Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 15, 2023, 10:19:07 AM
-
Cue gossip
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64647907
-
In general good speech but haunted by self indulgence.
-
In general good speech but haunted by self indulgence.
Way too long and definitely self indulgent. But I guess when you are the leader of something close to a one party state (by 'state' I mean Scotland*) and certainly in Westminster terms (by which I mean the 59 Scottish Westminster seats*) then it becomes likely that you'll end up believing the hyperbole.
*Edited to provide absolute clarity as to what I mean to avoid accidental or deliberate misrepresentation.
-
Way too long and definitely self indulgent. But I guess when you are the leader of something close to a one party state (certainly in Westminster terms) then it becomes likely that you'll end up believing the hyperbole.
Amazingly in criticising hyperbole you managed to provide a perfect example 'one party state'!
-
Amazingly in criticising hyperbole you managed to provide a perfect example 'one party state'!
Nice bit of mis-quoting NS.
"... close to a one party state (certainly in Westminster terms) ..."
So in the elections she was leader.
Westminster result 2019
SNP 48 out of 59 seats - in other words over 80% of the seats.
Westminster result 2017
SNP 35 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 60% of the seats - clearly an appalling result, compared to.
Westminster result 2015
SNP 56 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 95% of the seats
Sounds pretty close to a one party state to me - I think my comment is demonstrably accurate.
-
Nice bit of mis-quoting NS.
"... close to a one party state (certainly in Westminster terms) ..."
Westminster result 2019
SNP 48 out of 59 seats - in other words over 80% of the seats. Sounds pretty close to a one party state to me - I think my comment is demonstrably accurate.
It's 48 of 650 in Westminster terms.
-
It's 48 of 650 in Westminster terms.
Err - the SNP only contest 59 seats so their results elsewhere are, obviously, not relevant as there are no results.
In Scotland (clearly this is the 'state' I was discussing) in the 3 elections she has fought the SNP have won between 60% and 95% of the seats they contested.
And actually that is clear in the tone of her speech - she, along with the SNP and before her Salmond have dominated politics in Scotland in a manner that hasn't been replicated in other parts of the UK. Her speech came across as the words of the overwhelmingly dominant force (her) within the overwhelmingly dominant force (the SNP) in Scottish politics.
-
Err - the SNP only contest 59 seats so their results elsewhere are, obviously, not relevant as there are no results.
In Scotland (clearly this is the 'state' I was discussing) in the 3 elections she has fought the SNP have won between 60% and 95% of the seats they contested.
And actually that is clear in the tone of her speech - she, along with the SNP and before her Salmond have dominated politics in Scotland in a manner that hasn't been replicated in other parts of the UK. Her speech came across as the words of the overwhelmingly dominant force (her) within the overwhelmingly dominant force (the SNP) in Scottish politics.
And there are 650 seats in Westminster terms which is what you introduced.
-
And there are 650 seats in Westminster terms which is what you introduced.
Of which 59 are in Scotland, which are the only relevant ones in relation to whether the SNP dominates Scottish Westminster seats.
And in 2021 the SNP won 62 out of 73 Scottish Parliamentary constituencies - so 85%.
I cannot think of any other example of a party being so dominant in constituency votes - even Blair's best result in 1997 (surely the touchstone for dominance in UK terms) is closer to Sturgeon's worst result than her best.
-
Of which 59 are in Scotland, which are the only relevant ones in relation to whether the SNP dominates Scottish Westminster seats.
And in 2021 the SNP won 62 out of 73 Scottish Parliamentary constituencies - so 85%.
I cannot think of any other example of a party being so dominant in constituency votes - even Blair's best result in 1997 (surely the touchstone for dominance in UK terms) is closer to Sturgeon's worst result than her best.
And you said a 'one party state (certainly in Westminster terms)' and Westminster has 650 seats.
-
And you said a 'one party state (certainly in Westminster terms)' and Westminster has 650 seats.
To clarify (in case it wasn't obvious, which of course it was) - the 'state' I am talking about is Scotland, not the UK - clearly Sturgeon hasn't dominated UK politics, but she has dominated Scottish politics.
So in Westminster terms - the state of Scotland has 59 seats - in her three elections she has won 60%, 80% and 95% of those seats. And to compare apples with apples, in the most recent Scottish Parliamentary election won 85% of the constituency contests.
-
To clarify (in case it wasn't obvious, which of course it was) - the 'state' I am talking about is Scotland, not the UK - clearly Sturgeon hasn't dominated UK politics, but she has dominated Scottish politics.
