time. What AH said was that everything the SNP does is a stepping stone to independence but that the local election was about local issues.
Was all recorded – on BBC – but never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?
#25 by Alastair on May 10, 2012 - 11:55 am
Well I noticed on Twitter that Douglas Alexander MP seems to think this article is good.
The fact that the No Campaign wish to see Salmond removed should be an answer in itself.
Colin above makes a good point. People who do not like Salmond still think he is good for Scotland. I have never seen him beaten on TV by anyone and there has been loads of attempts.
Yet, I can think of countless examples of Nicola being put under pressure and struggling a bit on TV.
During the IndyRef campaign we need total discipline, total leadership. Now is not the time to change the formula. Now is a good time to broaden the front line and put all our top people into the fight alongside Salmond.
After Independence I am sure their will be a more international statesman job open for Salmond to be elevated to.
To be honest, Scottish history is full of times when we nearly did something and many of these nearly events were full of back biting and infighting.
Lets not drag defeat from the jaws of victory once again by changing for the sake of changing.
#26 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 12:07 pm
Fair enough Alastair. To be fair, I’ve never seen Nicola get out of 2nd/3rd gear on BBC Question Time, even when Dimbleby is doing his usual poor job. A few well-chosen, well-timed lines of killer oratory were certainly missing from said apearances when the goal was gaping. Salmond wouldn’t have missed the opportunity.
Again though, there’s no reason why Salmond couldn’t continue to do tv/radio slots while Nicola gets on with running Scotland.
And not surprised (though v pleased) that Douglas likes the post, he did nick our branding from us after all 😉
#27 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 12:08 pm
PS Your comment made me think of my favourite quote:
We trained hard … but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
#28 by James on May 10, 2012 - 3:39 pm
I regard Salmond as bad for Scotland, but will still vote Yes to a sensible independence offer. I think it’d be easier if the figurehead for that were not someone who many find so alienating.
#29 by Dr William Reynolds on May 10, 2012 - 12:38 pm
Firstly Jeff,I do think that comparing the results of the Scottish election with the council election is like comparing apples with oranges.The issues are somewhat different and the STV voting system used for council elections is likely to throw up deifferent outcomes.A better comparison would be to compare the 2007 council election results with the 2011 results.If you do that,you will come to a different conclusion.
I disagree that Alec Salmond is arrogent (as some people suggest).His behavoiur during FMQ is a misleading picture of what he is like as a person.I have met him several times and my experience of him confirms the views of many of his constituents that he is a caring individual.Of course he can be different when leaders of the opposition use insults and weakly examined opinion during FMQ.While I would wish for a more analytical approach the inability of the opposition leaders to offer rational debate and analysis determines the tone of the response from the First Minister.
I understand that Alec Salmond is a very gifted politician but I do not see him as being the SNP,or the only potential leader in the SNP.Personally I favour Mike Russell.However,in spite of the best efforts of some people to stir up the idea that Alec Salmond will step down as leader,I do not believe that he is going anywhere.Wishful thinking for some of his political opponents since he is a formidable barrier to their aspirations.
Finally I would argue that the debate has moved on,The council elections are in the past and personally (as an SNP member) I am disinterested in the unionist or nationalist spin about who won.Apart from the Euro elections next year,the politics take a backseat.I think that we will see a broad alliance of all political persuasions,that straddle all of Scottish society,in a Yes campaign.Thus,I am no longer interested who people vote for,or which party they belong to.The goal is to unite people in the drive for self-determination,a just society and an international (outward looking) Scotland.
#30 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 12:50 pm
I seem to recall you making a post on your old blog along similar lines. Of course, just a few months later the SNP won a majority in an electoral system designed to prevent such a thing happening, and all of us that joined in your pondering looked a bit silly. I for one will not make the same mistake this time!
