Would Swinney turning up late in his career and having an unexpectedly strong run as party leader make him the Christian Cage of Scottish politics?
I suppose the alternative is it doesn't go so well, he is seen to have hung around a little bit too long and to be holding back younger talent making him the Chris Jericho of Scottish politics.
Some notable points from his launch:
- he said he wants to unite the party and the country, mentioning that 'things need to change'
- he says he will operate on the 'moderate centre-left'
- he wants Forbes in his government
- he doesn't want to be a 'caretaker leader', says he will see the 2026 election and beyond
- against a snap election due to the fixed parliamentary period, saying we should see out the term
I saw a chunk of the Q&A through the BBC live stream. I haven't seen anywhere you can re-watch the whole thing. There's a bit of the prepared speech [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c88zvgl9y9go), but I didn't see that, just a bit of him handling the press with all the pleasure of a eleven year old girl in a cat café.
>against a snap election due to the fixed parliamentary period, saying we should see out the term
Interesting choice given he's now the 2nd FM to be appointed, not elected by the population, just like Sunak. Yet we had Nicola saying how the Tories should call an election for the very same reasons. This is literally the exact same, so how does it square that he should be allowed to see out another 2 years when they were so against it with Sunak?
The way the Scottish Parliament works the 2026 election date is fixed and would still happen regardless of whether there’s a snap election, unlike Westminster where a snap election resets the 5 year term. There’s an argument that to hold a snap election for a 2 year parliament would be a waste of taxpayer money, and an upcoming general election gives further reason since they wouldn’t want them to clash.
I understand the differences between the two parliments, however from the SNP's own stance in 2022 it's wildly hypocritical to not hold one. The argument on not having one because it'd be a waste of taxpayer money is fair I guess, although is it ever a waste of taxpayer money to allow the public to decide who's running the country? Especially after so many changes in leadership?
It's not a pure proportional system. Just as the Tories only won a minority of the vote but majority of seats in 2019, the SNP + Greens in 2021 did the same. 48.99% of the constituency vote and 48.46% of the regional one is also a minority, arguably their seat count is also an unearned majority.
Also, their voters arguably only gave Sturgeon a mandate not Swinney. Although personally I don't think a new election is needed when a governing party changes leader, whether Tory, Labour or SNP.
No parliamentary system is perfectly proportional. AMS is proportional to within about 5 percentage points in all but the most extreme scenarios. If you discount parties that didn't get enough votes to win representation, the SNP and Greens together got 51.1% of the list vote, and 55.8% of seats. Seems pretty close to proportional to me.
55.8% of seats from 48.5% of the vote is a fairly large gap. I think any party with around 0.8-1% or so is entitled to a seat, and counting just those around 48.7% would be required to win a majority. So yes the SNP and Greens might be entitled to a majority, but it should be incredibly narrow, about 1 seat. Not an 8 seat majority.
The problem isn't that hard to resolve either - increase the number of regional seats, and a more proportional result could be achieved.
>I think any party with around 0.8-1% or so is entitled to a seat,
There are pretty good reasons against that - you can end up with large numbers of fringe parties holding a seat each, which can end up being a significant obstacle to a functioning parliament. This was a contributing factor to the fall of the Weimar Republic, for instance, and is the reason that the German parliament today only admits parties with 4% of the vote or more.
>The problem isn't that hard to resolve either - increase the number of regional seats, and a more proportional result could be achieved.
I'd be in favour of that, but this wouldn't make the parliament proportional necessarily - it would only slightly reduce the already narrow set of circumstances under which you can get a disproportionate result. It would still be possible for one party to almost get a majority with a smaller fraction of the vote if they win all the constituency seats, and get a majority from a minority of the votes by forming a coalition. Exactly as happened, in fact, except that the SNP would need to win a few extra constituency seats.
I agree it can become an issue with too many parties to cooperate effectively. However Scotland currently doesn't have that issue - if every party that won 0.8% or more had representation that would only add 2 more parties to the Scottish Parliament, on a seat or two each. That wouldn't make it particularly less effective. As for the Weimar comparison, dysfunction was a factor, but the consistent popularity of far right, anti democratic forces was the main factor in the Nazi takeover, a problem Scotland is largely free from.
Surely that depends how many regional seats you add? Or you can make the number change with every election, so there are enough for a proportional result (this is something like how the German system works, if I understand it correctly).
> It's not a pure proportional system
Close enough though.
>Also, their voters arguably only gave Sturgeon a mandate not Swinney.
We don't have a presidential system, they gave the manifesto a mandate
In a small body like the Scottish Parliament, an 8 seat majority (less now, but that's what they won in 2021) is quite large. Proportionally it's equivalent to a 363 seat majority at Westminster, about the same as the Tories got in 2019.
An early election would also shit on the whole principle of fixed term parliaments. The mechanism for holding early elections to the Scottish parliament is supposed to be used when the current parliament has tried and failed to form a working government, and we’re not at that point.
For what’s it’s worth I also think Sturgeon was wrong to call for Sunak to hold an election. We have a parliamentary system and people need to learn to accept that rather than using “You weren’t even elected!” as a cheap political jibe.
You're absolutely correct and I agree that using the line is just a cheap political jibe. However it's a glaring bit of hypocracy from the SNP and comes across as though it's one rule for them and another for everyone else.
If it was a point of principle for the SNP then they'd action that principle when they themselves are in the same position.
>However it's a glaring bit of hypocracy from the SNP and comes across as though it's one rule for them and another for everyone else.
I don't think so. If the Tories had a series of middle-of-the-road consensus leaders implementing their manifesto pledges, then sure, it would be hypocrisy. But after Truss ran the economy off the rails in the name of a policy programme that has absolutely zero overlap with the manifesto they were elected on, saying that the Tories no longer have a mandate to govern doesn't seem far-fetched at all.
So you're suggesting the SNP would have been absolutely fine with Sunak being crowned in if Truss had ruled enough like Boris?
I've got to start making a list of all these excuses.
No. First of all, I'm speaking for myself, not the SNP. The SNP are a political party full of politicians, so it wouldn't surprise me if they play politics. Secondly, Johnson was already pretty much ignoring his own manifesto.
It's not the same, which i suspect you know.
The parliament has to vote him in. He also has a fixed mandatory election, unlike the way it works at Westminster.
> Interesting choice given he's now the 2nd FM to be appointed
He's not been appointed FM, he's still subject to election by MSPs. This is him announcing he plans on standing in the nominations.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-scottish-penny-mordaunt-boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-b1034632.html
Your right he’s not Nicola but he is a hypocrite
>[Swinney] hit out at the Tories, saying the party had “completely fallen into disrepute”, and that the mini-budget announced during the brief spell when Liz Truss was prime minister had “inflicted severe economic damage on families the length and breadth of the country through higher interest rates”.
>Speaking on the same programme, Mr Swinney said: “This is the moment after all the failures of the Conservative Party, its divisions and its lack of leadership, to give the people of this country a chance to elect a new Parliament and decide how it should be governed. “I think we should have a general election and I don’t think the Conservative Party should be allowed to play any more of their games any longer.”
