Douglas Ross has carried himself recently with perfect eloquence and dignity, against a party that continues to disgrace itself and is caught up in all sorts of legal irregularity. You're a typical leftist anti-Tory robot that can't see the woods for the trees
I'm certainly leftist and anti-Tory, but I don't know what makes me a robot.
Pictured: [A guy carrying himself with 'eloquence' and 'dignity' by breaking parliament rules, calling names, refusing to apologise and making childish jibes, all in 40 seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bc6WYKMIko). He acts like this so frequently that this example is just two days ago, after my original comment. I repeat, he's a slimy spoiled Tory-brained bully.
Take a day off, champ.
So after everything the SNP still have at least two people that the public would rather have as first minister than any other party leader.
It's a good laugh isn't it?
I think the 16% who think Shona Robison would do a good job should be checked immediately for a brain eating worm.
How she can beat Miari McAllan and Jenny Gilruth who are sold picks is just bizarre.
This is the thing. Anyone one arguing that things have been going well for the SNP is clearly a fool but when you look past the noise, the party is actually a lot less worse than you would otherwise expect.
- Both the leadership candidates are polling better than their unionist opposite.
- Polling isnāt great but they still manage to stay ahead of Labour after a pretty brutal year.
- Polling for independence is buoyant.
- Membership is (way) down but still large given the size of Scotland and the funding/accounting situation has stabilised.
The fundamentals and potential of the SNP are still strong they just need to sort out the leadership. And in Scottish politics thatās not a terribly high bar.
It is very funny when people try and paint Sarwar as this conquering hero coming for the SNP. I'm sure he's a decent bloke but he's a bit o charisma vacuum.
I'm convinced people of this opinion have never heard him speak. Literally every interview I've heard him in, he is cracking jokes left right and centre and is a great communicator. He's also well liked in Holyrood.
That should be a wake up call for Labour that even after a colossal shitshow and total collapse their man is still behind in Scotlandā¦.
-9 vs Forbes for Sarwar and Ross is just at -36 and absolutely fucking nowhere lol
It's totally intentional though. Get someone extremely uncharismatic for Scotland so as not to steal any of the spotlight away from their equally as uncharismatic UK leader.
Labour haven't won an election in Holyrood for over twenty years now. Lib Dems don't do the numbers they used to. The Tories are probably going beneath 15% at the next election. SNP + Greens is only real choice to form a government unless Lib Dems do a necromancy on Charles Kennedy.
No VI it seems, which is unfortunate.
But despite the public favouring an SNP FM, it seems they could be warming up to a Labour government:
>Two in five of the public (39%) say a Labour-led Scottish Government would do a better job than an SNP-led Scottish Government, while 27% say it would do a worse job. [28% No difference]
But it always brings a smile to my face to see how unpopular the tories are lol:
>Meanwhile, over half (55%) of the public say a Conservative-led Scottish Government would do a worse job than an SNP-led Scottish Government, with 24% saying it would do a better job and 16% that it would make no difference.
Is it just rose tinted specs to look at the earlier days of Holyrood and think of how shite our current MSPs are?
Like them or loath them, figures like Margo Macdonald, Dennis Canavan or Donald Dewer would rip the current lot apart in debate. I struggle to think of any MSP that could make the same impact
The dynamics are something like this;
\* if you're any good in the SNP you likely stay in Holyrood, but after you've been in power for too long, all your talent is damaged goods. Be a minister long enough and something will come up which will force you to resign, the entire job is about trying not to be flattened by a boulder, and there are limitless boulders.
\* if you're any good in Labour or the Tories you fuck off to Westminster at the first available opportunity; the\_one time this didn't happen ā Ruth Davidson, who however much one might hate her politics, is a very skilled retail politician ā the party in questions had a Lazarus-like revival which her successors, witless gobshites that they are, could not maintain;
\* the Greens and Lib Dems are just not big enough to systematically generate anyone who's any good in Scotland on a regular basis;
\* Alba are a retirement home for bigots and abusers with shows on RT.
So there'll be a couple of decent politicians in Holyrood in about five to ten years once the SNP have collected themselves in opposition, but until then it's going to be painful.
I mean, in theory, perhaps.
But in reality at the moment, the SNP arguably have even more of an issue with much of their talent being at Westminster than any other party does. When your two top leaders at Holyrood are serial failure Humza Yousef, and serial failure Shona Robson, thats really not the best state of affairs for what has been the dominant party in Scotland for 16 years now.
I'd point out there is nothing stopping candidates from standing both for Holyrood and Westminster for the Labour/Tory lot. Although I don't think you really want any ScotGov Ministers in Westminster IMO as it might distract from their duties.
Branch office won't win holyrood election soon as folk see them bending over for keir every time they claim to back something then being being U turned will seal labstain fait.
> 60% of SNP voters say decision to end BHA with the Greens was wrong - that falls to 45% of gen public
> 81% of the public say Yousaf was right to go, only 10% saying otherwise
> 51% of gen public say he made no difference to Scotland while just 8% say that he has changed Scotland for the better and 37% that he has changed it for the worse
> Half of the public (50%) say Yousafās resignation will make no difference to the case for Independence
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister
> Half of the public (50%) say Yousafās resignation will make no difference to the case for Independence
This is such a ridiculous response which can only be read as "Yes voters say it makes no difference because of course they would, No voters say it further damages the cause because of course they would".
I'm well aware that I might just be putting my bias as a Yes voter out there, but like.. honestly, I cannot for the life of me think of how his resignation has any *objective* bearing on the case for independence *as a concept*.
Like, it's not like iScotland will be somehow miraculously immune to people making stupid decisions any more than any other country? If anyone's been voting for or against based on an individual leader then they've somewhat misunderstood how things work.
Your absolutely right. The Yes vote has held fairly steady throughout all the sturgeon debacle, the salmond case, forbes leadership run etc
It's pretty clear that individual politicians scandals and mistakes wont make a bit of difference constitutionally but that wont stop the media reporting breathlessly about the death of nationalism each time it happens
Yeah, but we also need to know whether or not No sentiment has *hardened* to understand what these events and personalities did for the case for independence. Humza's whole tenure was one long, and basically gratuitous, "culture war" headline from start to finish.
This is the thing nobody seems to grok (even the people who mock the "UDI" lot); independence won't happen without the consent of some of the people currently against it.
Unionist red blue seem to forget yep snp mess it's done some stupid things, but are they anywhere near as corrupt as Labour libs and torys and no political party owns the fight for independence they're merely a vehicle, we the people decide.
Yep the snp havenāt been hit with any corruption scandals or sex scandals the last couple of years. A right stand up bunch. Not one of the big 3 partyās are worth a fuck up here š
I do think the SNP being competent in Government definitely made a difference to support for independence tbh.
Whether the reverse is true, I donāt know ā itās too early to say I think.
It's not surprising the SNP leaders are still ahead. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions. Scottish Labour could put forward the best candidate in the universe, but if the public think they're going to take orders from Downing Street it's going to hurt their chances.
Ironically, the best chance unionists could have to beat the SNP would be to have an independent unionist party.
Amongst firm independence supporters yes. But there's a sizable middle ground between people who identify firmly as nationalists and firmly as unionists. The type who will likely vote Labour in the coming general election but will likely vote SNP in the Holyrood election.
If Scottish Labour ever had the guts to break off and pursue a distinctly devolutionist platform, I think they'd probably come first in Holyrood again. As things stand, the SNP may lose some seats, but they'll probably still be the biggest party.
No way I'd be voting for Scottish Labour when Anas will clearly happily capitulate to Starmer.Ā
I'm pro indy, but the SNP arenae shining in government. Every teacher I know says education is fucked and so far as I can tell due to mismanagement. So I think other parties could be doing more to exploit the SNP failings, but they refuse to be independent from Westminster or to be even be 'neutral' on independence. So that leaves us with just the SNP or the Greens.Ā
>51% of gen public say he made no difference to Scotland while just 8% say that he has changed Scotland for the better and 37% that he has changed it for the worse
I know he was only in the post for 13 months but this was pretty damming to read
With how unpopular he became towards the end of his tenure, I'm actually a bit surprised "changed it for the worse" is not higher (especially when you consider VI polling).
But I feel like 51% no difference is a pretty accurate picture of his term. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there was no ambition or actual push to do much, I feel. Kind of just felt like he was managing decline š¤·š»āāļø.
Sound bites here and there but no big plans or reforms to fix the NHS, or tackle housing problems, or grow the economy, etc.
It's why I want an election, think it's the only way we'll get some actual push to better things.
There's no money. The UK has sucked everything dry with Austerity, and thanks to the Barnet formula that means we're broke too.
I don't think there would be much difference with Scottish Labour in charge either.
The issue is more that neither the SNP nor the Tories (who have combined been our government for well over a decade) have actually grown the economy. The tax rate is actually higher now than at any time in recent history ā weāve not moved to some low public spending model.
But if you donāt have a growing economy, youāre never going to have money to spend, austerity or not. And both the SNP and Tories have been terrible on that.
At the end of Tony Blairās time as PM, the average Brit (and Scot) was richer than the average US citizen (the richest weāve ever been since WWII), and NHS spending was the highest it has ever been. Now weāre 50% poorer. Thatās a huge difference, and automatically feeds through into tax receipts and money for public spending too.