I think it’s easy to overstate the West of Scotland factor. Let’s not forget that regardless of how much the media likes to portray it as such, what’s good for West isn’t automatically good for the Rest. The North East clearly has no problems with Eck, and I see no reason to think the Highlands do either. I also see no reason to think the South are bigger Nicola Sturgeon fans than they are Salmond fans.
Ask yourself this Jeff – if the SNP had won Glasgow last week, would we even be having this discussion? If not, then there’s a danger you’re trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer/throwing the baby out with the bathwater/. Also, as others have said, the Murdoch thing has actually come at a good time in the campaign, as it’s out of the way two years beforehand. I’m also sceptical as to how much traction it even has with ordinary voters.
Another thing that is easy to overstate is Salmond’s problem with women. All the women in my family think he’s great, with my sister saying he has “a happy face” (she’s 33 incidentally, not 3). Conversely, how confident can we be that Nicola Sturgeon has truly shaken off the “nippy sweetie” tag?
A final thought: you may be right about it being difficult to reinvigorate his leadership, but equally the much-used slaggings-off he gets are wearing thin. Comparisons with Mugabe, Milosevic and Mussolini already look tired, and seem to do nothing but irritate the public. Yet unionists just can’t help themselves and continue to peddle these silly taunts. I find it hard to believe they won’t continue for the next two years, which I think will only highlight how lacking in ideas unionism is. Change leader and suddenly you give unionists a whole new set of pithy insults to throw around.
#31 by GMcM on May 10, 2012 - 2:46 pm
Yes, that’s right DD.
Only the big bad unionists throw insults around.
Also who is continuing to peddle the Mugabe, Mussolini and Milosevic taunts? Did you notice how you just generalised the majority of people who oppose your view there – that we all call him these names? Hmmm, seems to me you are the one throwing petty insults around.
#32 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 3:41 pm
Fair doos, although I was referring mainly to unionists politicians – I didn’t make that clear enough though.
And in this sense, it is indeed just the big bad unionists that throw the insults around. SNP politicians don’t compare their opponents to genocidal dictators – they have a bit more class than people like Foulkes, Davidson, McShane, Harris and so on. Even the unionists’ favourite enemy Joan McAlpine has never proven Godwin’s Law correct!
#33 by Iain Menzies on May 10, 2012 - 6:29 pm
And no one in the SNP has EVER used the phrase “butchers apron” oh no not EVER!
#34 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2012 - 9:18 am
To be perfectly honest Iain, it’s not a phrase I’m familiar with (although I am now since I just googled it). Can you link to an example of an SNP politician using the phrase? I can’t say I’ve seen anyone using it.
Bearing in mind that, even if you can, I really don’t understand how using a disparaging term for the union jack is even remotely comparable to an elected representative comparing the head of a democratically-elected government to a genocidal dictator. If it was and an SNP politician had used it, then we’d surely know about it.
Various Labour MPs and Lords have compared Salmond to genocidal dictators. This is not even up for debate, it’s an unequivocal fact that can be proven with ease. I don’t see why people such as yourself can’t just admit that.
#35 by An Duine Gruamach on May 11, 2012 - 9:34 am
I know at least one Romanian who was disgusted enough with a comparsion to Ceasescu that he voted SNP last week to make a point.
#36 by Fred on May 10, 2012 - 1:01 pm
Jeff, re your comment: “the SNP losing a quarter of their voters” … can I kindly suggest you read this piece (and the graphic if refers to) at http://tinyurl.com/sskier-analysis That should help clarify this apple/orange comparison that too many people are making.
On the thrust of your piece, it gives credibility to yet another line of attack from the unionist Scots media over the last few weeks…that the partys over for Eck. Of course they want Eck out the way. They want to down the biggest beast, gloat over any SNP infighting they can pour petrol on and completely divert and derail the referendum.
Sorry Jeff, I’m not buying your angle at all – in fact its the one absolutely guaranteed way to completely blow the next 2 years of hard work.