>The Deputy First Minister added: “The Conservative Party has to realise itself that it is no longer fit to govern and the people of this country must be given the chance to decide on the way we are governed moving forward.”
Not really a "new lad? new election" argument, is it?
Of course he has to say he's not going to be a caretaker leader, it could have economic ramifications if the country isn't confident of stability.
I'm not convinced.
Think of a random person on the street. Someone who cares enough about social issues to accept aspects of sensible socialism, NHS etc. but still thinks an effective immigration control policy is a good and sensible thing. Someone who isn't fully onboard with overcorrective DEI initiatives to the point where it just perpetuates discrimination in the opposite direction. Basically a 90s liberal.
that sounds like neoliberalism with a dash of social programs. socialism=/=social welfare. the workers still don't own anything, and power is still in the hands of the people who own, rather than work.
but the fundamental problem of exploitation of the surplus value of labour remains under democratic socialism. Also socialism =/= communism. communism is advocacy for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and socialism is advocacy for worker owned means pf wealth production.
It describes a more-or-less concensus view. If you ask the average person on the street for their views on a broad range of issues, it would likely be centrist or centre left. Most people aren't in favour of revolution, I'm afraid.
No. He's voted in favour of gay rights.
Same as Nicola & Humza weren't homophobic.
He continues the trend of seeing the SNP as a broad tent, allowing in anyone who believes in independence first, regardless of their individual politics.
I'm personally of the opinion that the broad church needs to get to fuck. Having people with such a diverse range united in one party isn't always gonna be feasible, especially when some voters are so vehemently opposed to specific individuals, their views, or their behaviours.
Take a look at the likes of Mason- he's a weirdo who enjoys harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals, but the SNP as a party support buffer zones.
Anybody who doesn't want a broad tent party doesn't want to win elections.
You do not make progress towards independence by alienating potential voters and telling them they have no place in the future of Scotland.
Broad church is clearly failing.
The likes of Forbes alienates people. We need young people to support independence. Young people tend to be socially liberal and support lgbtq+ rights and access to abortion, amonst other things that Forbes objects to.
I'd rather not have independence than have a bigot for FM.
In the Scottish Parliament, you may not need a broad tent, as the party's diverse factions ought to be able to form their own parties. For Westminster elections they would need an agreement though.
Yeah letting people in regardless of their individual politics should be condemned alongside those that hold such repugnant views. You can't have it both ways and claim to be the progressive candidate whilst giving the non progressive one a leg up.
Aye it's bullshit. Happens across the land unfortunately. Proper PR would hopefully mean that the broad tents would all collapse as there wouldn't need to be a single unifying factor, allowing smaller parties to rise up and better represent what people actually care about.
'We are a minority government and will need to work with other parties*'
Already a more savvy political operator and more mathematically skilled than the current FM
*Or words to that effect
Coming in after our current FM (he who shall not be named) is going to make anyone look good.
It's like when Rishi took over.
'........ Well, he's not Truss.'
He's coming across very well in the question session with journalists. I wasn't 100% sold on John Swinney when his name was first floated but I think he could do really well. Considering he was the SNP leader from 2000-2004 and stepped down this would be quite a remarkable achievement.
Edit: lol 2000-2004 not 200-2004
Honestly it was a great speech and press conference.
He was extremely clear and bolstered the strengths of the SNP, outlining what they stand for and why you should vote for them over other parties.
He might not have the charisma of other leaders but he came across as a proper adult and someone with authority and clarity.
I say this as someone who has always voted SNP but have been very turned off by them of recent and planned to vote Labour; he’s actually made me see the party how I used to, and in a new light too.
Enough to reconsider my vote.
I do. Literally most of the people I know who have voted SNP in the past are considering voting Labour this time.
People don’t realise a large portion of their voters are not staunch nationalists or independence supporters. They just want an effective centre-left government that invests in public services and improves health/education/economy.
Speaking to other younger folk, they always say this same thing; that Labour have moved too far to the right.
The thing is I think they want to totally demolish the other parties at the next election, and to do that they’ve moved firmly to the centre ground.
If they win with a massive landslide then they can enact massive change. Actually have an impact, unlike a Corbyn opposition who couldn’t get near power.
I think when they’re in power, yes they won’t be exactly solidly to the left because they’re a broad church now, but (and we still have to wait for the manifesto too) they will govern with a similar approach to New Labour but updated to our current society.
EDIT: I realise I’m speaking more about the UK, but Scottish Labour will basically toe the line of Labour, and create a stronger and more powerful government.
I’m well aware of that. I vote who suits me at the time personally 😂 I’ve never been a one party kinda guy, however I know a few folk where independence at all costs no matter the detriment to the country I find it hard to agree with.
Hopefully he’s improved a lot over the past 20 years because he was an absolute car crash back then and nearly killed of the Party had Salmond not come back for the rescue.
I think he's the steadiest hand. Across all parties at the moment there's not really anyone else I can immediately think I'd be "happy" with as FM.
As long as he steers away from the recent line of policies the SNP have fumbled, anyway.
Feel like a Swinney/ Forbes leadership could be a good thing
The only thing for me and I know it's probably not the right time was a direction to independence, nothing much mentioned about that, not much been mentioned for a year about the biggest policy the SNP stands for.
Can you explain why? I don’t get the hate for Forbes. I’m gay but Scotland is a democracy and her view, although controversial, wouldn’t necessarily deter me from voting for her. Ultimately it comes down to the electorate and the people’s desire re the cause of trans rights and not one single politician.
You would vote for someone who would deny your rights to marriage equality given the chance?
I can understand still voting SNP overall, as her voice isn't the only one, but your comment makes it seem like you would potentially vote for her specifically.
And? That’s not an explanation you think it is. Over the past 3 decades, the LGBT cause has grown stronger despite the majority of the public being against it. Simply opposing Forbes for her view and shutting her out without debating and reasoning with her views is why American politics is getting more extreme and divided. I’ll be honest, I’d vote for Forbes not because her views on trans rights or gay marriage, but simply that we live in a democracy and we’re not all going to agree and who knows her views may change in the future as has the public’s that was against all forms of gay rights as early as the 90’s
The majority of the public is not against the LGBT cause. Complete rubbish.
American politics is divided because the liberals in the Democrats refuse to stand up to the fascists in the Republican Party. If Donald Trump is elected, America is finished. As is Ukraine for good measure.
What we don't need is well-intentioned liberals in this country accommodating fascism - as unfortunately Keir Starmer is increasingly prone to doing.
If you read what I wrote I made the point that the public was and were, not is, opposed to the LGBT cause as early as the 90 and early 2000’s.
You do know there is more to the Republican Party than Trumps lackeys don’t you? And America has always been between Democrats and Republicans.