So in Westminster terms - the state of Scotland has 59 seats - in her three elections she has won 60%, 80% and 95% of those seats.
You seem awfully confused about UK democracy, and indeed what a one party state is. You said Westminster terms - for elections to Westminster a seat in Truro is the same as Tighnabruich - so 48 out of 650.
-
The press at the press conference ignored until Glen Campbell's last question after it had finished the whole issue of finances and loans - which seems amateurish to me.
-
You seem awfully confused about UK democracy, and indeed what a one party state is. You said Westminster terms - for elections to Westminster a seat in Truro os the same as Tighnabruich - so 48 out of 650.
But the SNP don't stand in Truro - they only stand in Scotland - and to determine whether a person or a party dominates politics in Scotland then the result in Truro is, of course, completely irrelevant.
-
But the SNP don't stand in Truro - they only stand in Scotland - and to determine whether a person or a party dominates politics in Scotland then the result in Truro is, of course, completely irrelevant.
And yet as MPs they sit in Westminster and in Westminster terms, which is what you wrote, they are part of a state represented by 650 MPs, including Truro.
-
Some chat about this being behind it
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-64562832.amp
-
And yet as MPs they sit in Westminster and in Westminster terms, which is what you wrote, they are part of a state represented by 650 MPs, including Truro.
Are you being deliberately argumentative (I think I know the answer to that!).
I have clearly clarified that in terms of a 'state' in my original comment I meant Scotland - and if you are considering Scotland, as I was, there are only 59 seats in play in Westminster last time I looked, not 650.
In terms of whether Sturgeon or the SNP dominate politics in Scotland the result in Truro is of no relevance - the only relevant seats are the 59 Scottish Westminster seats.
-
And yet as MPs they sit in Westminster and in Westminster terms, which is what you wrote, they are part of a state represented by 650 MPs, including Truro.
Is Truro a Scottish Westminster seat NS? Maybe the border got moved when I wasn't looking.
-
Are you being deliberately argumentative (I think I know the answer to that!).
I have clearly clarified that in terms of a 'state' in my original comment I meant Scotland - and if you are considering Scotland there are only 59 seats in play in Westminster last time I looked, not 650.
In terms of whether Sturgeon or the SNP dominate politics in Scotland the result in Truro is of no relevance - the only relevant seats are the 59 Scottish Westminster seats.
In 'Westminster terms', as to what is a state, they are entirely relevant. How many MPs are there in the state in 'Westminster terms'?
-
Is Truro a Scottish Westminster seat NS? Maybe the border got moved when I wasn't looking.
It is a seat in Westminster terms.
-
Seen a few comments elsewhere about how Sturgeon did well during Covid. Not my perception. She spoke better than Johnson and gave the appearance of caring but policy...
-
In 'Westminster terms', as to what is a state, they are entirely relevant. How many MPs are there in the state in 'Westminster terms'?
No they aren't - in terms of whether the SNP and/or Sturgeon dominates Scottish politics the only relevant seats are the 59 Scottish Westminster seats.
Maybe we can look at it a different way - can you think of any other single election (or set of elections on a single day e.g. local elections) in the UK where one political party has won 95% of the seats where they put up candidates.
-
It is a seat in Westminster terms.
It isn't a Scottish Westminster seat so irrelevant in terms of which party dominates Scottish politics. Likewise results in Edinburgh South are irrelevant to discussion of dominant parties in politics in Cornwall.
-
It isn't a Scottish Westminster seat so irrelevant in terms of which party dominates Scottish politics. Likewise results in Edinburgh South are irrelevant to discussion of dominant parties in politics in Cornwall.
In Westminster terms, the phrase you used, there is no difference.
-
No they aren't - in terms of whether the SNP and/or Sturgeon dominates Scottish politics the only relevant seats are the 59 Scottish Westminster seats.
Maybe we can look at it a different way - can you think of any other single election, or set of elections on a single day (e.g. local elections) in the UK where one party has won 95% of the seats where they put up candidates.
In Westminster terms they have about 8% of seats.
-
In Westminster terms, the phrase you used, there is no difference.
In Westminster terms in Scotland - i.e. Scottish Westminster seats - even if you were confused about my original phrasing (I don't believe you were) I have clarified this many times.
I am talking about Scottish Westminster seats - happy to discuss this but bored of you misrepresenting my clear clarification that as I am discussing politics in Scotland I am discussing Scottish Westminster seats - you know the 59 that the SNP contest.
-
Err - the SNP only contest 59 seats so their results elsewhere are, obviously, not relevant as there are no results.