#37 by An Duine Gruamach on May 10, 2012 - 2:44 pm
Thanks for drawing attention to this piece. I was never much cop at maths or sciences at school, but one thing I did learn was that you can only change one variable at a time if you want to make a meaningful comparison. Jeff has changed four – the year, the voting system, the candidates standing (many more independents in local elections) and the bodies being voted for!
#38 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 2:50 pm
Genuinely can’t access the link, will take a look later. I don’t disagree that there are many comparisons that can be made, but the SNP has nonetheless lost a quarter of its voteshare from last year’s Holyrood elections. Whether that’s meaningful or not is another question…
#39 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 3:29 pm
Essentially Jeff, the picture Fred’s link refers to highlights that the big four parties all lost votes, with the Greens and SSP etc all gaining a fair bit… but the most substantial difference of all is independent candidates, who got about 10 times the votes they would get in a Holyrood election. The areas that traditionally vote for independent councillors also happen to vote in large numbers for the SNP in national elections.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg715/scaled.php?server=715&filename=scotsmay11vsmay12votesh.png&res=landing
It’s not perfect, since it doesn’t fully explain the differences in the three main cities, but it certainly explains why the national share has gone down about 10%. It would seem a lot of people who vote for independents like independence 😛
Incidentally, my (in progress) LPW-aping analysis of the Aberdeen results will look at if and how the seats would change in Aberdeen if you remove the independent councillors from the equation. Off the top of my head, I know at least one ward where the extremely popular independent was elected at the expense of the SNP; and one of the independent councillors (Marie Boulton) stood for Holyrood last year and got nowhere, whereas she surpassed the 1st preference threshold with absolute ease last week – thus illustrating that people vote for different people for different reasons in different elections.
#40 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 3:42 pm
I should mention it was rlemkin who pointed out the Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen thing…
#41 by scottish_skier on May 10, 2012 - 7:41 pm
Ah yes, good to see my graph popping up. Thanks for spreading it around.
Yes, the SNP has not lost that large share of the holyrood vote – it never had it at council level in the first place.
From the poll data I have (which is just about everything), there is nothing to suggest the SNP are not sitting at a Holyrood vote share just as good as May 11. That was the case for the last proper polls (random samples) by MORI back in Jan/Feb which had them on ~50%. Poll subsets also suggest they are comfortably ahead of Labour for Westminster too.
P.S. I hope nobody looks at yougov online surveys of registered people (i.e. not a poll) – don’t go there unless you know what you are looking at. They just love assuming that because you voted Labour before that you’ll always be loyal. Works south of the border but can’t handle what has happened in Scotland. Take that very dodgy weighting factor out and you match proper polls….
Cheers,
SS
#42 by Barbarian on May 10, 2012 - 1:56 pm
Had a further think.
Bottom line – the SNP absolutely cannot replace Salmond before the Referendum.
But I think his popularity has peaked. And given what lies ahead it can only go down. And like it or not Salmond is the person who has given the SNP success. No one else comes close.
#43 by An Duine Gruamach on May 10, 2012 - 2:46 pm
Peaked? People said that in 2007. We’ve been confidently told that the shine has come off after Glenrothes, Glasgow North East, the Gathering, GE 2010… there’s a lot of wishful thinking around from folk who’d rather they didn’t have to oppose him.
#44 by Barbarian on May 10, 2012 - 6:32 pm
Erm, GE 2010. Remind me, how many seats did the SNP gain? None. Saying that, their campaign was total mince. In East Kilbride they could have floored McCann they way Fabiani did to Kerr. Didn’t even come close.
#45 by An Duine Gruamach on May 10, 2012 - 11:58 pm
You’ve missed my point. People said after GE 2010 that the shine had come off, that was the bubble burst, the end of Salmond (and therefore the SNP) was in sight etc. etc. etc. Remind me, what happened a year later?