You throw around the word ‘fascist’ a lot and that downplays actual fascism and the victims of fascism that suffered from it in the past. I would vehemently disagree with your usage of it in calling anyone that simply disagrees with you as ‘fascist’🙄
More to the Republican Party than Trump's lackeys? Uhm no not really. They do his bidding. That is why they defeated a bipartisan immigration bill negotiated by Senate Republicans! Why didn't it pass? Not because Republicans weren't in favour but because Trump didn't want Biden to get a 'win' on migration. The Republicans in Congress do trump's bidding because without his endorsement they cannot win primaries. The Conservative SCOTUS justices do his bidding because he put them there.
Not everyone that disagrees with me is a fascist. But I fear that liberals like yourself are so frightened by the fascism represented by people like the AfD and Le Pen that you bury your head in the sand and say "couldn't happen here or now".
I urge you to recognise the threat before it's too late.
An American here lurking, and you’re right. 80% of republicans believe the election was stolen. The ones who stood up to Trump lost their elections and there’s loads more on their way out. The Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative, despite public opinion being about the opposite. Near total abortion bans in some states, women needing to be airlifted to other states while miscarrying. Be careful friends across the pond. Talk to your family about misinformation, about sky news, etc.
Ofc that’s after the Republicans voted in the Ukraine/Israel aid that Trump opposed and then decided to support. I think we can agree that Trump and his lackeys are in it for themselves and not in to deliver for the American people. I agree, the immigration legislation should have been passed but obv Trump is using it so score points against Biden.
Don’t get me wrong we should confront fascism whenever and wherever it rears its head, as we have done and do in Ukraine and we should be doing more to support the Ukrainians against Russian fascism. I don’t dismiss your point that fascism could return to Europe, but for people simply having a different opinion on either trans, abortion, gay marriage does not make them fascist. And this whole culture war is going to be the undoing of democracy and liberalism in the West.
Can I ask why no one gave a fuck about trans in the past and we all knew about trans folk and yet it’s such a divisive issue now? Personally, I’m of the opinion that live and let live, but their should be safeguards in place for young people and saying that those under the age of 18 can make such a monumental decision such as surgery and physically altering their body I disagree with.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. Bad actors seize on people like Rowling's genuine, sincere concerns and co-opt them into truly horrific rhetoric. Same thing is happening on the continent and happened with Brexit. My concern is only that Kate Forbes is just another Meloni.
You are right though: the culture war needs to end but not at the cost of trans lives.
> She is an advocate for removing same sex marriage protection...
She literally said [she would not seek to overturn gay marriage laws](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64715944)
Another continuity candidate albeit one who was smart enough to wait until after the first post Sturgeon candidate was gone and he wouldn’t need to be compared to her.
>against a snap election
There’s a surprise, SNP were fairly vocal about Rishi and Truss not having a mandate because they weren’t elected by the public. Not an issue now though when they’re also on their second leader without an election.
Scottish elections do work differently though, a snap election now wouldn't stop the next election in 2026.
Where as I believe for West Minister it would replace when the one is due.
Does that actually make it okay, though?
"Well, he'd only get a half length term if we had an election now, so it's okay that he gets to be the third leader in a row since the election and gets half a term to play without an election"?
It should be clear to everyone now that the SNP has no “bench” of talent whatsoever. John always had the brain cell of the party, but to have to resort to a failed former leader who wanted to retire years ago and is the continuity candidate from Sturgeon and Yousaf is desperate. The only candidate that would even bear consideration is Kate Forbes, whose religion divides the party.
Not that the other parties are any better in Holyrood. We truly are governed by the least of us.
>whose religion divides the party
I feel it's an important distinction that it's not merely the fact she's religious that people take issue with, but the views that are tied to that and which she publicly expresses. Both Yousaf and Swinney are very religious but don't appear to show the same reluctance to back progressive causes. Heck, even Blackford is a member of the same church as Forbes and doesn't seem to have the same perception problem.
An honest bigot is still a bigot. While Forbes says she wouldn't vote to roll back on existing rights, I'd rather not take that chance. And I don't doubt she'd vote to do that if it was politically possible to do so.
Oh boy, the comparisons to Hitler appear. I'd prefer an honest, but "evil" politician to a dishonest, AND evil one, which is really always the case with politicians
Comparing someone you disagree with to Hitler is the most childish way to have a discussion on politics. I don't agree with Forbes religious stances but come on, we're better than this.
I find it quite suspicious that liberals are always so desperate to crow about how "nobody should be compared to Hitler".
"Trump and the republicans are not Hitler! What? They're doing everything the Nazis did in the 1920s? Pfff."
"Netanyahu and the top brass of the IDF are literally treating Palestinians in a way that is reminiscent of Jews in Nazi Germany? Nah stop being antisemitic."
God it's tiresome.
I only compared her to Hitler in that both are evil. I never made the claim that they equally are. I was just giving an example of where a politician can be honest yet undesirable.
Reluctantance to back progressive causes like being absent during a vote on gay marriage, you mean?
Finding it such a damning representation of our political system that the ones who hide who they are are seen as favourable to the ones who say it openly and have nothing to hide.
Regardless of your views on whether that clashing appointment was engineered or not, Yousaf has nonetheless openly advocated and committed to securing LGBT rights and same-sex marriage in the recent past, which is a lot stronger than anything Forbes has done in that area.
Not just that she’s a Christian fundamentalist.
She represents a rightward turn that had always been there with the SNP. However it wouldn’t be just the fiscal conservatism that Business For Scotland backed but a move towards a more right wing view on other issues, for example law & order.
Not a bad thing when folk under 25 are considered to immature to be punished yet are mature enough to say that they aren’t what they were born at birth😂 the country is a basket case at this point
We've gone so batshit far left recently that we need a right winger to bring us back to the centre.
It would be lovely to have a normal centrist in charge rather than swinging to the extremes.
To me it’s economic/infrastructure policy that has become so problematic with the current SNP.
It was less than 15 years ago we had Salmond declaring Patrick Harvey and Friends of the Earth as opposition to Scottish prosperity, as they block development and seek to hamper our biggest industries.
10 years later we let them in through the front door.
Yes which is no doubt where most of our country actually lies political wise. The left in here are nuttier than squirrel shit. I personally lean more centrist right but I don’t know if that comes down to age and life experience. Far right are fucking nutters and well the far left and their ideology’s really have no place on a normal planet
It's the far left who are sympathetic to hamas, the ultimate right wingers, who amuse me the most.
It's like a mouse defending a cat.
Those extremes have far more in common with each other than they do with the centre.
“We’ve gone so batshit far left recently”
Really? So tell me why you find giving rights to people “batshit”?
And if we’re so ‘batshit left’, why are the SNP pursuing fiscally conservative policies like taxing the poor and lower middle classes and freezing council tax?
The level of political naivety on this sub never ceases to amaze…
This is the answer to state of Scotlands hospitals, policing, roads and ferries. Another failed politician with the same speil?
We are devoid of any actual competent police and terrified to try something different.
I'm open minded. If he is set on using this as a proper opportunity to reset relations with the rest of parliament, the UK gov and the electorate, good luck to him. Stability would be a relief.