In Scotland (clearly this is the 'state' I was discussing) in the 3 elections she has fought the SNP have won between 60% and 95% of the seats they contested.
And actually that is clear in the tone of her speech - she, along with the SNP and before her Salmond have dominated politics in Scotland in a manner that hasn't been replicated in other parts of the UK. Her speech came across as the words of the overwhelmingly dominant force (her) within the overwhelmingly dominant force (the SNP) in Scottish politics.
If the state you are talking about is Scotland, then the elections you should be talking about are those of the Scottish Parliament. It's difficult to argue Scotland is a one party state when the ruling party doesn't even command a majority of the seats.
-
In Westminster terms they have about 8% of seats.
But that is what I am talking about as I have made very, very clear - stop misrepresenting me.
What proportion of Scottish Westminster seats does the SNP currently hold. And while we are at it (to compare apples with apples) what proportion of constituency seats in Holyrood does the SNP currently hold.
-
But that is what I am talking about as I have made very, very clear - stop misrepresenting me.
What proportion of Scottish Westminster seats does the SNP currently hold. And while we are at it (to compare apples with apples) what proportion of constituency seats in Holyrood does the SNP currently hold.
In what way is saying that in the phrase you used ' Westminster terms', that 48 seats is about 8% misrepresenting you?
-
If the state you are talking about is Scotland, then the elections you should be talking about are those of the Scottish Parliament. It's difficult to argue Scotland is a one party state when the ruling party doesn't even command a majority of the seats.
But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.
But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. Particularly so when a party restricts itself to standing only in one geographic area because of their political ideologies. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.
-
But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.
But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.
The electoral system that applies in 'Westminster terms'
-
In what way is saying that in the phrase you used ' Westminster terms', that 48 seats is about 8% misrepresenting you?
I have clarified what I meant - so you are clearly misrepresenting me if you fail to recognise that clarification. And just to be absolutely clear that no-one can be in any doubt as to what I meant originally, I will now edit that original post to make it crystal clear.
-
I have clarified what I meant - so you are clearly misrepresenting me if you fail to recognise that clarification. And just to be absolutely clear that no-one can be in any doubt as to what I meant originally, I will now edit that original post to make it crystal clear.
So tell me what you mean by one party state? What does 'state' mean in your usage?
-
What does 'state' mean in your usage?
Go look at my original post which I have edited to ensure absolute clarify on what I meant by 'state' and 'in Westminster terms'.
So there can be no accidental or deliberate confusion as to what I meant and I mean, and therefore any further suggestion that I meant or mean something different would be a clear misrepresentation of my views.
-
Go look at my original post which I have edited to ensure absolute clarify on what I meant by 'state' and 'in Westminster terms'.
So there can be no accidental or deliberate confusion as to what I meant and I mean, and therefore any further suggestion that I meant or mean something different would be a clear misrepresentation of my views.
So a state in your terms is a geographic area - so all constituencies are 'one party states' in your terms?
-
But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.
Wrong. In the Scottish Parliament which is the parliament of the government of Scotland, the SNP won 62 constituency seats which is roughly 48%.
But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.
It's fair to argue that the SNP dominates the Scottish seats in the UK parliament but there are two problems with the way you are trying t interpret that. The first is that the phrase "one party state" does not mean "one party dominates a small part of the state". It means the party in government is the only party, or, more broadly, if there are other parties, none of them have any prospect of gaining power.
The second problem is that you are ignoring the electoral system in place in the UK. You can win all the seats with only 50.1% of the votes if they are evenly distributed over all the constituencies. However, in that case, you could go from all the seats to none of the seats at a general election with only a 0.100001% swing. The SNP having nearly all the seats in Westminster is not a reflection of its dominant support so much as how its support is distributed.
-
So a state in your terms is a geographic area - so all constituencies are 'one party states' in your terms?
Yes, in a sense, they are - between elections.
The UK is also a one party state between elections as long as one party has an absolute majority of seats, as the Tories do now.
However, I think most people would argue that this stretches the definition of "one party state" to the point of being meaningless. I think the impossibility of the ruling party being displaced at elections is essential to the true meaning of the phrase.
-
Wrong. In the Scottish Parliament which is the parliament of the government of Scotland, the SNP won 62 constituency seats which is roughly 48%.
Sorry Jeremy - you are wrong they won 85% of the constituency seats, not 48%. The Scottish Parliament election is divided into two elements. The constituency seats - effectively FPTP like Westminster and secondly the regional list which provides additional member seats aimed at making the result more proportional.