#46 by Alastair on May 10, 2012 - 2:06 pm
Daniel I agree with your points and I can confirm I too share your lack believe that Glasgow is Scotland. In a recent newspaper poll in the Highlands the support for Independence was in the high 70s. We have never embraced the union, just bided our time.
Your point about Salmond being the Big Beast had me thinking about Jupiter acting as a gravitational pull on all debris flying around our galaxy. In a way Salmond takes this role within the SNP. All attacks are at him, all headlines are at him, he has stood more attacks than the combined Unionist Leaders since the parliamnet opened yet he still dominates.
if you took him out of the firing line. Would the remainder be able to weather the attacks with such ease? Is it worth taking a chance?
My opinion is No. Keep Salmond. Best defense and attack we have ever had.
#47 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Doug.
#48 by Jeff on May 10, 2012 - 3:28 pm
What do you call a man with a spade on his head?
#49 by Doug Daniel on May 10, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Whatever you like, because he’s dead.
Oh wait, you said “on”, not “in”. Doug then!
#50 by Robert Blake on May 10, 2012 - 3:38 pm
It certainly would not only be Scottish, but definitely Celtic, to rid yourself of a leader like Salmond at a time like this.
If you have Douglas Alexander, Longshanker & Barbarian supporting you then I think that shows that your suggestion is definitely one that appeals to the NO campaign.
If Alex Salmond sneezed it would be seized on by the media ad turned into a major character flaw.
Johann Lamont can tell untruths to Parliament & Gordon Mathieson can solicit support from the Orange Order with promises of more parades.
Nary a word.
Something should go before the Referendum, the one sided nature of reporting
#51 by Gaz on May 10, 2012 - 3:48 pm
It is much easier to personalise the SNP as Alex Salmond than it will be the Independence movement.
My observation is that the only line of attack the anti-indys have is on Alex and they will therefore try to conflate the Yes campaign and Salmond. The SNP might even be encouraging this approach and it would certainly explain why Salmond has handled the Murdoch / Trump stuff as he has.
Once this campaign gets up and running it is going to look very different to a normal party political campaign and it will suit it for its opponents to be concentrating their fire on Salmond rather than engaging with the wider movement.
Also Jeff, don’t be fooled by the West of Scotland thing. Folk there may not vote SNP in huge numbers by my experience is that Labour voters tend to break 1/3 for, 1/3 against, 1/3 don’t know as far as Independence is concerned.
Whereas every SNP activist will be out for the Yes campaign, only some Labour activists will be out for the No campaign with many sitting it out completely and many more on the Yes campaign.
I’m pretty confident a majority of ‘natural’ Labour voters will vote Yes.
#52 by BaffieBox on May 10, 2012 - 4:01 pm
Nae offence to Dougie, but this only underlines my support Salmond at this point in time. Dougie and his like have milked the system for all it’s worth with the absolute minimum of benefit to Glasgow or Scotland. For all his ills, I’d have Salmond over the likes of Dougie Alexander and Jim Murphy any day of the week.
And that’s why they’ll do anything to get him punted, and why the SNP will do everything to keep him in office.
The prospect of dropping Salmond looks good on paper, but would be utterly bonkers out in the real world.
#53 by Barbarian on May 10, 2012 - 6:28 pm
Type your comment here
Murdoch wasn’t part of the equation then. He is part of things now and the biggest danger to the SNP, and particularly Salmond.
Robert, I am critical of Salmond because I don’t trust him. He refused point blank to answer whether his phone had been hacked or not. Nothing. Three times he was asked in his position as FIrst Minister of the Scottish Parliament, not the leader of the SNP. If his phone HAS been hacked, his position will be untenable as he is putting party politics and the defence of a commerical organisation – already implicated in alleged illegal acts – before the position of his office. Either that or he simply wants to grandstand at Levenson.
I can be damn sure if it was a Labour FM in a similar position people like you would be screaming for his or her blood.
I have no preference for party politics. I vote SNP as they are currently the best choice. I’m in favour of independence but gradually getting dragged back to the fence, mainly due to the SNP’s policy on Europe. And I’m as critical of any party. The SNP happens to be the party of government, therefore the primary target.
#54 by An Duine Gruamach on May 10, 2012 - 8:15 pm
I’d be following you if he was refusing to reveal whether or not he’s been hacked full stop. But he isn’t – he’s going to disclose at the inquiry.
#55 by Robert Blake on May 11, 2012 - 12:09 am
Firstly actually I’m a Labour voter, or was until very recently, but I am also in favour of Independence. I hope post Independence something like the proper Labour party will reemerge
I don’t claim credit for this analysis, but I “overheard it” on Twitter.
Salmond can’t win on that question, it is very much a “when did you stop beating your wife” type question.
1) If he says no, then it will be spun that he as near as colluded with hacking Labour
2) If he answers yes, then he gets it in the neck for dealing with the devil afterwards
3) If he doesn’t answer then he gets accused of something to hide
#56 by Iain Menzies on May 10, 2012 - 6:39 pm
If i was in the SNP i would think it was a crazy idea to ditch salmond.
Not being in the SNP i think its a crazy idea.
Personally i dont think Salmond is really a net asset, see the marmite thing.
The problem that the SNP has isnt one they can do anything about. That is they dont have any control over who they are up against.
Now on a day to day basis thats not a major problem right now, as the Scottish leaders of the other parties aint quite as good as Salmond….
Still, tho i know the SNP love him dearly, Salmond is very possibly one of the most over-rated politicians of the last 50 years.
I mean seriously, who has be beaten in a straight up electoral fight? Jack McConnell? IAIN GRAY!?
If people like Brown and Darling, or John Reid and George Robertson, or Robin Cook if he was still with us start to get involved in a meaningful way the nearer we get to the referendum then Salmond will start to look very decidedly average.
#57 by CW on May 11, 2012 - 12:56 am
Salmond already flattened George ‘Nado’ Robertson when he was Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, leading to his removal from the role and subsequent replacement by the late Donald Dewar. At a public debate on devolution in the Tory years at the Royal High School in Edinburgh an audience member asked the following question: ‘We all know what the first choice of you gentlemen is, between independence, devolution or the status quo. But what’s your second choice?’ In the words of Neal Ascherson, ‘a small cruel smile appeared on Salmond’s face.’ Labour had been trumpeting the slogan ‘the status quo is not an option’. Ascherson describes Robertson as having ‘squirmed, blethered puffed. He grew pink with fury but found no way of words, no formula of escape. Soon the audience began to laugh at him, and then to interrupt. He was helpless.’
And John Reid’s shady dealings make Salmond look like the choirboy he once was. The only thing justifying your argument seems to be an undying belief that the Westminster brigade are obviously superior to Salmond by dint of the institution(s) in which they serve or have served. There isn’t any proof to prove this either way, certainly they’re all better than Gray, but the Unionist side have to lump the fact that none of these Labour politicians actually wanted to serve in an institution whose creation they purportedly passionately believed in. Not even as a retirement number.
#58 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2012 - 9:53 am
Here’s Salmond making David Cameron look decidedly less than decidedly average, without even uttering a word: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/6887287639_60f2757cbd_b.jpg
And what of George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, Michael Moore etc? This is the “political elite” of the UK at the moment, and Salmond could wipe the floor with any of them, and indeed already has in some cases. All three unionist parties suffer from weakness of leadership in both chambers, not just Holyrood.
Alistair Darling has already tried to get involved, but has perhaps watched himself back and realised that he comes across as panicky when trying to argue that the sky is going to cave in. Like Brown, he can be dismissed simply by reminding us who was in charge of the UK economy when it went up the swanny and asking people if they should really believe in his fortune telling skills. As for John Reid, the guy is just an earlier incarnation of Ian Davidson. I would dearly love the good doctor to head up the unionist campaign.
That’s not to say that Salmond is unbeatable, and certainly they’re generally better than what passes for politicians in the unionist benches in Holyrood, but that’s not really saying much.
#59 by Allan on May 10, 2012 - 8:21 pm
Hmmm, interesting a “Salmond must go” piece that doesn’t once veer into tabloid “knocking piece” territory.
It’s true that the SNP need to gain traction in the West of Scotland. However, there were big mistakes that the SNP made during campaigning for last weeks elections. In terms of Glasgow, a lot of stuff has been discussed elsewhere (regarding tactics and the gaffes made by candidates). There were other factors at play as well (unpopular incumbancy factor in Renfrewshire for example) which will not be relevant come 2014, while there are factors which would have been invisible last week that will be pivotal in the run up to the referendum (The state of the Euro, the Economy to name just two)
One bad local election campaign (which saw a lower turnout than last years Holyrood Elections) does not make a crisis. I do sense though that we have reached the high water mark of this current SNP administration, and that the only way will be down.
Whether it is Murdoch, Trump, Renewable’s, Hubris or the realisation that his time may be nearing the end – I suspect that Salmond will find it more and more difficult to walk on water.
That’s not to say he should go, there are way too many… ah… “Young turks” at the top of our political parties, all of them with very little experience (which is a reason why Salmond is probebly the canniest operator in British politics at the moment). In any case, it’s not as if he is seriously “Jeremy Hunt style” damaged goods, well at least not at the moment anyway. However, were he to go I would think that we would go when his chosen successor had the best chance to win (or to quote Wilson “I’m making way for an older man”)
#60 by Longshanker on May 11, 2012 - 9:17 am
Personally. I stopped trusting Salmond’s judgement in 2009 over the Diageo, Johnnie Walker affair, where he was exposed as an opposition style politician in an alleged statesman’s position.
The Sunday Sun ‘Day of Destiny’ headline brazenly displayed a contempt for the Scottish electorate and Parliament. I fet insulted when I realised the FM had written an endorsement of a paper with such a headline.
The revelation of his willingness to lobby for what would have been a toxic and corrosive media monopoly was where I genuinely stopped liking or trusting Salmond.
He’s toxic goods, like it or not. The faithful will stay with him. But there won’t be enough to see a yes vote for independence come the referendum.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Nicola for leader.
#61 by R Pollock on May 11, 2012 - 5:06 pm
That’s interesting about the Diageo thing. I actually took the complete opposite from it. I thought he came across really well and was willing to fight for jobs in a community. Funny how people take different things from events!
Is this a parody?
#62 by scottish_skier on May 11, 2012 - 7:23 pm
Eh? What has a labour/lib/Tory voter choosing to vote for independence got to do with Alex Salmond? He’s just a party leader. Support for independence exists in all parties, it’s just strongest among SNP voters. Have a look at poll breakdowns where they also asked voting intention – it’s all there.
At the moment, running averages of all polls (random samples such as MORI, ICM, TNS etc) have the Yes vs No around equal, with the yes maybe edging ahead of the no recently as the Westminster coalition goes from bad to worse and the anti-independence attacks strengthen. Add in the ‘Like the idea’ but ‘unsure’ who invariably vote yes on the day (history tells us that is what happens in independence referenda) and a yes vote is currently favoured. The only way it would not be is if the no vote was polling >50% consistently, which it has only done possibly very briefly for a few months (post 2007 election) since 1998 (where my complete poll dataset goes back to). Why do you think the unionist parties want a referendum sharpish? It’s because it is the best chance they have of scraping a no vote. It’s not rocket science.
Independence aside – agreed Nicola would make a good leader when the time comes.
#63 by An Duine Gruamach on May 11, 2012 - 9:37 am
I really don’t think Salmond is any trouble at all with his image. Folk who don’t like him have been moaning about him being arrogant and smug for years – and over that time he’s still been far and away the most popular politician in the country. So much for alienating people.