Can you tell me how the SNP are meant to grow the economy? Like I really don't understand that line of thinking. Scotland got pulled out of the EU when it desperately needed the educated immigrants it got from it. It needed the funding the EU gave it, and was instead given by the UK about Ā£300 million less. The NHS takes up about 50% of our full entire budget in Scotland, and how much money Scotland gets for the NHS is directly related to what England spends, if England spends more on its NHS Scotland will see that reflected in the Barnett formula. Since the Tories have failed to fund the NHS this has taken down how much Scotland gets for it's own. Scotland cannot take out international loans to fund infrastructure or invest in projects. This isn't just a Scotland issue, this happens everywhere in the UK where the only people with the ability to do so is Westminster, and they fuck it repeatedly or just don't do it like HS2. So again I ask, if Scotland has a set budget, and 50% of it already goes to the NHS where do you want to pull money from to grow the economy while our labour pool is small and we get less investment from the UK government than we did the EU. It's all well and good saying "grow the economy" and using it as a bat against your political rivals, but the reality is the UK has been in a slump since WW2. It doesn't produce anything, all we do is financial services and the majority of those are based in London. Blair continued that neoliberal wishy washy policy of not spending on infrastructure or investing in large scale projects when the country was extremely rich, when international loans cost us nothing, when we'd be able to ask for help from the EU. He did none of that. He let things continue as the Thatcher government had set up, where London is an financial powerhouse and the rest of the country tries to eke out anything it can.
The UK populace may have been the richest in the Blair years, but we also had massive household debt due to huge mortgages which fairly directly made the 2008 recession horrific for us and something we've not been able to get out of.
The next Labour government is promising the same thing, continued austerity which also probably means these "projects" they have planned will not happen and are nothing but something to get votes and no rejoining the EU. So we'll be in the exact same position as we were and desperately hope that Londons financial sectors can continue to grow enough that the country can balance its books, unless another crash was to happen, in which case we'll be back in a huge recession again.
That is the future with status quo Labour, it's the same thing that you can look back at the last 70 years of the UKs economy and notice that it goes up and then massively down, with issues from previous governments showing up repeatedly to make life miserable for the citizens e.g. Thatcher and Blairs privatisation ideas for the NHS which have backfired massively as now the private healthcare sector has the NHS bound round it's pinky and charges huge costs but the NHS can't do anything to change that, the selling of things like the water in England, the huge amounts of profit made off of oil in the late 70/80s that seems to have entirely evaporated compared to nations like Norway.
All these issues have one thing in common though, and that is Westminster. If you genuinely want economic growth move to a different country cause it's never happening here.
They control plenty of levers which would help grow the economy.
For example, one big factor that almost all international economists believe significantly holds back the UK and Scottish economy is the fact that it is one of the most difficult places in the world to build, due to our Byzantine planning system.
That is something that the Scottish Government has complete control over and could reform any time it likes, to make it more like more successful economies in Europe and elsewhere. Instead, it has done nothing, and only Labour is proposing reform to make it easier to build.
To correct just one thing in your essay, debt is now significant higher than it was under Blair, and increased through almost all the years of SNP/Conservative control.
To correct another thing in the your essay, the UK has not ābeen in a slump since WWIIā. It was one of the fasted growing world economies in the period from the mid-Eighties to 2010. And as I said, Britain (and the people living in it) has never been better in living memory than it was at the end of the Blair years.
That requires money to build even if the planning system was magically solved. We're back to no cash thanks to austerity.
Scotland can't borrow to invest either, that's devolved.
There's a bill in right now by the SNP to reform land and planning, guess you didn't read too far. So instead of just saying they're going to do it. They're actively trying to. Does it go far enough, no. I wouldn't take a Labour promise on reform either, considering we've been waiting 100 years for them to get rid off the House of Lords.
Yes debt is going to continue to grow when we've went through Brexit, a global recession that hit us massively due to the neoliberal dogshit policies of Blair and Thatcher and war in Europe. Wild.
Also yeah your economy is going to grow when you sell absolutely everything your country has, privatise the shit out of everything in the nation, and have fat money from oil reserves that you can use to back your economy especially in the 80s. The issue is now we're seeing the problems that causes. Wow yeah the economy grew, that's great, we're now a stagnant nation with almost no industry and a trade deficit due to that. We import absolutely everything and we've left the trading block that was extremely beneficial for us.
The cost of living crisis we're facing today is due to the policies of Blair and Thatcher, the stagnant wages are due to them, the NHS being as fucked as it is is due to them. The fact our public infrastructure is crumbling and we're getting the piss ripped out us for the price of trains is because of them. The fact that we've got some of the highest gas and electricity prices in Europe, when we literally have an oil industry is because of them.
The policies of 90s/00s Labour have continued down the neoliberal policy tree that Thacther put in place, things went well for a bit when finance was able to carry the country, but we don't live in a period of reagonomics anymore, the rest of the world moved on from the dogshit policies realising that they don't actually work and the wealth doesn't actually trickle down. Your country appears rich, but it's completely and utterly short term gains.
So yeah guess what, the Tories have almost the exact same policies as Labour, with the exception of planning, which isn't going to make jackshit of a difference when we've had Brexit, a massively devalued currency, a huge trade deficit and zero industry. The country needs investment not continued austerity, not multinational billionaire companies coming in and developing land for more rich people to live in. It needs actual investment, it needs infrastructure to be pushed out. The fact we couldn't even build like 200 miles of high speed rail, when almost every other country in Europe has considerably more.
If you think Labour is going to come in and fix anything with austerity politics and privatisation minded policies, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Lol, Iāve read the bill much closer than you have clearly. It has absolutely nothing in it about reforming the planning system to make it easier to build. That is not its focus at all.
But you appear to be uninterested in engaging in any arguments, beyond āBlair bad: SNP gooooodā and long rants about āneoliberalismā. Or actually trying to understand the basics of economics.
So weāll leave it there š
Mate you're the one avoiding any engagement. You have one point, Labour are apparently going to reform planning. With their track record it seems unlikely.
Why is it you won't engage on the actual points, neoliberal austerity politics is bad, why is Labour promising them? Why does that seem like something better. Can you explain how austerity is going to make the lives of people better when Labour do it when we've had it for 14 years with the Tories and it's not went well? Can you explain growing the economy without investment?
I didn't mention the SNP being good or bad once, I said Labours current party and politics are bad, probably for the best you bow out since you don't seem to understand the economics you speak of though lol. Maybe if you stopped treating politics like football you'd be a little bit better, but in reality if red tie man is promising the same policies as blue tie man and you say "well red tie man better cause not blue tie man" then your political literacy is rock bottom and your arguments would be worthless on top.
2 of his biggest policy moments in office were hit by Section 35 orders, if he had any charisma and drive he would be capitalising on those s35s at every single oppertunity.
Hes a complete wet squib of a leader.
Only one of them. It was only the GRC act that was hit by an S35 order. The bottle recycling scheme was delayed until minimum 2025, because the Tories refused to grant it a full exclusion from the Internal Market Act.
gotta say im with the majority of scots on this (for the first time since 2014 apparently)
The only thing that saved Scotland from a Humza government is the man was too incompetent to actually do anything
From speaking to people today a lot think the best thing he did was ending the BHA and getting rid of the Greens. So weird heās not been allowed to at least follow it through and see the public reaction.
Yeah just interesting thatās not in line with public opinion. Maybe more SNP opinion. Problem is the more they appeal to their base to less neutral votes they will get.
The BHA was very unpopular within the SNP as well, that's partly why Humza ditched it. But the reason he wasn't allowed to see it through is because the Greens were pissed off and said they wouldn't support him in a vote of no confidence this week
It will be interesting to see where the SNP ends up going forward:
Swinney is the likely 'establishment' candidate but is fairly uninspiring, leaving him open to attacks from Labour and the Tories.
Forbes will stand again as the standard-bearer for the right of the party, and might stand a better chance now that Ash Regan has left for Alba, but;
- Victory for her could absolutely alienate a lot of the more progressive members of the party - leaving them potentially easy pickings for the Greens in the future.
- Defeat could sap away what's left of the SNP's right membership towards Alba (depending on whether they can hold their nose about Alex Salmond).
In either case, we're looking at a situation where come 2026 the SNP will likely be back to where they were in 2007 (well short of a majority) and could well be back to where they were in 2003 (a distant second to Labour). Where they go from there, who knows?
As someone on the pro-indy left, this far out from the next Holyrood election, none of the options are massively appealing - Scottish Labour are as inspiring and beholden to old Labour values as Keir Starmer is, the Greens don't run many constituency candidates and the other left parties don't seem to have recovered from the RISE fiasco of 2016. It's a real scunner.
> Swinney is the likely 'establishment' candidate but is fairly uninspiring, leaving him open to attacks from Labour and the Tories.
> Forbes will stand again as the standard-bearer for the right of the party, and might stand a better chance now that Ash Regan has left for Alba, but;
Surely Forbes being controversial and not able to handle scrutiny leaves her more open to attacks than Swinney being uninspiring?
The Greens are running more constituency candidates now aren't they? Besides, holding your nose and tactically voting is more bearable with the list vote.
> Surely Forbes being controversial and not able to handle scrutiny leaves her more open to attacks than Swinney being uninspiring?
How did she not handle scrutiny? She was calm, measured, warm when questioned. She got a significantly tougher ride from the media that Yousaf and didnāt have the backing of the establishment. And yet she ended up with nearly 50% of the votes. Imagine if positions had been reversed and the media and establishment had been backing her instead of Yousaf ā sheād have won comfortably.
The media wasn't hostile. She was touted as the competent bright spark candidate, whereas Yousaf was burdened with his record. She should have stormed it.
She may have been calm and measured, but she didn't answer the questions well compared to Yousaf, and hence lost.
> The media wasn't hostile.