There are 72 constituency seats, in 2021 the SNP won 85% of them. The reason why I was focussing on those seats is that they provide greater comparison with the Scottish Westminster seats which are also elected in a similar FPTP manner.
And actually the basic constitutions of both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly is such that it is almost impossible for a single party to gain an absolute majority - what they win on FPTP they lose via the additional member seats. That the SNP have come within one or two seats of an overall majority on a couple of occasions and actually won an overall majority in 2011 is testament to their dominance, even in a system that is designed to avoid an overall majority. For comparison Labour (traditionally considered to dominate in Wales) have never won an overall majority in the Welsh Assembly.
-
Way too long and definitely self indulgent.
She certainly went on - I switched to something else after about 5 mins (in fear of losing the will to live) , so still have no idea why she resigned.
But I guess when you are the leader of something close to a one party state (by 'state' I mean Scotland*) and certainly in Westminster terms (by which I mean the 59 Scottish Westminster seats*) then it becomes likely that you'll end up believing the hyperbole.
*Edited to provide absolute clarity as to what I mean to avoid accidental or deliberate misrepresentation.
But the leader of the SNP in Westminster is Stephen Flynn, so not sure what hyperbole she has been imbibing.
(From the near one party state of Hampshire!)
-
Yes, in a sense, they are - between elections.
The UK is also a one party state between elections as long as one party has an absolute majority of seats, as the Tories do now.
However, I think most people would argue that this stretches the definition of "one party state" to the point of being meaningless. I think the impossibility of the ruling party being displaced at elections is essential to the true meaning of the phrase.
I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.
We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.
-
Sorry Jeremy - you are wrong they won 85% of the constituency seats, not 48%.
Apologies, you are right about that. I misread the table in Wikipedia. They won 62 out of 73 seats with 48% of the vote.
-
(From the near one party state of Hampshire!)
True - but the Tories also put up candidates all over the place. Their candidates might win 95% of the seats in Hampshire, but their candidates lose all of their seats in St Albans to the LibDems - also a one party state.
The point is that the SNP only put up candidates in Scotland (for obvious reasons) and their success rate where they stand (and they don't cherry pick within Scotland, I think they stand everywhere) is unlike anything else I can think of.
-
I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.
We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.
So the Tory govts with majorities from 1979 - 1997 just passed you by. No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.
-
I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.
We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.
Odd that you completely ignored jeremyp's point about the meaning of 'one party state'. Why was that?
-
So the Tory govts with majorities from 1979 - 1997 just passed you by.
Nope - not passed me by at all.
The tories won 53%, 61%, 58% and 52% of UK Westminster constituency seats in 1979 to 1992 respectively.
Comparing apples and apples - i.e. constituency seats contested by SNP in Westminster and Scottish Parliamentary seats SNP won (Westminster) 95%, 60%, 81% and (Scottish Parliament) 72%, 81% and 85%.
So the Tories best result through the Thatcher/Major years in terms of proportion of seats won is only a fraction better than the SNPs worst result since 2011. You could also throw in the 'dominance' of the Labour years 1997 to 2010, but here again the proportion of seats won was 64%, 63% and 55%, so again not comparable to the dominance of the SNP in the constituencies they've contested over the past 12 years.
-
Nope - not passed me by at all.
The tories won 53%, 61%, 58% and 52% of UK Westminster constituency seats in 1979 to 1992 respectively.
Comparing apples and apples - i.e. constituency seats contested by SNP in Westminster and Scottish Parliamentary seats SNP won (Westminster) 95%, 60%, 81% and (Scottish Parliament) 72%, 81% and 85%.
So the Tories best result through the Thatcher/Major years in terms of proportion of seats won is only a fraction better than the SNPs worst result since 2011.
And you missed out 'No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.'
-
And you missed out 'No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.'
So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak). Whether the constitution gives that party a load of power or no power at all isn't the point - they still dominate politically within that area. And I cannot think of any other situation where a political party has had anything like the constituency seats won as a proportion of constituency seats contested as the SNP have over the past 12 years. And this is across all the seats they contest, not just cherry picking some.
-
So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak).
But your view is wrong. That's not the generally accepted definition of "one party state".
-
But your view is wrong. That's not the generally accepted definition of "one party state".
It is a view - I don't think a subjective view can be determined either to be right or wrong.
My use of the term (note I also said "close to") was to demonstrate the utter dominance of the SNP over Scottish politics and their dominance over other parties over the past 12 years. Are you arguing that they haven't utterly dominated electorally and politically over the past 12 years.