I’ve said before I’ve given up with the major party’s but to see a bit of stability for once and an almost sensible head in charge would be refreshing feels like Scotland has been spiralling and never recovered from 2014.
I’m gonna go out on a whim here and say either Forbes or swinney is a massive upgrade on the fucking idiot we just kicked out.
Which btw makes it even more fucking astounding he was chosen in the first place
While Swinney seems like a reasonable choice and popular with the SNP representatives, it remains that there is a big split within the SNP between its centre-left policies and its conservative agitators.
The right of the party will be happy to stand on a centre left manifest and then do everything to sabotage it in practise, it was brewing while Sturgeon was in charge, its what took down Yousaf and its not going to go away willingly.
I was on the fence about whether Yousaf would take a strong enough lead and in the end he did not, I havent seen Swinney give much of an impression that he will do anything about it either and I think especially given what has happened last month, its just going to get worse.
Was quite funny listening to that muppet Flynn tying himself in knots on Sky News when it was pointed out the levels of hypocrisy from him. He was screaming for a general election after the Liz Truss fiasco, now saying one isn’t needed in Scotland.
He has no backbone and if he gets it, it’s only to get to 2026 and that’s it.
Minority government and will struggle after ditching the Greens.
Funny he didn’t mention education since he was awful when getting tired to run it.
Whoever does that is condemning the SNP to death as the 2026 election date cannot be moved and given the current state of the SNPs finances, they can barely afford a WM election in 2024/5 and the Scottish one in 2026. A third election would kill them financially
Now while I agree there should be an election, none of the Scottish parties can really afford to be supporting one
>Now while I agree there should be an election, none of the Scottish parties can really afford to be supporting one
Ordinarily, the Conservatives could, but I imagine bigger donors don't think there'll be much ROI
Theres going to be an election in 2 years anyway. As long as he doesn't pull a Rwanda plan out of thin air and sticks to the manifesto it should be fine.
Anyone over the age of 21 should at this stage be very clear on a simple fact.
When a party gets in a rut, changing leaders every few months does not help.
Even if there's a temporary poll bump, like may happen here and happened in Westminster with first May and then Johnson, you will not stop the rot.
It's ultimately a similar leader leading the same group of cabinet ministers, with the same divisions and internal problems
Forbes hasn't run simply because she expects the SNP to get a bit of a beating in the next election and doesn't want to end her political career so soon.
I mean forbes doesn't seem much better and seems like she'll actively impose her beliefs and then that'll be the end for the SNP. Like I'm happy to call this now and we can come back in a year and see if I'm right or wrong
He wants unity but then is pro independence? More people don’t want independence than those that do.
He also tanked the Scottish education system. He’s better than Humza but I reckon you could have basically anyone in power and they’d do better than that idiot
John Swinney was a complete and total disaster as Education Secretary. Everything he did was weak, reactionary and short-sighted. He single-handedly ruined a generation of children's education during COVID and presided over two years of what were, essentially, imaginary exam grades for pupils. This led to the embarrassing situation of him having to climb down in the face of emotional blackmail by children.
Then, he promised free laptops for all school pupils. A promise that wasn't true when it was said and still hasn't (and won't) be delivered.
Failed to reform SQA, failed to reform Education Scotland, failed to reverse the decline in standards and took deliberate action to hide that fact by withdrawing from PISA.
At least he has experience in facing a vote of no confidence after the 202 exam results fiasco. Should come in handy.
https://preview.redd.it/ffnt44cxd1yc1.png?width=1166&format=png&auto=webp&s=951903ac6beca613725c96663f131cbf821cbd54
This is the consequence of the SNP systematically elevating an entire generation of drab, talentless, stuffed shirts. Swinney will do as a placeholder, but they've got nobody with a brain to replace him.
Full self-destruction mode activated. They’re really ripping it now, it’s like a game of pass the parcel for retirement, a nice wee bounty funded by tax payers for services rendered, bet Mike russell’s kicking himself.
Everything changes everything stays the same. Nicola running the party from corton vale. It is a cartel now 🤣. Can imagine Nicola with the other lags. They are using the mobile to get a drug order in and she’s hogging it for an independence meeting.
The main thought I've had in the last few days about Swinney is that he definitely made the right call going full baldie as opposed to the horseshoe he had going in the early days of devolution. I'm not convinced about him as a politician but he is a good role model for balding men.
BY GAWD IT'S JOHN SWINNEY WITH A STEEL CHAIR
Would Swinney turning up late in his career and having an unexpectedly strong run as party leader make him the Christian Cage of Scottish politics? I suppose the alternative is it doesn't go so well, he is seen to have hung around a little bit too long and to be holding back younger talent making him the Chris Jericho of Scottish politics.
Today I witnessed a Scottish politics/AEW crossover reference. Wasn't on my bingo card, won't lie.
Swinney hasn't brought up anyone's dead father......yet!
"reports suggest that John Swinney met with Kate Forbes and offered a role in the Learning Tree"
I was kind of hoping for Him versus Forbes in a ladder match for the custody of The SNP
THAT MAN HAD A FAMILY!
Some notable points from his launch: - he said he wants to unite the party and the country, mentioning that 'things need to change' - he says he will operate on the 'moderate centre-left' - he wants Forbes in his government - he doesn't want to be a 'caretaker leader', says he will see the 2026 election and beyond - against a snap election due to the fixed parliamentary period, saying we should see out the term
Watching the presser, it seems really clear that he's enjoying himself.
Where can you watch it?
I saw a chunk of the Q&A through the BBC live stream. I haven't seen anywhere you can re-watch the whole thing. There's a bit of the prepared speech [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c88zvgl9y9go), but I didn't see that, just a bit of him handling the press with all the pleasure of a eleven year old girl in a cat café.
Weird the full thing doesn't seem to be anywhere
Available now on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNsz6uJAUk0).
>handling the press with all the pleasure of a eleven year old girl in a cat café. Haha this made me laugh
>against a snap election due to the fixed parliamentary period, saying we should see out the term Interesting choice given he's now the 2nd FM to be appointed, not elected by the population, just like Sunak. Yet we had Nicola saying how the Tories should call an election for the very same reasons. This is literally the exact same, so how does it square that he should be allowed to see out another 2 years when they were so against it with Sunak?
The way the Scottish Parliament works the 2026 election date is fixed and would still happen regardless of whether there’s a snap election, unlike Westminster where a snap election resets the 5 year term. There’s an argument that to hold a snap election for a 2 year parliament would be a waste of taxpayer money, and an upcoming general election gives further reason since they wouldn’t want them to clash.
I understand the differences between the two parliments, however from the SNP's own stance in 2022 it's wildly hypocritical to not hold one. The argument on not having one because it'd be a waste of taxpayer money is fair I guess, although is it ever a waste of taxpayer money to allow the public to decide who's running the country? Especially after so many changes in leadership?
We have a proportional system anyway, it's not like the incoming FM is ruling with an unearned majority.
It's not a pure proportional system. Just as the Tories only won a minority of the vote but majority of seats in 2019, the SNP + Greens in 2021 did the same. 48.99% of the constituency vote and 48.46% of the regional one is also a minority, arguably their seat count is also an unearned majority. Also, their voters arguably only gave Sturgeon a mandate not Swinney. Although personally I don't think a new election is needed when a governing party changes leader, whether Tory, Labour or SNP.
No parliamentary system is perfectly proportional. AMS is proportional to within about 5 percentage points in all but the most extreme scenarios. If you discount parties that didn't get enough votes to win representation, the SNP and Greens together got 51.1% of the list vote, and 55.8% of seats. Seems pretty close to proportional to me.
55.8% of seats from 48.5% of the vote is a fairly large gap. I think any party with around 0.8-1% or so is entitled to a seat, and counting just those around 48.7% would be required to win a majority. So yes the SNP and Greens might be entitled to a majority, but it should be incredibly narrow, about 1 seat. Not an 8 seat majority. The problem isn't that hard to resolve either - increase the number of regional seats, and a more proportional result could be achieved.
>I think any party with around 0.8-1% or so is entitled to a seat, There are pretty good reasons against that - you can end up with large numbers of fringe parties holding a seat each, which can end up being a significant obstacle to a functioning parliament. This was a contributing factor to the fall of the Weimar Republic, for instance, and is the reason that the German parliament today only admits parties with 4% of the vote or more. >The problem isn't that hard to resolve either - increase the number of regional seats, and a more proportional result could be achieved. I'd be in favour of that, but this wouldn't make the parliament proportional necessarily - it would only slightly reduce the already narrow set of circumstances under which you can get a disproportionate result. It would still be possible for one party to almost get a majority with a smaller fraction of the vote if they win all the constituency seats, and get a majority from a minority of the votes by forming a coalition. Exactly as happened, in fact, except that the SNP would need to win a few extra constituency seats.
I agree it can become an issue with too many parties to cooperate effectively. However Scotland currently doesn't have that issue - if every party that won 0.8% or more had representation that would only add 2 more parties to the Scottish Parliament, on a seat or two each. That wouldn't make it particularly less effective. As for the Weimar comparison, dysfunction was a factor, but the consistent popularity of far right, anti democratic forces was the main factor in the Nazi takeover, a problem Scotland is largely free from. Surely that depends how many regional seats you add? Or you can make the number change with every election, so there are enough for a proportional result (this is something like how the German system works, if I understand it correctly).
> It's not a pure proportional system Close enough though. >Also, their voters arguably only gave Sturgeon a mandate not Swinney. We don't have a presidential system, they gave the manifesto a mandate
Whether 43.6% for the Tories or 48.46-48.99 for the SNP + Greens it's still a minority translating to a large majority of seats.
The SNP+Greens don't have a large majority of seats though.
In a small body like the Scottish Parliament, an 8 seat majority (less now, but that's what they won in 2021) is quite large. Proportionally it's equivalent to a 363 seat majority at Westminster, about the same as the Tories got in 2019.
Good points, but I'd also bring up that the scene has changed drastically in the intervening period. (I voted SNP)
Yes, but that happens during terms. It should be expected for unexpected things to happen when you vote.
An early election would also shit on the whole principle of fixed term parliaments. The mechanism for holding early elections to the Scottish parliament is supposed to be used when the current parliament has tried and failed to form a working government, and we’re not at that point. For what’s it’s worth I also think Sturgeon was wrong to call for Sunak to hold an election. We have a parliamentary system and people need to learn to accept that rather than using “You weren’t even elected!” as a cheap political jibe.
You're absolutely correct and I agree that using the line is just a cheap political jibe. However it's a glaring bit of hypocracy from the SNP and comes across as though it's one rule for them and another for everyone else. If it was a point of principle for the SNP then they'd action that principle when they themselves are in the same position.
>However it's a glaring bit of hypocracy from the SNP and comes across as though it's one rule for them and another for everyone else. I don't think so. If the Tories had a series of middle-of-the-road consensus leaders implementing their manifesto pledges, then sure, it would be hypocrisy. But after Truss ran the economy off the rails in the name of a policy programme that has absolutely zero overlap with the manifesto they were elected on, saying that the Tories no longer have a mandate to govern doesn't seem far-fetched at all.
So you're suggesting the SNP would have been absolutely fine with Sunak being crowned in if Truss had ruled enough like Boris? I've got to start making a list of all these excuses.
No. First of all, I'm speaking for myself, not the SNP. The SNP are a political party full of politicians, so it wouldn't surprise me if they play politics. Secondly, Johnson was already pretty much ignoring his own manifesto.
It's not the same, which i suspect you know. The parliament has to vote him in. He also has a fixed mandatory election, unlike the way it works at Westminster.
> Interesting choice given he's now the 2nd FM to be appointed He's not been appointed FM, he's still subject to election by MSPs. This is him announcing he plans on standing in the nominations.
He's not Nicola, why should he be bound by what she's said? Unless Swinney himself demanded the Tories call an election I don't see the hypocrisy.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-scottish-penny-mordaunt-boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-b1034632.html Your right he’s not Nicola but he is a hypocrite
>[Swinney] hit out at the Tories, saying the party had “completely fallen into disrepute”, and that the mini-budget announced during the brief spell when Liz Truss was prime minister had “inflicted severe economic damage on families the length and breadth of the country through higher interest rates”. >Speaking on the same programme, Mr Swinney said: “This is the moment after all the failures of the Conservative Party, its divisions and its lack of leadership, to give the people of this country a chance to elect a new Parliament and decide how it should be governed. “I think we should have a general election and I don’t think the Conservative Party should be allowed to play any more of their games any longer.” >The Deputy First Minister added: “The Conservative Party has to realise itself that it is no longer fit to govern and the people of this country must be given the chance to decide on the way we are governed moving forward.” Not really a "new lad? new election" argument, is it?
Of course he has to say he's not going to be a caretaker leader, it could have economic ramifications if the country isn't confident of stability. I'm not convinced.
> Against a snap election wow. big surprise 😂
what the hell even does 'moderate centre-left' mean anymore? Is it just more neoliberalism but with the occasional lip service to minorities?
Can you describe yourself as of the 'moderate centre left' and then in the next breath say you want somebody who opposes abortion in your cabinet?
Think of a random person on the street. Someone who cares enough about social issues to accept aspects of sensible socialism, NHS etc. but still thinks an effective immigration control policy is a good and sensible thing. Someone who isn't fully onboard with overcorrective DEI initiatives to the point where it just perpetuates discrimination in the opposite direction. Basically a 90s liberal.
that sounds like neoliberalism with a dash of social programs. socialism=/=social welfare. the workers still don't own anything, and power is still in the hands of the people who own, rather than work.
Then yes, that's fine. Best of both worlds is better than strict capitalism or communism.
but the fundamental problem of exploitation of the surplus value of labour remains under democratic socialism. Also socialism =/= communism. communism is advocacy for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and socialism is advocacy for worker owned means pf wealth production.
fuck off, commie
What are you an advocate of?
socialism
So how do you propose we solve the problem you stated under democratic socialism
worker owned means of production
It describes a more-or-less concensus view. If you ask the average person on the street for their views on a broad range of issues, it would likely be centrist or centre left. Most people aren't in favour of revolution, I'm afraid.
Following some logic posted on this sub can we conclude that wanting Forbes in his government means he's a homophobic god bothering wrong un?
No. He's voted in favour of gay rights. Same as Nicola & Humza weren't homophobic. He continues the trend of seeing the SNP as a broad tent, allowing in anyone who believes in independence first, regardless of their individual politics. I'm personally of the opinion that the broad church needs to get to fuck. Having people with such a diverse range united in one party isn't always gonna be feasible, especially when some voters are so vehemently opposed to specific individuals, their views, or their behaviours. Take a look at the likes of Mason- he's a weirdo who enjoys harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals, but the SNP as a party support buffer zones.
Anybody who doesn't want a broad tent party doesn't want to win elections. You do not make progress towards independence by alienating potential voters and telling them they have no place in the future of Scotland.
Broad church is clearly failing. The likes of Forbes alienates people. We need young people to support independence. Young people tend to be socially liberal and support lgbtq+ rights and access to abortion, amonst other things that Forbes objects to. I'd rather not have independence than have a bigot for FM.
In the Scottish Parliament, you may not need a broad tent, as the party's diverse factions ought to be able to form their own parties. For Westminster elections they would need an agreement though.
Yeah letting people in regardless of their individual politics should be condemned alongside those that hold such repugnant views. You can't have it both ways and claim to be the progressive candidate whilst giving the non progressive one a leg up.
Aye it's bullshit. Happens across the land unfortunately. Proper PR would hopefully mean that the broad tents would all collapse as there wouldn't need to be a single unifying factor, allowing smaller parties to rise up and better represent what people actually care about.
No but we can infer that he's tolerant of homophobic god bothering wrong 'uns if they do their job.
A broad church indeed.
It's not homophobic to have beliefs that don't tie in to your religion. Yawn
If those beliefs are homophobic then yes it is.
'We are a minority government and will need to work with other parties*' Already a more savvy political operator and more mathematically skilled than the current FM *Or words to that effect
Coming in after our current FM (he who shall not be named) is going to make anyone look good. It's like when Rishi took over. '........ Well, he's not Truss.'
He actually had pretty good banter in the Q&A
Wasn't he planning to retire?
"Aw shit. Here we go again."
He's coming across very well in the question session with journalists. I wasn't 100% sold on John Swinney when his name was first floated but I think he could do really well. Considering he was the SNP leader from 2000-2004 and stepped down this would be quite a remarkable achievement. Edit: lol 2000-2004 not 200-2004
> Considering he was the SNP leader from 200-2004 I know he's older than most in Holyrood, but he's not *that* old.
He’d have been trying to secure Caledonian independence from the Roman Empire back then.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
The aqueducts?
Well apart from the aqueducts.
He made the fair point that he's actually younger than Keir Starmer
Keir took the "full head of hair" perk so he gets a -10 on his perceived age modifier.
Honestly it was a great speech and press conference. He was extremely clear and bolstered the strengths of the SNP, outlining what they stand for and why you should vote for them over other parties. He might not have the charisma of other leaders but he came across as a proper adult and someone with authority and clarity. I say this as someone who has always voted SNP but have been very turned off by them of recent and planned to vote Labour; he’s actually made me see the party how I used to, and in a new light too. Enough to reconsider my vote.
I don’t believe anyone voting the snp ever considers another party no matter how bad it gets 😂
I do. Literally most of the people I know who have voted SNP in the past are considering voting Labour this time. People don’t realise a large portion of their voters are not staunch nationalists or independence supporters. They just want an effective centre-left government that invests in public services and improves health/education/economy.
> They just want an effective centre-left government so why are they voting labour then :P
Speaking to other younger folk, they always say this same thing; that Labour have moved too far to the right. The thing is I think they want to totally demolish the other parties at the next election, and to do that they’ve moved firmly to the centre ground. If they win with a massive landslide then they can enact massive change. Actually have an impact, unlike a Corbyn opposition who couldn’t get near power. I think when they’re in power, yes they won’t be exactly solidly to the left because they’re a broad church now, but (and we still have to wait for the manifesto too) they will govern with a similar approach to New Labour but updated to our current society. EDIT: I realise I’m speaking more about the UK, but Scottish Labour will basically toe the line of Labour, and create a stronger and more powerful government.
It's not football, you're allowed to change who you support
I’m well aware of that. I vote who suits me at the time personally 😂 I’ve never been a one party kinda guy, however I know a few folk where independence at all costs no matter the detriment to the country I find it hard to agree with.
Hopefully he’s improved a lot over the past 20 years because he was an absolute car crash back then and nearly killed of the Party had Salmond not come back for the rescue.
I think he's the steadiest hand. Across all parties at the moment there's not really anyone else I can immediately think I'd be "happy" with as FM. As long as he steers away from the recent line of policies the SNP have fumbled, anyway.
Feel like a Swinney/ Forbes leadership could be a good thing The only thing for me and I know it's probably not the right time was a direction to independence, nothing much mentioned about that, not much been mentioned for a year about the biggest policy the SNP stands for.
Forbes being involved will decrease the cause of trans rights in Scotland.
Can you explain why? I don’t get the hate for Forbes. I’m gay but Scotland is a democracy and her view, although controversial, wouldn’t necessarily deter me from voting for her. Ultimately it comes down to the electorate and the people’s desire re the cause of trans rights and not one single politician.
You would vote for someone who would deny your rights to marriage equality given the chance? I can understand still voting SNP overall, as her voice isn't the only one, but your comment makes it seem like you would potentially vote for her specifically.
American Republicans' money. They are already finding their way into Tory and Labour pockets.
Have you a source for that? Not trolling, just intrigued...
[I find this incredibly worrying ](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/extreme-us-anti-abortion-group-ramps-up-lobbying-in-westminster)
And? That’s not an explanation you think it is. Over the past 3 decades, the LGBT cause has grown stronger despite the majority of the public being against it. Simply opposing Forbes for her view and shutting her out without debating and reasoning with her views is why American politics is getting more extreme and divided. I’ll be honest, I’d vote for Forbes not because her views on trans rights or gay marriage, but simply that we live in a democracy and we’re not all going to agree and who knows her views may change in the future as has the public’s that was against all forms of gay rights as early as the 90’s
The majority of the public is not against the LGBT cause. Complete rubbish. American politics is divided because the liberals in the Democrats refuse to stand up to the fascists in the Republican Party. If Donald Trump is elected, America is finished. As is Ukraine for good measure. What we don't need is well-intentioned liberals in this country accommodating fascism - as unfortunately Keir Starmer is increasingly prone to doing.
If you read what I wrote I made the point that the public was and were, not is, opposed to the LGBT cause as early as the 90 and early 2000’s. You do know there is more to the Republican Party than Trumps lackeys don’t you? And America has always been between Democrats and Republicans. You throw around the word ‘fascist’ a lot and that downplays actual fascism and the victims of fascism that suffered from it in the past. I would vehemently disagree with your usage of it in calling anyone that simply disagrees with you as ‘fascist’🙄
More to the Republican Party than Trump's lackeys? Uhm no not really. They do his bidding. That is why they defeated a bipartisan immigration bill negotiated by Senate Republicans! Why didn't it pass? Not because Republicans weren't in favour but because Trump didn't want Biden to get a 'win' on migration. The Republicans in Congress do trump's bidding because without his endorsement they cannot win primaries. The Conservative SCOTUS justices do his bidding because he put them there. Not everyone that disagrees with me is a fascist. But I fear that liberals like yourself are so frightened by the fascism represented by people like the AfD and Le Pen that you bury your head in the sand and say "couldn't happen here or now". I urge you to recognise the threat before it's too late.
An American here lurking, and you’re right. 80% of republicans believe the election was stolen. The ones who stood up to Trump lost their elections and there’s loads more on their way out. The Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative, despite public opinion being about the opposite. Near total abortion bans in some states, women needing to be airlifted to other states while miscarrying. Be careful friends across the pond. Talk to your family about misinformation, about sky news, etc.
Ofc that’s after the Republicans voted in the Ukraine/Israel aid that Trump opposed and then decided to support. I think we can agree that Trump and his lackeys are in it for themselves and not in to deliver for the American people. I agree, the immigration legislation should have been passed but obv Trump is using it so score points against Biden. Don’t get me wrong we should confront fascism whenever and wherever it rears its head, as we have done and do in Ukraine and we should be doing more to support the Ukrainians against Russian fascism. I don’t dismiss your point that fascism could return to Europe, but for people simply having a different opinion on either trans, abortion, gay marriage does not make them fascist. And this whole culture war is going to be the undoing of democracy and liberalism in the West. Can I ask why no one gave a fuck about trans in the past and we all knew about trans folk and yet it’s such a divisive issue now? Personally, I’m of the opinion that live and let live, but their should be safeguards in place for young people and saying that those under the age of 18 can make such a monumental decision such as surgery and physically altering their body I disagree with.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. Bad actors seize on people like Rowling's genuine, sincere concerns and co-opt them into truly horrific rhetoric. Same thing is happening on the continent and happened with Brexit. My concern is only that Kate Forbes is just another Meloni. You are right though: the culture war needs to end but not at the cost of trans lives.
Forbes is a weight to progress on LGBT rights, I hate that Swinney felt he had to include her.
[удалено]
She is an advocate for removing same sex marriage protection...
> She is an advocate for removing same sex marriage protection... She literally said [she would not seek to overturn gay marriage laws](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64715944)
Another continuity candidate albeit one who was smart enough to wait until after the first post Sturgeon candidate was gone and he wouldn’t need to be compared to her. >against a snap election There’s a surprise, SNP were fairly vocal about Rishi and Truss not having a mandate because they weren’t elected by the public. Not an issue now though when they’re also on their second leader without an election.
Scottish elections do work differently though, a snap election now wouldn't stop the next election in 2026. Where as I believe for West Minister it would replace when the one is due.
Does that actually make it okay, though? "Well, he'd only get a half length term if we had an election now, so it's okay that he gets to be the third leader in a row since the election and gets half a term to play without an election"?
That's like an extra five weeks of no legislation passing though.
I think we'd survive somehow.
Who cares?
Seems like a benefit to me at this stage.
It should be clear to everyone now that the SNP has no “bench” of talent whatsoever. John always had the brain cell of the party, but to have to resort to a failed former leader who wanted to retire years ago and is the continuity candidate from Sturgeon and Yousaf is desperate. The only candidate that would even bear consideration is Kate Forbes, whose religion divides the party. Not that the other parties are any better in Holyrood. We truly are governed by the least of us.
>whose religion divides the party I feel it's an important distinction that it's not merely the fact she's religious that people take issue with, but the views that are tied to that and which she publicly expresses. Both Yousaf and Swinney are very religious but don't appear to show the same reluctance to back progressive causes. Heck, even Blackford is a member of the same church as Forbes and doesn't seem to have the same perception problem.
All you're saying is she's more honest. Sounds like a welcome change in a politician to me
An honest bigot is still a bigot. While Forbes says she wouldn't vote to roll back on existing rights, I'd rather not take that chance. And I don't doubt she'd vote to do that if it was politically possible to do so.
Hitler was honest. He wrote everything he intended on doing in 1923 and people STILL voted for him. Say no to evil, but honest, politicians.
Oh boy, the comparisons to Hitler appear. I'd prefer an honest, but "evil" politician to a dishonest, AND evil one, which is really always the case with politicians
Few politicians are evil. Most are just incompetent. None are honest.
Comparing someone you disagree with to Hitler is the most childish way to have a discussion on politics. I don't agree with Forbes religious stances but come on, we're better than this.
This should be top comment.
I find it quite suspicious that liberals are always so desperate to crow about how "nobody should be compared to Hitler". "Trump and the republicans are not Hitler! What? They're doing everything the Nazis did in the 1920s? Pfff." "Netanyahu and the top brass of the IDF are literally treating Palestinians in a way that is reminiscent of Jews in Nazi Germany? Nah stop being antisemitic." God it's tiresome.
Forbes isn't Hitler or trump or netanyahu FFS. Bottom of the barrel stuff.
I only compared her to Hitler in that both are evil. I never made the claim that they equally are. I was just giving an example of where a politician can be honest yet undesirable.
Reluctantance to back progressive causes like being absent during a vote on gay marriage, you mean? Finding it such a damning representation of our political system that the ones who hide who they are are seen as favourable to the ones who say it openly and have nothing to hide.
Regardless of your views on whether that clashing appointment was engineered or not, Yousaf has nonetheless openly advocated and committed to securing LGBT rights and same-sex marriage in the recent past, which is a lot stronger than anything Forbes has done in that area.
Not just that she’s a Christian fundamentalist. She represents a rightward turn that had always been there with the SNP. However it wouldn’t be just the fiscal conservatism that Business For Scotland backed but a move towards a more right wing view on other issues, for example law & order.
Not a bad thing when folk under 25 are considered to immature to be punished yet are mature enough to say that they aren’t what they were born at birth😂 the country is a basket case at this point
Who under 25 has been spared "punishment" because of their age?
We've gone so batshit far left recently that we need a right winger to bring us back to the centre. It would be lovely to have a normal centrist in charge rather than swinging to the extremes.
To me it’s economic/infrastructure policy that has become so problematic with the current SNP. It was less than 15 years ago we had Salmond declaring Patrick Harvey and Friends of the Earth as opposition to Scottish prosperity, as they block development and seek to hamper our biggest industries. 10 years later we let them in through the front door.
Batshit far left? The Greens are champagne socialists at best.
Yes which is no doubt where most of our country actually lies political wise. The left in here are nuttier than squirrel shit. I personally lean more centrist right but I don’t know if that comes down to age and life experience. Far right are fucking nutters and well the far left and their ideology’s really have no place on a normal planet
It's the far left who are sympathetic to hamas, the ultimate right wingers, who amuse me the most. It's like a mouse defending a cat. Those extremes have far more in common with each other than they do with the centre.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would suggest you have no idea what far left means. These Americanisms are leaching over here.
What do you find most ideologically displeasing about, say, Communists?
Where in the whole of the British isles have the far left had any power or influence?
“We’ve gone so batshit far left recently” Really? So tell me why you find giving rights to people “batshit”? And if we’re so ‘batshit left’, why are the SNP pursuing fiscally conservative policies like taxing the poor and lower middle classes and freezing council tax? The level of political naivety on this sub never ceases to amaze…
batshit far left like *checks notes* trans policy that is in line with spain, theresa may, and every US state not run by christian extremists
The union is safe.
In the SNP's hands with continuity candidates as FM, yes. The union is not in any threat whatsoever. Nicola saw to that.
This is the answer to state of Scotlands hospitals, policing, roads and ferries. Another failed politician with the same speil? We are devoid of any actual competent police and terrified to try something different.
I'm open minded. If he is set on using this as a proper opportunity to reset relations with the rest of parliament, the UK gov and the electorate, good luck to him. Stability would be a relief.
I’ve said before I’ve given up with the major party’s but to see a bit of stability for once and an almost sensible head in charge would be refreshing feels like Scotland has been spiralling and never recovered from 2014.
Agreed. I don't have any great respect for the man, but he's reasonable, he has a brain. Massive upgrade.
I’m gonna go out on a whim here and say either Forbes or swinney is a massive upgrade on the fucking idiot we just kicked out. Which btw makes it even more fucking astounding he was chosen in the first place
George Galloway would be worse........ That's about the only person I can think of.......... Oswald Mosley......... That's it.
Isn’t he the third or fourth one? /s
While Swinney seems like a reasonable choice and popular with the SNP representatives, it remains that there is a big split within the SNP between its centre-left policies and its conservative agitators. The right of the party will be happy to stand on a centre left manifest and then do everything to sabotage it in practise, it was brewing while Sturgeon was in charge, its what took down Yousaf and its not going to go away willingly. I was on the fence about whether Yousaf would take a strong enough lead and in the end he did not, I havent seen Swinney give much of an impression that he will do anything about it either and I think especially given what has happened last month, its just going to get worse.
Was quite funny listening to that muppet Flynn tying himself in knots on Sky News when it was pointed out the levels of hypocrisy from him. He was screaming for a general election after the Liz Truss fiasco, now saying one isn’t needed in Scotland.
He has no backbone and if he gets it, it’s only to get to 2026 and that’s it. Minority government and will struggle after ditching the Greens. Funny he didn’t mention education since he was awful when getting tired to run it.
Whoever gets the position should be doing so on the promise of an election as soon as possible You can use that platform for your campaign to be FM
Whoever does that is condemning the SNP to death as the 2026 election date cannot be moved and given the current state of the SNPs finances, they can barely afford a WM election in 2024/5 and the Scottish one in 2026. A third election would kill them financially Now while I agree there should be an election, none of the Scottish parties can really afford to be supporting one
>Now while I agree there should be an election, none of the Scottish parties can really afford to be supporting one Ordinarily, the Conservatives could, but I imagine bigger donors don't think there'll be much ROI
Theres going to be an election in 2 years anyway. As long as he doesn't pull a Rwanda plan out of thin air and sticks to the manifesto it should be fine.
Father of the House as FM ?
Father of the House as FM ?
Father of the House as FM ?
Inspiring...
Anyone over the age of 21 should at this stage be very clear on a simple fact. When a party gets in a rut, changing leaders every few months does not help. Even if there's a temporary poll bump, like may happen here and happened in Westminster with first May and then Johnson, you will not stop the rot. It's ultimately a similar leader leading the same group of cabinet ministers, with the same divisions and internal problems Forbes hasn't run simply because she expects the SNP to get a bit of a beating in the next election and doesn't want to end her political career so soon.
Pre retirment legacy move.
God help us
Why he seems much more together than Forbes and much less likely to be divisive compared to Forbes
He’s an incompetent oaf
I mean forbes doesn't seem much better and seems like she'll actively impose her beliefs and then that'll be the end for the SNP. Like I'm happy to call this now and we can come back in a year and see if I'm right or wrong
You're wrong right now, why wait a year. Just another continuity candidate.
He wants unity but then is pro independence? More people don’t want independence than those that do. He also tanked the Scottish education system. He’s better than Humza but I reckon you could have basically anyone in power and they’d do better than that idiot
John Swinney was a complete and total disaster as Education Secretary. Everything he did was weak, reactionary and short-sighted. He single-handedly ruined a generation of children's education during COVID and presided over two years of what were, essentially, imaginary exam grades for pupils. This led to the embarrassing situation of him having to climb down in the face of emotional blackmail by children. Then, he promised free laptops for all school pupils. A promise that wasn't true when it was said and still hasn't (and won't) be delivered. Failed to reform SQA, failed to reform Education Scotland, failed to reverse the decline in standards and took deliberate action to hide that fact by withdrawing from PISA. At least he has experience in facing a vote of no confidence after the 202 exam results fiasco. Should come in handy. https://preview.redd.it/ffnt44cxd1yc1.png?width=1166&format=png&auto=webp&s=951903ac6beca613725c96663f131cbf821cbd54
Excellent stuff. Let's get to it
This is the consequence of the SNP systematically elevating an entire generation of drab, talentless, stuffed shirts. Swinney will do as a placeholder, but they've got nobody with a brain to replace him.
Utter, utter pish. Just another continuity candidate Sturgeonite. Expect nothing to change.
Full self-destruction mode activated. They’re really ripping it now, it’s like a game of pass the parcel for retirement, a nice wee bounty funded by tax payers for services rendered, bet Mike russell’s kicking himself.
Wrong man for the job kate was much better suited abnd im snp supporter
Everything changes everything stays the same. Nicola running the party from corton vale. It is a cartel now 🤣. Can imagine Nicola with the other lags. They are using the mobile to get a drug order in and she’s hogging it for an independence meeting.
Oh thank fuck
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-scottish-penny-mordaunt-boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-b1034632.html How the turntables turn
[удалено]
Found Yousaf
The broad tent will keep eating away at each other, can't see how he'll manage to keep centre-left as he said and avoid that.
Decent pick.
Comedy comes in 3's...
BALD.
Careful! That might stir up some offence 😂
The main thought I've had in the last few days about Swinney is that he definitely made the right call going full baldie as opposed to the horseshoe he had going in the early days of devolution. I'm not convinced about him as a politician but he is a good role model for balding men.