Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I thought she'd go between the Westminster general election and the next Scottish election.

It's interesting that her independence strategy has caused a lot of internal pushback - including from previously very loyal politicians like Stewart MacDonald.

As you say add to that the trans issue after the Isla Bryson case - and this brewing scandal over her party funding (who could've guessed that a party leader being married to the party's CEO might cause problems). Makes it all feel a bit like Arden - want to resign from a position of strength but also things aren't looking good and you can get out before you get the blame.

I think I've seen polls with the SNP (and independence) losing ten points since the Isla Bryson news broke and Sturgeon's really struggled to find an answer on that.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally it'll be an interesting contest given how dominant Sturgeon's been within the party:


John Swinney has been leader before and it did not go well. Kate Forbes is Scottish Finance Minister - but only 30 and (a bit like Tim Farron) a devout Christian, she's in the Free Church of Scotland which is quite conservative. Like with Farron I suspect that will be a huge problem.

Flynn is an MP so feels unlikely to become leader - though, of course, the SNP loudly stated that we should have a general election both after Johnson resigned and after Truss' resignation, so they could have a Scottish election and get him a seat if they wanted

I think that makes Angus Robertson most likely and he was very impressive as the leader of the SNP group in Westminster. He's Depute Leader of the SNP but has otherwise been parked in a less key role of the Scottish cabinet (Constitution, External Affairs and Culture). My understanding is he's more close to Alex Salmond than a lot of the SNP leadership (a number of SNP politicians defected to join Salmond's new party - particularly over the trans reforms which Salmond gave a big speech against just last week) and has generally not been super-close to Sturgeon - I think there's been reports of friction between them in the past.

But it would be striking that despite her length of time in office and her relative success if her successor wasn't someone aligned with her - especially as the SNP group in Westminster didn't elect her preferred candidate to lead them.

[The Brain]

Nice.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting hot mic of the press at her resignation statement (which might make some of the gushing eulogies coming out look a little dubious) - BBC reporter asked "one factual point - have you been or do you expect to be questioned by the police?" (around the party funding scandal that's apparently being investigated).

She said she wouldn't comment on an ongoing police investigation. But then the mic carried on and the journalist was heard saying to someone else that they don't know "but there's a lot of stuff swirling around." It's around allegations that there was fraud in the SNP finances which implicates Sturgeon's husband who is the party's chief executive and because it involves a loan he made to the SNP of over £100,000 it has, obviously, raised questions about what Sturgeon knew.

Again I always feel with Sturgeon there's a lot of vibes politics going on. Everything the Tories get criticised for in the UK in general, the SNP have also been doing and sometimes worse - numerous corruption scandals, mingling of personal and private, divisive politics, adopting a very politicised (and not particularly accurate) history in the Scottish curriculum, plus a pretty dreadful record on policy. But somehow she's seen as a sensible grown-up politician who lots of people, who should know better, admire.

Can't help but feel something similar with Jacinda Ardern - who was in coalition with New Zealand's version of UKIP and has passed some of the most stringent anti-immigration laws going; or, for that matter, Merkel as sensible "leader of the free world" - except for Minsk II and Nordstream 2.

It's a bit like broadly socially liberal, big spending Boris Johnson being interpreted as the right-wing alternative to Sunak who's very dry economically and a true believer in Brexit but seen as the more moderate centrist figure. I don't know if it's always been like this but the impact of style/affect on how politicians are perceived seems really outsized at the minute (perhaps especially because I think there is a trend to people stanning individuals in a way that I'm not sure is healthy whether it's Trump, RBG or Ardern).

[Admiral Yi]

Stanning?

[Sheilbh]

Fanboying sort of.

[HVC]

Stanning?

Term based on a Eminem song. Like sheilbh said, a fan.

[The Brain]

"Stanning?" Boomers are cringe.

[garbon]

Now that there is an opening for leader of SNP, how about Truss staging her comeback running for head of that party?

[HVC]

what about David Cameron? he lead the UK out of the EU, it'd be fitting to lead  Scotland out of the UK. A nice symmetry

[Sheilbh]

Don't know if anyone's been following it - but I'm really not sure about the whole Raab bullying accusations and investigation.

There are a series of allegations that have been made by civil servants. It's under investigation by a senior barrister at the request of the government. It feels likely that he would have to resign/be fired if the results of that inquiry are bad and that they should be respected.

There may be more that the investigation is hearing, but to give a sense from Newsnight:
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1623297596516188161

And from the FT today:

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
"Dominic Raab adopted an unusual approach to dealing with policy papers submitted by civil servants: grading them on a scale of one to four....he would tot them up to create a private log of his officials' performance"
One official said that minor office errors — such as not sorting documents into folders arranged with tabs — could trigger a "meltdown" from Raab.

"You're on eggshells because the smallest thing could set him off."
"He proactively goes out of his way to belittle and undermine people," said the official. "He'll shut them down mid-sentence to demonstrate control. He runs meetings with a totally unnecessary level of aggression"

A 2nd official said Raab "humiliated people..he put people down"
another (supportive) ex colleague admitted Raab could be "controlling" but said: "That is because he wants to avoid political traps by being all over the detail."

"He was never a bully," added this person. "He's very gruff and insists on high standards but he's also sensible."
this person concludes:

"with serial leaking from past and current civil servants there is a degradation of parts of the civil service and its political neutrality...far too many people are trying to pre-judge the process of the investigation."
but another official said Raab was known for "freezing out" officials who had given the "wrong" advice during meetings, and for his silent rage

a different civil servant said the effect of the minister's behaviour on some colleagues was "devastating"

There's some that sounds serious - "meltdown" but then "silent rage" and "I saw him seething at other seniorr people. Hard staring". But no swearing, no shouting - "micro-aggressions" that "demeaned" senior people like interrupting them or telling them to "stop talking" in a meeting.

All of the allegations seem to have been about how he dealt with senior civil servants and officials - the worst I've seen about someone who was junior was that he told them a paper "wasn't good enough" which isn't constructive feedback but I don't think is bullying. It seems to come from his private office (basically Yes, Minister) not junior civil servants who might be presenting to or writing for him. That might shape my view because I think I'd view these allegations as a lot worse if they were from junior civil servants.

It's not good management and he sounds like a dick. But I'm not sure if I feel like it is bullying in a way that serious enough for a Deputy PM and cabinet minister to step down/be fired - and it's amazing how quickly views on this have changed for the better from Gordon Brown's behaviour just 12 years ago (which was wrong then) or, say, John Bercow's. But the political consequences are high when it feels more like the sort of thing where someone needs to have a word/that interview says he has apparently tried to change "he bought everyone in his private office coffee".

But then that interview says how better everyone felt when Brandon Lewis came in so it feels like there's something there.

[Sheilbh]

Starmer in Ukraine and going to meet Zelenskiy which is very good - again especially showing it's absolute cross-party support on this issue:

Keir Starmer visits Kyiv to emphasise Labour's backing for Ukraine
Party leader meets Volodymyr Zelenskiy and says UK position will remain the same if he becomes PM

'There has to be justice': Keir Starmer in Irpin on Thursday. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images
Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor
@jessicaelgot
Thu 16 Feb 2023 17.00 GMT
Last modified on Thu 16 Feb 2023 18.18 GMT

Keir Starmer has travelled to Kyiv to meet Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to emphasise Labour's commitment to backing action to arm the country against a renewed offensive by Russia.

The Labour leader said the UK's position on Ukraine would remain the same if there was a change of government next year, as he travelled to the suburbs of Irpin and Bucha where Russia committed significant atrocities last year as it was pushed back by Ukrainian forces.

"It's incredible to see the evidence of atrocities that I've seen this morning. Photographs of civilians in the outskirts of Kyiv blindfolded, with their arms tied behind their back," Starmer told Reuters.

He said he had travelled to Ukraine to express solidarity with the country and to emphasise the need to pursue justice and reparations against perpetrators. "There has to be justice for this. There has to be justice in The Hague and there has to be proper reparation in the rebuilding of Ukraine," he said.

Speaking after his conversation with Zelenskiy, Starmer said it was a "constructive meeting" that had touched on the new military support Ukraine needs, as Kyiv continues to urge western leaders to give it fighter jets.

"We spoke about the need for that justice to cover both the use of Russian state assets for reconstruction and the need for there to be prosecutions for war crimes," Starmer said.

"I was able to tell him that should there be a change of government when we have a general election here, the support for Ukraine will remain the same. It's a very important message for me to be able to relay to the president face-to-face, and I've been able to do that this afternoon."

Starmer said Zelenskiy was very concerned about whether Labour would continue support through weapons and training. "I stressed that the Labour party supports and would maintain the defence, training, and technological support the current UK government is providing," he said.

"I've said throughout this conflict there will be no difference between the political parties on this, so we will continue to work with the government to see what further support we can provide."

The trip is the start of an international charm campaign for the Labour leader, during which he will visit the Munich security conference over the weekend for meetings with world leaders.

The Guardian reported last year that Starmer had approached the Zelenskiy government about the possibility of a visit as opposition leader. Starmer has previously visited the Polish border and British troops in Estonia to affirm Labour's "unshakeable" commitment to Nato, which a Labour government helped to found.

The trip has been postponed previously, during the turmoil of the collapse of Liz Truss's government and because of the security situation in Ukraine.

Starmer is not the first national opposition leader to visit Kyiv. Friedrich Merz, the head of Germany's biggest opposition party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), travelled to the capital in May and was received by Zelenskiy.

Starmer is keen to portray himself to the Ukrainians as a reliable partner and strong supporter. At prime minister's questions during Zelenskiy's visit to London this month, he used all his time at the dispatch box to stress cross-party unity on Ukraine, rather than challenging Rishi Sunak.

He said Labour "doesn't just hope for Ukrainian victory, we believe in it" and highlighted his time as a barrister representing victims of Serbian aggression at the international court of justice in The Hague. "We in this house have a duty to stand on the shoulders of giants and support Ukraine's fight for freedom, liberty and victory," Starmer said.

Particularly striking as the visits to NATO facilities in Estonia and Poland were very much seen as an attempt to put distance between Corbyn's leadership (he personally opposed NATO membership and is still pushing for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations in Ukraine).

Starmer's tweet:

Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Britain's support for Ukraine does not waver. 

Ukraine must receive proper reparations and a proper rebuilding of its country.

Labour will always stand with Ukraine to achieve this goal.

 🇬🇧🇺🇦

Also it comes the day after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission ended the special measures on Labour over anti-semitism, which Starmer marked with a speech including an apology (again) to the Jewish community and describing the changes as irreversible (they're not) - noting that if the left don't like them, "the door is open. You can leave". He also said in the press questions after that Corbyn wouldn't be allowed to re-join the party so wouldn't be Labour candidate at the next election.

So a very big pitch this week from Labour that they've changed.

[The Larch]

I don't think it's good. He's not a government representative, it's not his job to do diplomacy for the UK.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think it's good. He's not a government representative, it's not his job to do diplomacy for the UK.

He's probably the next PM. He's already met Scholz (from a sister party) as well as visited NATO facilities - and a key reason David Lammy is Foreign Secretary is because he has close ties to the Democrats and an instruction to get a meeting with Biden before the next election. It's normally a big get for opposition leaders - shows they can operate on the world stage - Blair got a meeting with Clinton, Thatcher blocked Kinnock from getting a meeting with Reagan (though he got one with Bush).

This will have been coordinated with the UK government. He'll be getting support from the embassy etc. I think probably the UK government recognises that it's important to Ukraine to hear directly that there will be no change in policy after an election. That's an important message from the British state.

Although I can't really think of an example if there's been a difference in policy. Starmer's messages - support for Ukraine, support for NATO - are very much ones the British state will want.

[The Larch]

He's probably the next PM.

But he is not right now and that's what matters.

This will have been coordinated with the UK government

This is what separates us. Over here if the leader of the opposition does something like this is normally to spite the government, not in coordination with them, and is done in order to score domestic points rather than in order to do something productive.