As far as I can see since 2011 the SNP has won every election within Scotland, whether Scottish Westminster seats at general elections, Scottish Parliament, Local Council Elections and European parliament elections in terms of being the largest part by votes cast. That is quite remarkable as parties that dominate in the most significant elections often get clobbered at local level and/or european elections.
-
So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak). Whether the constitution gives that party a load of power or no power at all isn't the point - they still dominate politically within that area. And I cannot think of any other situation where a political party has had anything like the constituency seats won as a proportion of constituency seats contested as the SNP have over the past 12 years. And this is across all the seats they contest, not just cherry picking some.
So in your view the red wall was a state.
-
So in your view the red wall was a state.
You could argue that it terms of dominance of a party in an area - indeed I've described St Albans as a one party LibDem 'state' given they won all but one of the seats up for election last May. But that would be cherry picking as parties that contest red wall seats also contest other seats, just as LibDems also contest Watford, Hemel, Edinburgh etc etc. The SNP only contest Scottish seats and their dominance in terms of constituencies won vs constituencies contested is way ahead of any other party unless you self select a smaller area where they stand and ignore other areas where they stand.
And also the red wall is typically defined as ex Labour seats that went Tory in 2019 so defining after the event.
-
You could argue that it terms of dominance of a party in an area - indeed I've described St Albans as a one party LibDem 'state' given they one all but one of the seats up for election last May. But that would be cherry picking as parties that contest red wall seats also contest other seats, just as LibDems also contest Watford, Hemel, Edinburgh etc etc. The SNP only contest Scottish seats and their dominance in terms of constituencies won vs constituencies contested is way ahead of any other party unless you self select a smaller area where they stand and ignore other areas where they stand.
So you are using 'one party state' in a personal and metaphorical way.
-
So you are using 'one party state' in a personal and metaphorical way.
Of course.
My use of the term, in a quasi-colloquial manner, was to emphasise the electoral dominance in Scotland of the SNP over the past 12 years or so, which I would argue (and have demonstrated with ... err ... evidence). I can't think of anything comparable in recent UK politics.
-
Of course - I don't believe there is some official, objective definition.
My use of the term, in a quasi-colloquial manner, was to emphasise the electoral dominance in Scotland of the SNP over the past 12 years or so, which I would argue (and have demonstrated with ... err ... evidence). I can't think of anything comparable in recent UK politics.
So when you said 'Westminster terms' you meant Scottish. And you meant 'one party state' ro not mean anything anyone else might think.
-
So when you said 'Westminster terms' you meant Scottish.
When I said in Westminster terms I, of course, meant Scottish Westminster constituencies, as I have clarified until I'm blue in the face. That contrasts with, for example in Scottish Parliamentary terms (which are of course all in Scotland) or european election terms (which would mean the results of European elections in Scotland, but clearly not in England, or Latvia or Barcelona).
The point is a discussion of the dominance of Sturgeon and the SNP in Scottish politics - I would have thought it pretty obvious that I didn't need to point out that the SNP winning every local council area but one in the 2019 european election wasn't a demonstration of SNP dominance in Scottish politics as I didn't point out that they didn't win a single seat in Latvia!
And you meant 'one party state' ro not mean anything anyone else might think.
As I've explained I used the term to demonstrate a level of dominance in Scottish politics over the past 12 years that seems unprecedented, not just in Scottish politics, but also in UK politics. But maybe you can point out another example of a party that in terms of the constituencies they have contested have won greater proportion. Or perhaps a party that in the area they operate has won every single election (Westminster seats where they contest those seats, european where they contest those seats, regional parliamentary and local council elections) over a 12 year period. I can't think of anything close.
-
When I said in Westminster terms I, of course, meant Scottish Westminster constituencies, as I have clarified until I'm blue in the face. That contrasts with, for example in Scottish Parliamentary terms (which are of course all in Scotland) or european election terms (which would mean the results of European elections in Scotland, but clearly not in England, or Latvia or Barcelona).
The point is a discussion of the dominance of Sturgeon and the SNP in Scottish politics - I would have thought it pretty obvious that I didn't need to point out that the SNP winning every local council area but one in the 2019 european election wasn't a demonstration of SNP dominance in Scottish politics as I didn't point out that they didn't win a single seat in Latvia!
As I've explained I used the term to demonstrate a level of dominance in Scottish politics over the past 12 years that seems unprecedented, not just in Scottish politics, but also in UK politics. But maybe you can point out another example of a party that in terms of the constituencies they have contested have won greater proportion. