Scottish Independence Referendum 2

[Clydeside_Sheep]

8 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

It's statements like that, that make me believe that you don't really understand what devolution is. 

It's an absolute fact that the SG has control of around 25% of Scotland's economic levers, leaving of copurse around 75% in the hands of Westminster. 

A great irony of the devolved settlements, is that for the Scottish government to succeed, we need whoever is in power at Westminster to be doing well. When you have the absolute clusterfuck that we have at Westminster, the SG has no chance at all of succeeding.........and that's before we even get into the madness of the SG taking on Westminster in the kind of culture war issues that right-wingers love. 

It's pretty remarkable how many Scots do not understand how limited the powers of the SG government are. I have to put that down to strong personalities like Salmond and Sturgeon being so politically omnipresent over the last 17 years or so. 

Power devolved, is absolutely, 100%, power retained.

 

You said the tories were trying to destroy devolution, you havent provided any evidence of how they are trying to do this?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

7 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

Only accurate thing I think you've ever said.

How dare you Sir? I say all manner of accurate things!

[Crashnyploshnit]

It’s a good thing that racist is no longer First Minister. Glad to see the back of him. 

[NEM]

1 minute ago, Crashnyploshnit said:

It’s a good thing that racist is no longer First Minister. Glad to see the back of him. 

Nice to see him raising the white flag today 😆

[Schapenneuker]

3 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

You said the tories were trying to destroy devolution, you havent provided any evidence of how they are trying to do this?

I could talk about EU legislation which was previously handled by devolved administrations, but came back under Westminster control in January 2021. Much of the 'power' was retained by Westminster. 

That's an obvious example and all the 'proof' you need, but I could point out that only the blind and stupid would disagree that this poisonous Tory government would gladly weaken devolution to the extent that it would no longer be worthwhile, cheered on by their lapdogs in the press and a small number of Uncle McToms here in Scotland. 

But I won't, because you'll simply come back with some idiotic, Unionist rubbish about 'evidence', despite the 'evidence' being there. 

 

[Schapenneuker]

17 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I agree, especially about going for an election and perhaps regrouping out of power.  Post salmond, the SNP have wasted 10 years in power.  Maybe spending time coming up with an economic case for independence would be worthwhile, rather than the daily farce of fire-fighting messes of their own making.

However, financially I dont think the party would relish two election campaigns in one year.  Its a long time since they got any significant donations  and that will likely continue as long as operation branchform goes on.

If I was SNP, I would also choose Forbes - to be honest, I think many SNP voters and politicians think what they are told to think, and so I dont think her values would be quite so alien.  I do think Scotland is a much more socially conservative place than is often recognised and on many issues Forbes would chime with the wider population.  Most people were willing to accept gay marriage, (in a society where marriage had already been long diminished via divorce, cohabiting etc), but the trans nonsense is what did for Sturgeon.

 

Childish, idiotic garbage. Makes your post absolutely worthless. 

 

[BrianFaePerth]

My replacement, WHITE!

https://news.sky.com/story/who-could-replace-humza-yousaf-as-scotlands-first-minister-13125590

[The Buzzard]

34 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

If they cant appoint a new FM - with Holyroods blessing - in 28 days there will be an holyrood election.

Being able to do this isnt certain, given the SNP dont have a majority.

We got Sunak and Boris because the Torys had a comfy Westminster majority and so could just appoint who they wanted.

Just to clarify that I think the 28 days to appoint a new FM kicks in only when he formally resigns that position. What he's done today is to indicate that he's standing down as party leader so that a leadership election takes place.
Parliament has 28 days to agree the appointment of a new FM (that'll be whoever wins the leadership election, plus the opposition parties would also put forward their leaders for FM). 

Apologies if that is what you are saying but wasn't entirely clear to me. 
 

There's probably also the possibility that the vote of no confidence in HY still goes ahead and he has to resign immediately...I think. 

Addrd to that, the Labour no confidence motion in the entire government could also see the whole lot resign if that vote was passed. I doubt it would get the numbers but you never know. 

[Parklife]

12 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

I could talk about EU legislation which was previously handled by devolved administrations, but came back under Westminster control in January 2021. Much of the 'power' was retained by Westminster. 

That's an obvious example and all the 'proof' you need, but I could point out that only the blind and stupid would disagree that this poisonous Tory government would gladly weaken devolution to the extent that it would no longer be worthwhile, cheered on by their lapdogs in the press and a small number of Uncle McToms here in Scotland. 

But I won't, because you'll simply come back with some idiotic, Unionist rubbish about 'evidence', despite the 'evidence' being there. 

 

You're arguing with someone who himself has said he'd like to see the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

25 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

Childish, idiotic garbage. Makes your post absolutely worthless. 

 

Disagree, I think it is accurate.

How else to explain a party where so many bland, unremarkable people rise to the very top simply through ultra-loyalty to a benefactor?  

Yousaf, Gilruth and MacAllan are all examples of this from the Sturgeon years.  Neil Gray is the example from Humza's time.

How else to explain a party where a piece of nonsense like the GRR could get to the stage of almost being enacted in law?

Sturgeon was notoriously intolerant of different opinions.  This article from early-Sturgeon period (2016) already describes the party as being "too intolerant of dissent".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/20/scottish-elections-snp-dominance-leaves-opponents-fighting-for-second

Then you have the attempted legal assassination of Salmond and how Forbes was treated in the leadership campaign for her own values, in the effort to shoehorn Humza in.  This despite both UK parliaments noting when creating gay marriage that people who retained Forbes views had a view "worthy of respect" (were they lying?).

Humza tried to continue in the same vein, with his suspension of Fergus Ewing.  Its a system which empowers yes-men, discourages discussion and alienates thinkers.  Its also the sign of paranoid and weak leadership which puts self-preservation before the party goals.

Finally, in the last 10 years the party has not progressed one jot and now appears to have run out of road.  if large swathes of the party are not unthinking (or, at least, easily impressed) how could this stasis have gone on for 10 years?

Edit - remember, the party chose Humza over Forbes last year.  it was tight, but thats what they did.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

13 minutes ago, The Buzzard said:

Just to clarify that I think the 28 days to appoint a new FM kicks in only when he formally resigns that position. What he's done today is to indicate that he's standing down as party leader so that a leadership election takes place.
Parliament has 28 days to agree the appointment of a new FM (that'll be whoever wins the leadership election, plus the opposition parties would also put forward their leaders for FM). 

Apologies if that is what you are saying but wasn't entirely clear to me. 
 

There's probably also the possibility that the vote of no confidence in HY still goes ahead and he has to resign immediately...I think. 

Addrd to that, the Labour no confidence motion in the entire government could also see the whole lot resign if that vote was passed. I doubt it would get the numbers but you never know. 

Thanks, thats a better explanation than mine! Interesting that the no confidence motion is still in a Yousaf government then, which the greens pledged not to support over the weekend.

[Schapenneuker]

32 minutes ago, Parklife said:

You're arguing with someone who himself has said he'd like to see the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. 

I realised that later, and I also realise that there's little point in arguing with someone as blinkered as that. 

The irony of someone who supports a party that is putting forward the Rwanda legislation and also introducing legislation penalising those who are mentally ill, while at the same time criticising the SG, is beyond hilarious. 

 

[The Buzzard]

17 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Thanks, thats a better explanation than mine! Interesting that the no confidence motion is still in a Yousaf government then, which the greens pledged not to support over the weekend.

As best I know the two different No Confidence motions are still on the cards for being debated this week. 

HY saying he will resign once a new leader is elected might mean the Tories pull their motion. They probably see their job as being done. 

Labour's motion, I think, might still go ahead but I can't see the Greens or Alba voting for it as i think that'll likely see the need for an extraordinary general election. 

Should an EGE take place I think we also need to still have the scheduled Scottish GE in 2026 also (Scotland Act stipulates the 5-year Sessions that we have). I don't believe an EGE resets the clock for 5 years so parties would need to deal with the time, money and resources to have 2 elections in a couple of years. Not great for anybody. Least of all us as the electorate because I think we'd be mired in an even worse state than we already are. 

[Schapenneuker]

The vote of no confidence in the FM is now meaningless and should/will be withdrawn by the Tories. Labour will proceed with a vote of no confidence in the SNP, but everyone knows that they have no chance of winning it. 

It's hard to believe that any of the main parties would like an early Scottish election....the SNP need time to re-group, the Tories could well be further obliterated, and Labour would take the risk that a 'Kate Forbes bounce' could give them a bit of an unexpected kick in the nuts. 

There might be crumbs to be picked up by small parties like the Lib Dems, Greens and Alba, but I don't get the feeling that any of them are interested in forcing an EGE.

So we'll plough forward until 2026. 

 

 

[Parklife]

Not seeing Angus Robertson quoted as standing anywhere. Has he ruled himself out already? 

[Bluto10]

lol

[caledonia]

23 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Not seeing Angus Robertson quoted as standing anywhere. Has he ruled himself out already? 

He should not be near it as to many people know the truth.

[Parklife]

8 minutes ago, caledonia said:

He should not be near it as to many people know the truth.

What's "the truth"? 

[The Gee Man]

10 minutes ago, caledonia said:

He should not be near it as to many people know the truth.

Progress Scotland Ltd maybe 

[caledonia]

2 minutes ago, Parklife said:

What's "the truth"? 

Sure you can work it out its as easy as ABC

[Schapenneuker]

The Grauniad saying that John Swinney is the clear favourite. 

A decent man, but one who has little or no personality, is a poor orator and is uninspiring, and who is permanently thought of as being a part of the Salmond/Sturgeon administrations. 

On top of that, he's already been leader of the party (and failed). 

He's respected as an administrator, but for God's sake he's not a leader. 

Edit to say that The Telegraph already has a headline accusing Swinney of supporting transgender self-ID at 16, and supporting a 'LGBT curriculum'...whatever that means. 

Lol. These right wing fuckwits and their nasty wee culture wars. What are they like, eh ?

 

[For Fecks Sake]

2 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

The Grauniad saying that John Swinney is the clear favourite. 

A decent man, but one who has little or no personality, is a poor orator and is uninspiring, and who is permanently thought of as being a part of the Salmond/Sturgeon administrations. 

On top of that, he's already been leader of the party (and failed). 

He's respected as an administrator, but for God's sake he's not a leader. 

 

Worse than...

[Clydeside_Sheep]

1 hour ago, Schapenneuker said:

I realised that later, and I also realise that there's little point in arguing with someone as blinkered as that. 

The irony of someone who supports a party that is putting forward the Rwanda legislation and also introducing legislation penalising those who are mentally ill, while at the same time criticising the SG, is beyond hilarious. 

 

You prove my point about nationalists over and over, in that you are disinclined to engage with people of a different pov, anyone with a different opinion is "blinkered".

You lapse easily into caricatures / tropes of who these different people are.  I dont vote for the tories, though I do support the rwanda legislaiton, it already has illegal immigrants fleeing into rep ireland.

I dont know what this legislation against the mentally ill is, but if its something anti-trans then it can only be a good thing.  

[Dons79]

1 minute ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

You prove my point about nationalists over and over, in that you are disinclined to engage with people of a different pov, anyone with a different opinion is "blinkered".

You lapse easily into caricatures / tropes of who these different people are.  I dont vote for the tories, though I do support the rwanda legislaiton, it already has illegal immigrants fleeing into rep ireland.

I dont know what this legislation against the mentally ill is, but if its something anti-trans then it can only be a good thing.  

Christianity in full show here. Enjoy the gates of hell.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

37 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

The Grauniad saying that John Swinney is the clear favourite. 

A decent man, but one who has little or no personality, is a poor orator and is uninspiring, and who is permanently thought of as being a part of the Salmond/Sturgeon administrations. 

On top of that, he's already been leader of the party (and failed). 

He's respected as an administrator, but for God's sake he's not a leader. 

Edit to say that The Telegraph already has a headline accusing Swinney of supporting transgender self-ID at 16, and supporting a 'LGBT curriculum'...whatever that means. 

Lol. These right wing fuckwits and their nasty wee culture wars. What are they like, eh ?

 

Agree with analysis of swinney.

Re what the telegraph accuses him of:

- its a matter of record he did vote for the GRR which would have allowed 16 yr old to self declare a gender with no medical input or evidence (all of this is obscene nonsense of course).

- as for an LGBT curriculum, its this kind of thing:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotland-first-country-in-the-world-to-embed-lgbt-education-in-school-curriculum-3393389

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23741392.first-school-scotland-embeds-lgbt-education-curriculum/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/17/scottish-primary-schools-appoint-children-lgbt-champions/

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/12504427/scottish-primary-schools-lgbt-champions-trans/

For a nationalist, you seem very poorly informed of what they spend their parliamentary time on, instead of independence.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

Not seeing Angus Robertson quoted as standing anywhere. Has he ruled himself out already? 

No, he probably on some jolly abroad at our expense.

Perhaps its Tartan week in Tajikistan, or opening a new SNP-embassy in Burkina Faso.

[Parklife]

12 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

You prove my point about nationalists

You're the biggest "nationalist" on here, son. 

[jamiesd]

Politics Lolz

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The always interesting Robin McAlpine says the SNP must appoint Kate Forbes, saying this is their last roll of the dice before the Holyrood Elections:

http://robinmcalpine.org/the-snp-must-choose-forbes/

However, Wings says the Greens have done a U-turn and said they will support the Humza Government in the confidence voting, which most probably means Forbes has no chance:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-feral-ferret/

(having said that, they U-turned on supporting Humza - and their climate targets etc - why not Forbes too?  If you dont like Harvies principles, he has others).

[For Fecks Sake]

2 hours ago, jamiesd said:

Politics Lolz

And yet here you are commenting on it 👍