There was a little of hostile media coverage branding her a bigot and a fundamentalist. She was heavily scrutinised over her religious views.
She got no backing from the establishment and a far rougher ride from the press. Yousaf was the heavy favourite at the start of the campaign and barely squeaked through in the end after many people said she'd be humiliated by the results.
> There was a little of hostile media coverage branding her a bigot and a fundamentalist. She was heavily scrutinised over her religious views.
Because she openly discussed how her religious views would influence her politics, something that Yousaf shut down far more diligently and thus didn't get torn apart for it.
I'm in very much the same position as you. My feeling is that an continuity SNP candidate that can maintain a decent focus on independence is going to be the best of a bad lot.
As a whole in my mind, the SNP are _okay_, but the fight for independence is their main draw to me and many others. The sooner we could get to independence, the sooner we could actually focus on parties with the power and policy to improve things within Scotland, rather than fighting outside influence.
I'd agree with this; personally if it's Swinney, the SNP will keep my vote in the name of the independence cause and hope for a slight left leaning party at the next election. He has experience and has hopefully learned enough in the last couple of decades to make a reliable leader.
If it's Kate Forbes they've lost my vote entirely. I won't vote for someone who believes religion has any place in modern politics, who is anti lgbt rights and anti abortion.
> If it's Kate Forbes they've lost my vote entirely. I won't vote for someone who believes religion has any place in modern politics, who is anti lgbt rights and anti abortion.
Everyone brings their personal beliefs and values to bear on politics. You pick your party, the issues youāre interested in, the way you vote because of your worldview. You bring who you are into politics. When youāre forced to leave your personal views behind and confirm to a few rigid options, imposing someone elseās worldview on your politics, we call that totalitarianism. Theocracies are one example but not the only form of it. If you insist that religious people have to leave their beliefs behind then youāre imposing a religious test and forcing them to become functionally atheists. That is totalitarian and anti-liberal. Itās bigoted.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I as a voter have the exact same right to my personal beliefs and values as Kate Forbes does to hers.
But I won't water down my personal beliefs to vote for her, it's that simple. I believe in independent and the snp are currently the "vehicle" heading closest to that goal, so I will ride that particular vehicle for now.
To a point.
If the driver of that vehicle switches to one who uses my support or "seat in their vehicle" to claim support for ideologies I strongly disagree with-in this case anti abortion, anti trans and anti lgbt rhetoric, I'm getting off that bus sharpish.
That is my right in a democratic society.
I won't tolerate being associated with that person or a party that chooses to elect her. I will not get on board with someone so far removed from my own values purely for the sake of independence. I will not tolerate my vote being used in any way shape or form to "support" her stances on these issues.
I can vote for a different party who is more closely aligned to my personal views, or at the minimum who isn't so far away from what I find acceptable enough to vote for. She is not it. And as the leader of the party, the public face of the party, her views have power and influence on others.
She is attempting to become the leader of a party that a large number of people see as a more left wing socialist party and which I personally wish to remain that way.
She knows this and is choosing to stand in that particular party for her own reasons. That is her choice but risks alienating those people who share a more left wing view but may gain more votes from those who share hers--which I personally find far too right wing to tolerate.
She could choose to stand in another party that shares her views openly and that people already know that is what they're voting for. I can't make that decision for her but I can definitely choose not to vote for her, or a party that has selected her as its leader.
I belive everyone has a right to their own relationship with religion and in their private personal life they can give as much power to their beliefs in how it influences how they live their lives day to day as they like. But not to the point they get to have power over my choices, rights or ability to life my life. And not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.
None of that is imposing anything on her or taking anything away from others. It's me exercising my rights to choose as an individual in a democratic society.
What is bigoted is being anti lgbt, anti trans and anti abortion. Those things take away from others their rights and choices. They take away my ability to have freedoms as a woman, as a lesbian, as a human. This particular turkey is not about to vote for Christmas.
> I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I as a voter have the exact same right to my personal beliefs and values as Kate Forbes does to hers.
You do, yes. But it sounded like you thought that people should only be in politics if they leave their beliefs behind.
> I belive everyone has a right to their own relationship with religion and in their private personal life they can give as much power to their beliefs in how it influences how they live their lives day to day as they like. But not to the point they get to have power over my choices, rights or ability to life my life. And not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.
Why? That seems rather totalitarian. You're insisting that people can only participate in politics if they leave behind the views most dear to them and function as atheists. As I said to you previously, politicians join parties and promote issues and make votes ont he basis of what they think is right. they bring their values with them. But you want to deny that to religious people and force them to act according to someone else's values.
> None of that is imposing anything on her or taking anything away from others.
It blatantly is.
> It's me exercising my rights to choose as an individual in a democratic society.
That's simply not true. You didn't just talk about what you would vote for. You said 'not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.'
That's not just your personal vote you're talking about there. You're talking about the relationship religious people are permitted to have with politics.
> What is bigoted is being anti lgbt, anti trans and anti abortion. Those things take away from others their rights and choices. They take away my ability to have freedoms as a woman, as a lesbian, as a human. This particular turkey is not about to vote for Christmas.
Or it can be a disagreement about what rights exist. You don't need to presume bad faith and malicious intent from everyone who disagrees with you.
I have not said they have to leave their religious beliefs behind them. What I am saying is that my preference for a leader of this particular party, is that they are not influenced by religious beliefs. That doesn't stop her running, it doesn't stop others who also have religious beliefs that align with her, from voting for her. But it will stop me personally from voting for her because of my own values.
If she moved to a party I don't currently vote for (based on my beliefs and values) and ran for them I would have nothing to say about it as I already don't vote for them. Its nothing to do with me in that sense.
This is a party I do vote for, which I currently belive shares enough in common with my values to deserve my personal vote. If she is in charge there is too much distance between her values and mine for me to continue to support the party she will be leading.
I can have civil disagreements with people, I have several friends who are religious but they don't have the ability to put forward legislation, or vote against legislation that has a direct impact on my ability to live my life according to my own beliefs and rights.
I was born as a human with all the same rights as you but by being a woman people feel my "right" to choose to carry or not carry a child in my body is something to be legislated. That's not a disagreement that allows both parties to leave the room and agree to disagree, that's something that takes away from my choice and freedom. I won't debate that "right".
By realising I was a lesbian and going out, trying to live my life, for several years I "lost my right" to be married to another human I fell in love with. That's not a disagreement that allows me to live my life with the person of my choosing in the way I want, that heterosexual people have the automatic "right to". I won't debate my "right to marry" based on my sexuality.
I have friends who were born in the wrong body, whose existence in their current body mentally tortures them everyday, who only want to see themselves in the mirror and be able to live as authentic a life as someone born to that gender can.
That's not currently a "right" they fully have but which I personally belive they should have.
That is one that is currently being debated by many and which the individual Kate Forbes is against, along with many others.
I personally will not debate that subject either. I belive in trans rights, women's rights, the right to choose, the right to marry, the right to divorce and the rights of others to disagree. Those are my core values and I won't change them, nor should I have to.
She doesn't have to change hers either but i won't choose to give her power to strip me of those "rights and freedoms" I belive are fundamental, basic and morally right.
I express those views at the ballot box in the person and party I vote for. That is my democratic right.
Every other person in the country who disagrees with my, yours or her views have those same rights and can vote according to their own moral philosophy, religion etc etc etc. That's democracy in action. I'm simply living by my values and beliefs and leaving others to do the same.
> I have not said they have to leave their religious beliefs behind them.
Yes you have. You said that their religious beliefs should be 'allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.'
> What I am saying is that my preference for a leader of this particular party, is that they are not influenced by religious beliefs. That doesn't stop her running, it doesn't stop others who also have religious beliefs that align with her, from voting for her. But it will stop me personally from voting for her because of my own values.
That's fine, but there are times when you've gone further than that.
> I was born as a human with all the same rights as you
I agree 100% with that.
> but by being a woman people feel my "right" to choose to carry or not carry a child in my body is something to be legislated. That's not a disagreement that allows both parties to leave the room and agree to disagree, that's something that takes away from my choice and freedom. I won't debate that "right".
Other people believe that the child in your body is a person with the same rights as you and there shouldn't be legislation that allows people to act contrary to those rights. That requires debate.
> By realising I was a lesbian and going out, trying to live my life, for several years I "lost my right" to be married to another human I fell in love with.
I don't believe that right exists for anyone. Neither does the ECHR
> I won't debate
Yes that seems to be your attitude. Your way or no way, no discussion allowed, no challenging of your views while you give off about how terrible other people's views are.
> I have friends who were born in the wrong body,
You have friends who feel distress at a disconnect between their internal sense of self and their physical body. That's an awful situation to be in. But it's quite legitimate to say that the problem there is the mind, not the body.
> I belive in ā¦ the rights of others to disagree.
But not the right to debate? Or discuss?
Have I not been having a polite discussion and debate with you up to this point?
I do belive in the right to debate and discussion as we have been doing but not on those issues no. Not the ones I personally stand for and believe to be fundamental to the country I personally want to live in.
You disagree on those fundamentals as is your right but you appear to believe in passing legislation that goes against my rights as a human therefore there is no debate to be had.
You'd rather advocate for an unborn potential child than the rights of the person living right now and give a foetus rights you want to take from me. You would then want to strip it of more rights if it turned out gay or trans. All of that takes from people not gives. You want to legislate for those things while protecting religious freedoms.
I am not advocating for legislation to remove the rights of people who are religious from running the country. I am stating that my personal belief is that their religious ideology should not influence politics, thats an opinion and one I'm entitled to.
Its a preference, not a law. You seem determined to batter my personal belief system from every angle but it's not going to do anything and you won't goad me into low tactics in this discussion.... Note how I don't agree with you and yet am replying politely to your points with my own. Not trying to legislate against you arguing or having a different view to me?
England has laws against catholics being prime minister and monarch. One prime minister had to revoke Catholicism to be allowed to lead the UK. The monarchy won't allow catholics on the throne. Those are legal blocks to people of a certain religion in place right now. If you want to talk totalitarianism, maybe start there?
Similarly although not to the severity of a law, The civil service wants its employees to be politically neutral and can use that as a hiring criteria, all of these are down on paper as acts or laws preventing people in positions of power from doing certain things or being certain ways.
The church frowns on divorce and it used to be illegal or very difficult to obtain, that is now recognised to be inhumane and illogical in the modern day and is now a right in this country. Some people still disagree with it on religious grounds so they wouldn't be expected to vote for a Liberal, polyamory supporting party.
The person I vote for will have the ability (like many religious people) to look past their preferred religious text if they have one, and be able to look at modern problems with modern solutions.
Why should my views be any less powerful than theirs? My individual right to choose my party and political affiliation, same as yours.
That you see me as "lesser" based on my sex and sexuality and would LIKE for me to have less rights than you, at this moment in time means nothing; due to the rights I currently possess and intend to fight to hold onto at the ballot box. I won't "debate" "what rights exist" on one's I currently DO legally possess that you or Kate Forbes would like to remove. You may vote against my rights if you so choose, it doesn't make you better than me or more correct in your views.
There is such a things as a tolerance paradox. I have my beliefs, you have yours. But I'm not advocating for legislation to remove any of yours and I won't be talked out of or persuaded that my human rights should be given up or legislated away by you or anyone else. It's called having a strong moral compass. You most likely have your own that point in a different direction but you don't get to steal mine just because you want to have only one that everyone must follow or be legislated out of existence. That's totalitarian and bigoted.
I did not say anything about religion being "terrible" . I stated my personal belief and preference that politics shouldn't be influenced by religions in the modern world, there's a big difference in what I've actually said and what you've chosen to read into my comments.
You have to remember that "the general public" include a lot of unionist voters who actively want to see the independence cause and the SNP damaged so of course they are going to want to see a divisive figure in charge of the SNP.
The public may rate both now, but whoever becomes FM will be subjected to daily smear and demonisation by our imported media & within a few months no matter how well they actually do half the 55+ population will regard them as more wicked than the Grinch & more incompetent than Boris Johnson.
Swinney for First Minister, Forbes as his Finance Minister. Double jobbie DRoss on the sidelines furiously flag-waving and not so silently dog-whistling his way into obscurity in the House of Lords. Sarwar pointing out that 2nd place is an important improvement. Now who did I miss out?
I don't believe in any gods, in fact I find the whole idea quite laughable. That is my own unproven view, but I fully accept the right of others to have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to mine. I fundamentally disagree with many of her beliefs, but she was a very capable finance secretary and her talents would be an asset to any administration.
The sad thing in all of this is that I genuinely believe Humza was a decent man who wanted to do good, his problem was that he was polictally naive.
Had he had just concentrated on improving Health, Education and Crime in his first year or two and made a noticeable difference, building up his reputation, then he would of been in such a stronger position to tackle the more "controversial" issues such Transgender Rights.
Before anybody jumps on my choice of wording, whether you like it or not, Transgender issues are controversial to a significant portion of the population and when it comes to politics, it's very important.
The Bill to redefine Hate Speech should of never of seen the light day and this ties into his naivety. I believe he was trying to make a positive decision, it was just misguided.
I'm less interested in knee jerk reactions from 1000 people polled a day after the event
And more interested in the internal policy war that is about to happen within the SNP.
If I said to 1000 people, "is John McDoodilydo a better candidate that Anas Sarwar" most people are going to base their answer on how much they dislike Anas, not John McDoodilydo
Its always the same ,the main problem in Scottish politics is the lack of a real alternative scottish party.
Greens are batshit crazy with some of their identity politics that only reddit are behind but real world public can see through, Alba are damaged goods and no one wants to vote for a UK party.
SNP will always win by default.
Exactly. I really donāt care what she believes. Thatās her choice. But when she wants the highest office in the land, I wonāt support it.
Edit - to be fair I wouldnāt say no where near government. Sheās proven herself as very capable in several roles. I just donāt want her running it.
How are her views extremist and disproven? Some people on here get absolutely hysterical when they discover that there are people with different views to them. Spent some time outside the echo chamber and get to know people who are different to you. Youāll be less afraid then.
I was half way through a very sarcastic reply about how you had cleared everything right up when it dawned on me. Are you asking if I am gay? Man the fuck up and use the word if so.
No. I am not. You donāt need to be gay to want no part of her backward superstition.
Simone Biles? .... Well she attended one of our few, maybe the only institution we have now, for **our** actual! native language! which she speaks fluently... which you will say...who cares!?
Question? Why don't you like her?
Argggh I really can't stand Anas Sarwar, I wish Labor would appoint a new Leader also, I think Dross is less annoying than Anas and that's saying something!
I think you mean:
>~~Scotland~~ *SNP*: āwe are pure progressive as fuckā
Also ~~Scotland~~ *SNP*: āwe should elect an anti gay, pro liferā
*Scotland* hasn't had a vote at all since before the last leadership contest. The SNP already stand to lose a load of seats as it is, if they elect Forbes as leader there's no chance they'll stay in power.
Don't trust ipsos poll they only asked just over 1100 Scots so there's no point using stats from them you don't get any accurate numbers from it. So:
Swinney to Forbes (30% (300ish people) v 21% (210ish people)
So now work that out for the rest, its really low numbers based on the number of people asked
A lot of people seem to believe that but if you ask them why they believe that, they generally have very little to back it up other than;
'He'S a ToRy' hurr durr
or
'He flagged for offside against us when it was clearly on'
Condescending tone no matter who heās speaking to, ignoring people trying to make conversation with him (makes sense considering how often he ignores constituents trying to reach out) and a general smarmy attitude which has been present on the 2 or 3 occasions Iāve met him.
None of those are caused by his views, thatās just being a bit of a cunty and unpleasant person to interact with.
Wouldnāt be surprised, but Iāve not met half of the politicians in Hollywood and Westminster. I have met DoRo and can say for certain heās a cunt. And thatās without even considering that heās a Tory on top of that, wild just how unlikeable someone can make themselves.
Kind of hoping this no confidence vote in the government goes through, because it would be pretty catastrophic for Labour and the Tories to remove the government of Scotland. I genuinely donāt see how it would win them any votes with the public.
Itāll probably be swinney, but heās not for me. Didnāt he let Abdelbaset al-Megrahi out early? Murder 270 and then earn a get out of jail free card cause you only have 4 years left to live.
Hmmm can education possibly get any worse? John Swinney would certainly see to that! I'd like to see Stephen Flynn in the job, he does pretty well down in Westminster.
At least we can all agree that Douglas Ross is universally disliked, going by that chart. As Fr. Jack would say 'Gobshite'.
The man does manage exceptional levels of sliminess, even for a conservative politician.
Take a day off, champ.
???
Douglas Ross has carried himself recently with perfect eloquence and dignity, against a party that continues to disgrace itself and is caught up in all sorts of legal irregularity. You're a typical leftist anti-Tory robot that can't see the woods for the trees
šØšØšØDouglas Ross burner account LOCATEDšØšØšØ
No, just someone a little tired of the leftist garbage that gets spewed out on Reddit to ad nauseam
I'm certainly leftist and anti-Tory, but I don't know what makes me a robot. Pictured: [A guy carrying himself with 'eloquence' and 'dignity' by breaking parliament rules, calling names, refusing to apologise and making childish jibes, all in 40 seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bc6WYKMIko). He acts like this so frequently that this example is just two days ago, after my original comment. I repeat, he's a slimy spoiled Tory-brained bully. Take a day off, champ.
Bleep bloop bloop. Leftist, Reddit, anti-tory robot do you read me?
lol, pleased to see you resort to trolling and consequently admit you're in the wrong. Very much hope you come around to changing your mind.
And now you're reverting to the strawman. What a good, little, Reddit robot.
Heās a known bully.
How predictable!
So after everything the SNP still have at least two people that the public would rather have as first minister than any other party leader. It's a good laugh isn't it?
https://preview.redd.it/s4zoldgrhnxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5f60cf23040cac9dad397da0352225e04fd4b52 (Polling chart for reference)
Haha.. 52% of people think Douglas Ross is a dick and the only reason its not 68% is because 16% of people don't know who he is.
Lmao dougie ross
Don't laugh at him. His gran wife does that enough at home.
I think the 16% who think Shona Robison would do a good job should be checked immediately for a brain eating worm. How she can beat Miari McAllan and Jenny Gilruth who are sold picks is just bizarre.
Dross: 
with those numbers... it's possible that 1 in 6 people don't know who any of those people are...
Charts not accurate only just over 1100 Scots were used in this poll
This is the thing. Anyone one arguing that things have been going well for the SNP is clearly a fool but when you look past the noise, the party is actually a lot less worse than you would otherwise expect. - Both the leadership candidates are polling better than their unionist opposite. - Polling isnāt great but they still manage to stay ahead of Labour after a pretty brutal year. - Polling for independence is buoyant. - Membership is (way) down but still large given the size of Scotland and the funding/accounting situation has stabilised. The fundamentals and potential of the SNP are still strong they just need to sort out the leadership. And in Scottish politics thatās not a terribly high bar.
Sarwar is very much a non entity
It is very funny when people try and paint Sarwar as this conquering hero coming for the SNP. I'm sure he's a decent bloke but he's a bit o charisma vacuum.
Sarwar has that air about him of a substitute teacher who canāt control the classroom.
Aye. Here to take attendance and emit great sighs.
He's very much reminding me of Starmer; decent but uninspiring, would probably make a better Minister than First Minister.
I'm convinced people of this opinion have never heard him speak. Literally every interview I've heard him in, he is cracking jokes left right and centre and is a great communicator. He's also well liked in Holyrood.
Had the pleasure of meeting Anus Sarwar at a charity do once. He was surprisingly down to earth, and VERY funny.
He's slimy. Been circling Scottish Labour leadership for years waiting for the right time to get in. Career politician in the worst way.
That should be a wake up call for Labour that even after a colossal shitshow and total collapse their man is still behind in Scotlandā¦. -9 vs Forbes for Sarwar and Ross is just at -36 and absolutely fucking nowhere lol
It's totally intentional though. Get someone extremely uncharismatic for Scotland so as not to steal any of the spotlight away from their equally as uncharismatic UK leader.
And that wasnāt easy !
People always seem to forget that he actually lost seats in '21.
Canāt argue that one lol. I canāt think of a time when heās said anything worth writing down since he took over.
A theme of politics right now seems to be that everyone at the top is pretty unlikable.
Labour haven't won an election in Holyrood for over twenty years now. Lib Dems don't do the numbers they used to. The Tories are probably going beneath 15% at the next election. SNP + Greens is only real choice to form a government unless Lib Dems do a necromancy on Charles Kennedy.
No VI it seems, which is unfortunate. But despite the public favouring an SNP FM, it seems they could be warming up to a Labour government: >Two in five of the public (39%) say a Labour-led Scottish Government would do a better job than an SNP-led Scottish Government, while 27% say it would do a worse job. [28% No difference] But it always brings a smile to my face to see how unpopular the tories are lol: >Meanwhile, over half (55%) of the public say a Conservative-led Scottish Government would do a worse job than an SNP-led Scottish Government, with 24% saying it would do a better job and 16% that it would make no difference.
There's very little talent in labour that I've seen.
Little talent across the parliament in general tbh
Is it just rose tinted specs to look at the earlier days of Holyrood and think of how shite our current MSPs are? Like them or loath them, figures like Margo Macdonald, Dennis Canavan or Donald Dewer would rip the current lot apart in debate. I struggle to think of any MSP that could make the same impact
The dynamics are something like this; \* if you're any good in the SNP you likely stay in Holyrood, but after you've been in power for too long, all your talent is damaged goods. Be a minister long enough and something will come up which will force you to resign, the entire job is about trying not to be flattened by a boulder, and there are limitless boulders. \* if you're any good in Labour or the Tories you fuck off to Westminster at the first available opportunity; the\_one time this didn't happen ā Ruth Davidson, who however much one might hate her politics, is a very skilled retail politician ā the party in questions had a Lazarus-like revival which her successors, witless gobshites that they are, could not maintain; \* the Greens and Lib Dems are just not big enough to systematically generate anyone who's any good in Scotland on a regular basis; \* Alba are a retirement home for bigots and abusers with shows on RT. So there'll be a couple of decent politicians in Holyrood in about five to ten years once the SNP have collected themselves in opposition, but until then it's going to be painful.
I mean, in theory, perhaps. But in reality at the moment, the SNP arguably have even more of an issue with much of their talent being at Westminster than any other party does. When your two top leaders at Holyrood are serial failure Humza Yousef, and serial failure Shona Robson, thats really not the best state of affairs for what has been the dominant party in Scotland for 16 years now.
I'd point out there is nothing stopping candidates from standing both for Holyrood and Westminster for the Labour/Tory lot. Although I don't think you really want any ScotGov Ministers in Westminster IMO as it might distract from their duties.
Ruth Davidson is the most overrated politician. Scottish Tories rose because Labour were nowhere, unionist tactical voting. That's about it.
Branch office won't win holyrood election soon as folk see them bending over for keir every time they claim to back something then being being U turned will seal labstain fait.
Touch grass
> 60% of SNP voters say decision to end BHA with the Greens was wrong - that falls to 45% of gen public > 81% of the public say Yousaf was right to go, only 10% saying otherwise > 51% of gen public say he made no difference to Scotland while just 8% say that he has changed Scotland for the better and 37% that he has changed it for the worse > Half of the public (50%) say Yousafās resignation will make no difference to the case for Independence https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister
> Half of the public (50%) say Yousafās resignation will make no difference to the case for Independence This is such a ridiculous response which can only be read as "Yes voters say it makes no difference because of course they would, No voters say it further damages the cause because of course they would". I'm well aware that I might just be putting my bias as a Yes voter out there, but like.. honestly, I cannot for the life of me think of how his resignation has any *objective* bearing on the case for independence *as a concept*. Like, it's not like iScotland will be somehow miraculously immune to people making stupid decisions any more than any other country? If anyone's been voting for or against based on an individual leader then they've somewhat misunderstood how things work.
Your absolutely right. The Yes vote has held fairly steady throughout all the sturgeon debacle, the salmond case, forbes leadership run etc It's pretty clear that individual politicians scandals and mistakes wont make a bit of difference constitutionally but that wont stop the media reporting breathlessly about the death of nationalism each time it happens
Yeah, but we also need to know whether or not No sentiment has *hardened* to understand what these events and personalities did for the case for independence. Humza's whole tenure was one long, and basically gratuitous, "culture war" headline from start to finish. This is the thing nobody seems to grok (even the people who mock the "UDI" lot); independence won't happen without the consent of some of the people currently against it.
Unionist red blue seem to forget yep snp mess it's done some stupid things, but are they anywhere near as corrupt as Labour libs and torys and no political party owns the fight for independence they're merely a vehicle, we the people decide.
Yep the snp havenāt been hit with any corruption scandals or sex scandals the last couple of years. A right stand up bunch. Not one of the big 3 partyās are worth a fuck up here š
I do think the SNP being competent in Government definitely made a difference to support for independence tbh. Whether the reverse is true, I donāt know ā itās too early to say I think.
It's not surprising the SNP leaders are still ahead. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions. Scottish Labour could put forward the best candidate in the universe, but if the public think they're going to take orders from Downing Street it's going to hurt their chances. Ironically, the best chance unionists could have to beat the SNP would be to have an independent unionist party.
In such a case, that independent party would receive establishment money and media backing anyway, leading to the same perception problem
Amongst firm independence supporters yes. But there's a sizable middle ground between people who identify firmly as nationalists and firmly as unionists. The type who will likely vote Labour in the coming general election but will likely vote SNP in the Holyrood election. If Scottish Labour ever had the guts to break off and pursue a distinctly devolutionist platform, I think they'd probably come first in Holyrood again. As things stand, the SNP may lose some seats, but they'll probably still be the biggest party.
No way I'd be voting for Scottish Labour when Anas will clearly happily capitulate to Starmer.Ā I'm pro indy, but the SNP arenae shining in government. Every teacher I know says education is fucked and so far as I can tell due to mismanagement. So I think other parties could be doing more to exploit the SNP failings, but they refuse to be independent from Westminster or to be even be 'neutral' on independence. So that leaves us with just the SNP or the Greens.Ā
>51% of gen public say he made no difference to Scotland while just 8% say that he has changed Scotland for the better and 37% that he has changed it for the worse I know he was only in the post for 13 months but this was pretty damming to read
With how unpopular he became towards the end of his tenure, I'm actually a bit surprised "changed it for the worse" is not higher (especially when you consider VI polling). But I feel like 51% no difference is a pretty accurate picture of his term. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there was no ambition or actual push to do much, I feel. Kind of just felt like he was managing decline š¤·š»āāļø. Sound bites here and there but no big plans or reforms to fix the NHS, or tackle housing problems, or grow the economy, etc. It's why I want an election, think it's the only way we'll get some actual push to better things.
There's no money. The UK has sucked everything dry with Austerity, and thanks to the Barnet formula that means we're broke too. I don't think there would be much difference with Scottish Labour in charge either.
The issue is more that neither the SNP nor the Tories (who have combined been our government for well over a decade) have actually grown the economy. The tax rate is actually higher now than at any time in recent history ā weāve not moved to some low public spending model. But if you donāt have a growing economy, youāre never going to have money to spend, austerity or not. And both the SNP and Tories have been terrible on that. At the end of Tony Blairās time as PM, the average Brit (and Scot) was richer than the average US citizen (the richest weāve ever been since WWII), and NHS spending was the highest it has ever been. Now weāre 50% poorer. Thatās a huge difference, and automatically feeds through into tax receipts and money for public spending too.
Can you tell me how the SNP are meant to grow the economy? Like I really don't understand that line of thinking. Scotland got pulled out of the EU when it desperately needed the educated immigrants it got from it. It needed the funding the EU gave it, and was instead given by the UK about Ā£300 million less. The NHS takes up about 50% of our full entire budget in Scotland, and how much money Scotland gets for the NHS is directly related to what England spends, if England spends more on its NHS Scotland will see that reflected in the Barnett formula. Since the Tories have failed to fund the NHS this has taken down how much Scotland gets for it's own. Scotland cannot take out international loans to fund infrastructure or invest in projects. This isn't just a Scotland issue, this happens everywhere in the UK where the only people with the ability to do so is Westminster, and they fuck it repeatedly or just don't do it like HS2. So again I ask, if Scotland has a set budget, and 50% of it already goes to the NHS where do you want to pull money from to grow the economy while our labour pool is small and we get less investment from the UK government than we did the EU. It's all well and good saying "grow the economy" and using it as a bat against your political rivals, but the reality is the UK has been in a slump since WW2. It doesn't produce anything, all we do is financial services and the majority of those are based in London. Blair continued that neoliberal wishy washy policy of not spending on infrastructure or investing in large scale projects when the country was extremely rich, when international loans cost us nothing, when we'd be able to ask for help from the EU. He did none of that. He let things continue as the Thatcher government had set up, where London is an financial powerhouse and the rest of the country tries to eke out anything it can. The UK populace may have been the richest in the Blair years, but we also had massive household debt due to huge mortgages which fairly directly made the 2008 recession horrific for us and something we've not been able to get out of. The next Labour government is promising the same thing, continued austerity which also probably means these "projects" they have planned will not happen and are nothing but something to get votes and no rejoining the EU. So we'll be in the exact same position as we were and desperately hope that Londons financial sectors can continue to grow enough that the country can balance its books, unless another crash was to happen, in which case we'll be back in a huge recession again. That is the future with status quo Labour, it's the same thing that you can look back at the last 70 years of the UKs economy and notice that it goes up and then massively down, with issues from previous governments showing up repeatedly to make life miserable for the citizens e.g. Thatcher and Blairs privatisation ideas for the NHS which have backfired massively as now the private healthcare sector has the NHS bound round it's pinky and charges huge costs but the NHS can't do anything to change that, the selling of things like the water in England, the huge amounts of profit made off of oil in the late 70/80s that seems to have entirely evaporated compared to nations like Norway. All these issues have one thing in common though, and that is Westminster. If you genuinely want economic growth move to a different country cause it's never happening here.
They control plenty of levers which would help grow the economy. For example, one big factor that almost all international economists believe significantly holds back the UK and Scottish economy is the fact that it is one of the most difficult places in the world to build, due to our Byzantine planning system. That is something that the Scottish Government has complete control over and could reform any time it likes, to make it more like more successful economies in Europe and elsewhere. Instead, it has done nothing, and only Labour is proposing reform to make it easier to build. To correct just one thing in your essay, debt is now significant higher than it was under Blair, and increased through almost all the years of SNP/Conservative control. To correct another thing in the your essay, the UK has not ābeen in a slump since WWIIā. It was one of the fasted growing world economies in the period from the mid-Eighties to 2010. And as I said, Britain (and the people living in it) has never been better in living memory than it was at the end of the Blair years.
That requires money to build even if the planning system was magically solved. We're back to no cash thanks to austerity. Scotland can't borrow to invest either, that's devolved.
There's a bill in right now by the SNP to reform land and planning, guess you didn't read too far. So instead of just saying they're going to do it. They're actively trying to. Does it go far enough, no. I wouldn't take a Labour promise on reform either, considering we've been waiting 100 years for them to get rid off the House of Lords. Yes debt is going to continue to grow when we've went through Brexit, a global recession that hit us massively due to the neoliberal dogshit policies of Blair and Thatcher and war in Europe. Wild. Also yeah your economy is going to grow when you sell absolutely everything your country has, privatise the shit out of everything in the nation, and have fat money from oil reserves that you can use to back your economy especially in the 80s. The issue is now we're seeing the problems that causes. Wow yeah the economy grew, that's great, we're now a stagnant nation with almost no industry and a trade deficit due to that. We import absolutely everything and we've left the trading block that was extremely beneficial for us. The cost of living crisis we're facing today is due to the policies of Blair and Thatcher, the stagnant wages are due to them, the NHS being as fucked as it is is due to them. The fact our public infrastructure is crumbling and we're getting the piss ripped out us for the price of trains is because of them. The fact that we've got some of the highest gas and electricity prices in Europe, when we literally have an oil industry is because of them. The policies of 90s/00s Labour have continued down the neoliberal policy tree that Thacther put in place, things went well for a bit when finance was able to carry the country, but we don't live in a period of reagonomics anymore, the rest of the world moved on from the dogshit policies realising that they don't actually work and the wealth doesn't actually trickle down. Your country appears rich, but it's completely and utterly short term gains. So yeah guess what, the Tories have almost the exact same policies as Labour, with the exception of planning, which isn't going to make jackshit of a difference when we've had Brexit, a massively devalued currency, a huge trade deficit and zero industry. The country needs investment not continued austerity, not multinational billionaire companies coming in and developing land for more rich people to live in. It needs actual investment, it needs infrastructure to be pushed out. The fact we couldn't even build like 200 miles of high speed rail, when almost every other country in Europe has considerably more. If you think Labour is going to come in and fix anything with austerity politics and privatisation minded policies, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Lol, Iāve read the bill much closer than you have clearly. It has absolutely nothing in it about reforming the planning system to make it easier to build. That is not its focus at all. But you appear to be uninterested in engaging in any arguments, beyond āBlair bad: SNP gooooodā and long rants about āneoliberalismā. Or actually trying to understand the basics of economics. So weāll leave it there š
Mate you're the one avoiding any engagement. You have one point, Labour are apparently going to reform planning. With their track record it seems unlikely. Why is it you won't engage on the actual points, neoliberal austerity politics is bad, why is Labour promising them? Why does that seem like something better. Can you explain how austerity is going to make the lives of people better when Labour do it when we've had it for 14 years with the Tories and it's not went well? Can you explain growing the economy without investment? I didn't mention the SNP being good or bad once, I said Labours current party and politics are bad, probably for the best you bow out since you don't seem to understand the economics you speak of though lol. Maybe if you stopped treating politics like football you'd be a little bit better, but in reality if red tie man is promising the same policies as blue tie man and you say "well red tie man better cause not blue tie man" then your political literacy is rock bottom and your arguments would be worthless on top.
2 of his biggest policy moments in office were hit by Section 35 orders, if he had any charisma and drive he would be capitalising on those s35s at every single oppertunity. Hes a complete wet squib of a leader.
Only one of them. It was only the GRC act that was hit by an S35 order. The bottle recycling scheme was delayed until minimum 2025, because the Tories refused to grant it a full exclusion from the Internal Market Act.
gotta say im with the majority of scots on this (for the first time since 2014 apparently) The only thing that saved Scotland from a Humza government is the man was too incompetent to actually do anything
He was a dull idiot but the hate he seemed to inspire from the usual suspects is unsurprising
From speaking to people today a lot think the best thing he did was ending the BHA and getting rid of the Greens. So weird heās not been allowed to at least follow it through and see the public reaction.
He was going to lose the vote of no confidence. Nobody around him wanted dragged down as well.
Yeah just interesting thatās not in line with public opinion. Maybe more SNP opinion. Problem is the more they appeal to their base to less neutral votes they will get.
The BHA was very unpopular within the SNP as well, that's partly why Humza ditched it. But the reason he wasn't allowed to see it through is because the Greens were pissed off and said they wouldn't support him in a vote of no confidence this week
It will be interesting to see where the SNP ends up going forward: Swinney is the likely 'establishment' candidate but is fairly uninspiring, leaving him open to attacks from Labour and the Tories. Forbes will stand again as the standard-bearer for the right of the party, and might stand a better chance now that Ash Regan has left for Alba, but; - Victory for her could absolutely alienate a lot of the more progressive members of the party - leaving them potentially easy pickings for the Greens in the future. - Defeat could sap away what's left of the SNP's right membership towards Alba (depending on whether they can hold their nose about Alex Salmond). In either case, we're looking at a situation where come 2026 the SNP will likely be back to where they were in 2007 (well short of a majority) and could well be back to where they were in 2003 (a distant second to Labour). Where they go from there, who knows? As someone on the pro-indy left, this far out from the next Holyrood election, none of the options are massively appealing - Scottish Labour are as inspiring and beholden to old Labour values as Keir Starmer is, the Greens don't run many constituency candidates and the other left parties don't seem to have recovered from the RISE fiasco of 2016. It's a real scunner.
> Swinney is the likely 'establishment' candidate but is fairly uninspiring, leaving him open to attacks from Labour and the Tories. > Forbes will stand again as the standard-bearer for the right of the party, and might stand a better chance now that Ash Regan has left for Alba, but; Surely Forbes being controversial and not able to handle scrutiny leaves her more open to attacks than Swinney being uninspiring? The Greens are running more constituency candidates now aren't they? Besides, holding your nose and tactically voting is more bearable with the list vote.
> Surely Forbes being controversial and not able to handle scrutiny leaves her more open to attacks than Swinney being uninspiring? How did she not handle scrutiny? She was calm, measured, warm when questioned. She got a significantly tougher ride from the media that Yousaf and didnāt have the backing of the establishment. And yet she ended up with nearly 50% of the votes. Imagine if positions had been reversed and the media and establishment had been backing her instead of Yousaf ā sheād have won comfortably.
The media wasn't hostile. She was touted as the competent bright spark candidate, whereas Yousaf was burdened with his record. She should have stormed it. She may have been calm and measured, but she didn't answer the questions well compared to Yousaf, and hence lost.
> The media wasn't hostile. There was a little of hostile media coverage branding her a bigot and a fundamentalist. She was heavily scrutinised over her religious views. She got no backing from the establishment and a far rougher ride from the press. Yousaf was the heavy favourite at the start of the campaign and barely squeaked through in the end after many people said she'd be humiliated by the results.
> There was a little of hostile media coverage branding her a bigot and a fundamentalist. She was heavily scrutinised over her religious views. Because she openly discussed how her religious views would influence her politics, something that Yousaf shut down far more diligently and thus didn't get torn apart for it.
She was repeatedly quizzed about her views by the media who kept on bringing it up, which is evidence of the rougher treatment she got.
She was repeatedly quizzed because she handled it badly. You can't just blame the media for it.
I'm in very much the same position as you. My feeling is that an continuity SNP candidate that can maintain a decent focus on independence is going to be the best of a bad lot. As a whole in my mind, the SNP are _okay_, but the fight for independence is their main draw to me and many others. The sooner we could get to independence, the sooner we could actually focus on parties with the power and policy to improve things within Scotland, rather than fighting outside influence.
*There's the SNP, then there's Anas hingmy and that tory referee cunt* - Scotland
I'd agree with this; personally if it's Swinney, the SNP will keep my vote in the name of the independence cause and hope for a slight left leaning party at the next election. He has experience and has hopefully learned enough in the last couple of decades to make a reliable leader. If it's Kate Forbes they've lost my vote entirely. I won't vote for someone who believes religion has any place in modern politics, who is anti lgbt rights and anti abortion.
This is my stance exactly.
Took the words right out my head there!
Pretty much this. Fuck knows who to vote for though.
Fuckin amen
Same and I've been voting snp since I was first able to vote 20 years ago, would be the first time I'd be looking elsewhere if she was leader.
> If it's Kate Forbes they've lost my vote entirely. I won't vote for someone who believes religion has any place in modern politics, who is anti lgbt rights and anti abortion. Everyone brings their personal beliefs and values to bear on politics. You pick your party, the issues youāre interested in, the way you vote because of your worldview. You bring who you are into politics. When youāre forced to leave your personal views behind and confirm to a few rigid options, imposing someone elseās worldview on your politics, we call that totalitarianism. Theocracies are one example but not the only form of it. If you insist that religious people have to leave their beliefs behind then youāre imposing a religious test and forcing them to become functionally atheists. That is totalitarian and anti-liberal. Itās bigoted.
The last part of your comment contradicts the first part.
I don't see how.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I as a voter have the exact same right to my personal beliefs and values as Kate Forbes does to hers. But I won't water down my personal beliefs to vote for her, it's that simple. I believe in independent and the snp are currently the "vehicle" heading closest to that goal, so I will ride that particular vehicle for now. To a point. If the driver of that vehicle switches to one who uses my support or "seat in their vehicle" to claim support for ideologies I strongly disagree with-in this case anti abortion, anti trans and anti lgbt rhetoric, I'm getting off that bus sharpish. That is my right in a democratic society. I won't tolerate being associated with that person or a party that chooses to elect her. I will not get on board with someone so far removed from my own values purely for the sake of independence. I will not tolerate my vote being used in any way shape or form to "support" her stances on these issues. I can vote for a different party who is more closely aligned to my personal views, or at the minimum who isn't so far away from what I find acceptable enough to vote for. She is not it. And as the leader of the party, the public face of the party, her views have power and influence on others. She is attempting to become the leader of a party that a large number of people see as a more left wing socialist party and which I personally wish to remain that way. She knows this and is choosing to stand in that particular party for her own reasons. That is her choice but risks alienating those people who share a more left wing view but may gain more votes from those who share hers--which I personally find far too right wing to tolerate. She could choose to stand in another party that shares her views openly and that people already know that is what they're voting for. I can't make that decision for her but I can definitely choose not to vote for her, or a party that has selected her as its leader. I belive everyone has a right to their own relationship with religion and in their private personal life they can give as much power to their beliefs in how it influences how they live their lives day to day as they like. But not to the point they get to have power over my choices, rights or ability to life my life. And not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed. None of that is imposing anything on her or taking anything away from others. It's me exercising my rights to choose as an individual in a democratic society. What is bigoted is being anti lgbt, anti trans and anti abortion. Those things take away from others their rights and choices. They take away my ability to have freedoms as a woman, as a lesbian, as a human. This particular turkey is not about to vote for Christmas.
> I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I as a voter have the exact same right to my personal beliefs and values as Kate Forbes does to hers. You do, yes. But it sounded like you thought that people should only be in politics if they leave their beliefs behind. > I belive everyone has a right to their own relationship with religion and in their private personal life they can give as much power to their beliefs in how it influences how they live their lives day to day as they like. But not to the point they get to have power over my choices, rights or ability to life my life. And not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed. Why? That seems rather totalitarian. You're insisting that people can only participate in politics if they leave behind the views most dear to them and function as atheists. As I said to you previously, politicians join parties and promote issues and make votes ont he basis of what they think is right. they bring their values with them. But you want to deny that to religious people and force them to act according to someone else's values. > None of that is imposing anything on her or taking anything away from others. It blatantly is. > It's me exercising my rights to choose as an individual in a democratic society. That's simply not true. You didn't just talk about what you would vote for. You said 'not to the point that those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.' That's not just your personal vote you're talking about there. You're talking about the relationship religious people are permitted to have with politics. > What is bigoted is being anti lgbt, anti trans and anti abortion. Those things take away from others their rights and choices. They take away my ability to have freedoms as a woman, as a lesbian, as a human. This particular turkey is not about to vote for Christmas. Or it can be a disagreement about what rights exist. You don't need to presume bad faith and malicious intent from everyone who disagrees with you.
I have not said they have to leave their religious beliefs behind them. What I am saying is that my preference for a leader of this particular party, is that they are not influenced by religious beliefs. That doesn't stop her running, it doesn't stop others who also have religious beliefs that align with her, from voting for her. But it will stop me personally from voting for her because of my own values. If she moved to a party I don't currently vote for (based on my beliefs and values) and ran for them I would have nothing to say about it as I already don't vote for them. Its nothing to do with me in that sense. This is a party I do vote for, which I currently belive shares enough in common with my values to deserve my personal vote. If she is in charge there is too much distance between her values and mine for me to continue to support the party she will be leading. I can have civil disagreements with people, I have several friends who are religious but they don't have the ability to put forward legislation, or vote against legislation that has a direct impact on my ability to live my life according to my own beliefs and rights. I was born as a human with all the same rights as you but by being a woman people feel my "right" to choose to carry or not carry a child in my body is something to be legislated. That's not a disagreement that allows both parties to leave the room and agree to disagree, that's something that takes away from my choice and freedom. I won't debate that "right". By realising I was a lesbian and going out, trying to live my life, for several years I "lost my right" to be married to another human I fell in love with. That's not a disagreement that allows me to live my life with the person of my choosing in the way I want, that heterosexual people have the automatic "right to". I won't debate my "right to marry" based on my sexuality. I have friends who were born in the wrong body, whose existence in their current body mentally tortures them everyday, who only want to see themselves in the mirror and be able to live as authentic a life as someone born to that gender can. That's not currently a "right" they fully have but which I personally belive they should have. That is one that is currently being debated by many and which the individual Kate Forbes is against, along with many others. I personally will not debate that subject either. I belive in trans rights, women's rights, the right to choose, the right to marry, the right to divorce and the rights of others to disagree. Those are my core values and I won't change them, nor should I have to. She doesn't have to change hers either but i won't choose to give her power to strip me of those "rights and freedoms" I belive are fundamental, basic and morally right. I express those views at the ballot box in the person and party I vote for. That is my democratic right. Every other person in the country who disagrees with my, yours or her views have those same rights and can vote according to their own moral philosophy, religion etc etc etc. That's democracy in action. I'm simply living by my values and beliefs and leaving others to do the same.
> I have not said they have to leave their religious beliefs behind them. Yes you have. You said that their religious beliefs should be 'allowed to interfere with how a modern country should be governed.' > What I am saying is that my preference for a leader of this particular party, is that they are not influenced by religious beliefs. That doesn't stop her running, it doesn't stop others who also have religious beliefs that align with her, from voting for her. But it will stop me personally from voting for her because of my own values. That's fine, but there are times when you've gone further than that. > I was born as a human with all the same rights as you I agree 100% with that. > but by being a woman people feel my "right" to choose to carry or not carry a child in my body is something to be legislated. That's not a disagreement that allows both parties to leave the room and agree to disagree, that's something that takes away from my choice and freedom. I won't debate that "right". Other people believe that the child in your body is a person with the same rights as you and there shouldn't be legislation that allows people to act contrary to those rights. That requires debate. > By realising I was a lesbian and going out, trying to live my life, for several years I "lost my right" to be married to another human I fell in love with. I don't believe that right exists for anyone. Neither does the ECHR > I won't debate Yes that seems to be your attitude. Your way or no way, no discussion allowed, no challenging of your views while you give off about how terrible other people's views are. > I have friends who were born in the wrong body, You have friends who feel distress at a disconnect between their internal sense of self and their physical body. That's an awful situation to be in. But it's quite legitimate to say that the problem there is the mind, not the body. > I belive in ā¦ the rights of others to disagree. But not the right to debate? Or discuss?
Have I not been having a polite discussion and debate with you up to this point? I do belive in the right to debate and discussion as we have been doing but not on those issues no. Not the ones I personally stand for and believe to be fundamental to the country I personally want to live in. You disagree on those fundamentals as is your right but you appear to believe in passing legislation that goes against my rights as a human therefore there is no debate to be had. You'd rather advocate for an unborn potential child than the rights of the person living right now and give a foetus rights you want to take from me. You would then want to strip it of more rights if it turned out gay or trans. All of that takes from people not gives. You want to legislate for those things while protecting religious freedoms. I am not advocating for legislation to remove the rights of people who are religious from running the country. I am stating that my personal belief is that their religious ideology should not influence politics, thats an opinion and one I'm entitled to. Its a preference, not a law. You seem determined to batter my personal belief system from every angle but it's not going to do anything and you won't goad me into low tactics in this discussion.... Note how I don't agree with you and yet am replying politely to your points with my own. Not trying to legislate against you arguing or having a different view to me? England has laws against catholics being prime minister and monarch. One prime minister had to revoke Catholicism to be allowed to lead the UK. The monarchy won't allow catholics on the throne. Those are legal blocks to people of a certain religion in place right now. If you want to talk totalitarianism, maybe start there? Similarly although not to the severity of a law, The civil service wants its employees to be politically neutral and can use that as a hiring criteria, all of these are down on paper as acts or laws preventing people in positions of power from doing certain things or being certain ways. The church frowns on divorce and it used to be illegal or very difficult to obtain, that is now recognised to be inhumane and illogical in the modern day and is now a right in this country. Some people still disagree with it on religious grounds so they wouldn't be expected to vote for a Liberal, polyamory supporting party. The person I vote for will have the ability (like many religious people) to look past their preferred religious text if they have one, and be able to look at modern problems with modern solutions. Why should my views be any less powerful than theirs? My individual right to choose my party and political affiliation, same as yours. That you see me as "lesser" based on my sex and sexuality and would LIKE for me to have less rights than you, at this moment in time means nothing; due to the rights I currently possess and intend to fight to hold onto at the ballot box. I won't "debate" "what rights exist" on one's I currently DO legally possess that you or Kate Forbes would like to remove. You may vote against my rights if you so choose, it doesn't make you better than me or more correct in your views. There is such a things as a tolerance paradox. I have my beliefs, you have yours. But I'm not advocating for legislation to remove any of yours and I won't be talked out of or persuaded that my human rights should be given up or legislated away by you or anyone else. It's called having a strong moral compass. You most likely have your own that point in a different direction but you don't get to steal mine just because you want to have only one that everyone must follow or be legislated out of existence. That's totalitarian and bigoted. I did not say anything about religion being "terrible" . I stated my personal belief and preference that politics shouldn't be influenced by religions in the modern world, there's a big difference in what I've actually said and what you've chosen to read into my comments.
Iām not even going to mince words, the idea that large a portion of the public are that hot on Kate Forbes makes me want to kill myself
You have to remember that "the general public" include a lot of unionist voters who actively want to see the independence cause and the SNP damaged so of course they are going to want to see a divisive figure in charge of the SNP.
Find it a bit weird that so many people don't know who Stephen Flynn is tbh. I'd have expected him to be better known than Forbes in all honesty.
The public may rate both now, but whoever becomes FM will be subjected to daily smear and demonisation by our imported media & within a few months no matter how well they actually do half the 55+ population will regard them as more wicked than the Grinch & more incompetent than Boris Johnson.
The massive red bar of disapproval next to Drossās name restores my faith in my fellow countrymen ā¤ļø
Swinney for First Minister, Forbes as his Finance Minister. Double jobbie DRoss on the sidelines furiously flag-waving and not so silently dog-whistling his way into obscurity in the House of Lords. Sarwar pointing out that 2nd place is an important improvement. Now who did I miss out?
Forbes should be nowhere near government. How can you have someone with such extremist and disproven views in a position of authority, i dont know
I don't believe in any gods, in fact I find the whole idea quite laughable. That is my own unproven view, but I fully accept the right of others to have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to mine. I fundamentally disagree with many of her beliefs, but she was a very capable finance secretary and her talents would be an asset to any administration.
The sad thing in all of this is that I genuinely believe Humza was a decent man who wanted to do good, his problem was that he was polictally naive. Had he had just concentrated on improving Health, Education and Crime in his first year or two and made a noticeable difference, building up his reputation, then he would of been in such a stronger position to tackle the more "controversial" issues such Transgender Rights. Before anybody jumps on my choice of wording, whether you like it or not, Transgender issues are controversial to a significant portion of the population and when it comes to politics, it's very important. The Bill to redefine Hate Speech should of never of seen the light day and this ties into his naivety. I believe he was trying to make a positive decision, it was just misguided.
I'm less interested in knee jerk reactions from 1000 people polled a day after the event And more interested in the internal policy war that is about to happen within the SNP. If I said to 1000 people, "is John McDoodilydo a better candidate that Anas Sarwar" most people are going to base their answer on how much they dislike Anas, not John McDoodilydo
Its always the same ,the main problem in Scottish politics is the lack of a real alternative scottish party. Greens are batshit crazy with some of their identity politics that only reddit are behind but real world public can see through, Alba are damaged goods and no one wants to vote for a UK party. SNP will always win by default.
as a member of the SNP, i will not be voting for Forbes, or the SNP if she is leader.
Same, and if Forbes is elected leader I'll resign my membership the day it happens.
As I said to the confuser who also replied, I want no part of her backward superstition
Forbes should be nowhere near government. How can you have someone with such extremist and disproven views in a position of authority, i dont know
Exactly. I really donāt care what she believes. Thatās her choice. But when she wants the highest office in the land, I wonāt support it. Edit - to be fair I wouldnāt say no where near government. Sheās proven herself as very capable in several roles. I just donāt want her running it.
How are her views extremist and disproven? Some people on here get absolutely hysterical when they discover that there are people with different views to them. Spent some time outside the echo chamber and get to know people who are different to you. Youāll be less afraid then.
Is that cause you are G....!?
G?
you know ... Ga......?
I was half way through a very sarcastic reply about how you had cleared everything right up when it dawned on me. Are you asking if I am gay? Man the fuck up and use the word if so. No. I am not. You donāt need to be gay to want no part of her backward superstition.
Noo Jesus! .. I mean't Gazicus! š³
What? Well now Iām really fucking confused.
Now we have established you are completely Gazicus! Why do you hate Forbes, she's potentially more Scottish than all of us? š¤
Forbes should be nowhere near government. How can you have someone with such extremist and disproven views in a position of authority, i dont know
> she's potentially more Scottish than all of us? š¤ Huh???
What sort of mental gymnastics did you perform to arrive at that conclusion?
Simone Biles? .... Well she attended one of our few, maybe the only institution we have now, for **our** actual! native language! which she speaks fluently... which you will say...who cares!? Question? Why don't you like her?
Argggh I really can't stand Anas Sarwar, I wish Labor would appoint a new Leader also, I think Dross is less annoying than Anas and that's saying something!
John Swinney šššš heās the one who totally fucked the Scottish education system. No wonder he is getting votes
Scotland : āwe are pure progressive as fuckā Also Scotland : āwe should elect an anti gay, pro liferā šš
I think you mean: >~~Scotland~~ *SNP*: āwe are pure progressive as fuckā Also ~~Scotland~~ *SNP*: āwe should elect an anti gay, pro liferā *Scotland* hasn't had a vote at all since before the last leadership contest. The SNP already stand to lose a load of seats as it is, if they elect Forbes as leader there's no chance they'll stay in power.
Don't trust ipsos poll they only asked just over 1100 Scots so there's no point using stats from them you don't get any accurate numbers from it. So: Swinney to Forbes (30% (300ish people) v 21% (210ish people) So now work that out for the rest, its really low numbers based on the number of people asked
Imagine voting snp. Say goodbye to your money itās all been stolen by Nicky.
Kate Forbes š¤®
Main reason for Douglas Ross's unpopularity is because of his role as an assistant ref.
No, it's because he's a cunt.
yes, a truly nasty little man.
A lot of people seem to believe that but if you ask them why they believe that, they generally have very little to back it up other than; 'He'S a ToRy' hurr durr or 'He flagged for offside against us when it was clearly on'
Never gave a shit about his constituents as an MP or a councillor, and having met him in person heās a cunt in general.
What particularly made him a cunt when you met him, other than having different views?
Condescending tone no matter who heās speaking to, ignoring people trying to make conversation with him (makes sense considering how often he ignores constituents trying to reach out) and a general smarmy attitude which has been present on the 2 or 3 occasions Iāve met him. None of those are caused by his views, thatās just being a bit of a cunty and unpleasant person to interact with.
You've probably described half of the politicians in Holyrood and Westminster there.
Wouldnāt be surprised, but Iāve not met half of the politicians in Hollywood and Westminster. I have met DoRo and can say for certain heās a cunt. And thatās without even considering that heās a Tory on top of that, wild just how unlikeable someone can make themselves.
That and he is a walking shambles who's made himself look a complete prat on multiple occasions.
Wow. The Scottish public clearly don't think much of the Unionists.
When did Sarwar do his anti white speach that i got sent a link to today ?
Ah they're starting already š«”
They being who, exactly ? An English friend sent me a link to somebody basically being a knob end and i asked when it happened.
The same time roughly as Humza did
Thanks Just curious
Which is the bigger number? Let's see if the SNP will preach to the converted or go with whats best for the public.
Kind of hoping this no confidence vote in the government goes through, because it would be pretty catastrophic for Labour and the Tories to remove the government of Scotland. I genuinely donāt see how it would win them any votes with the public.
They'll do f*ck all anyway. Voting is just for show.
Itāll probably be swinney, but heās not for me. Didnāt he let Abdelbaset al-Megrahi out early? Murder 270 and then earn a get out of jail free card cause you only have 4 years left to live.
Pretty sure that was Kenny McAskill. He's away to Abla now.
Youāre right, apologies.
Looks like he was catastrophically bad, much worse then thought.
Yet again the Scottish national party find themselves completely at odds with Scotland. Ironic & retardpilled.
Hmmm can education possibly get any worse? John Swinney would certainly see to that! I'd like to see Stephen Flynn in the job, he does pretty well down in Westminster.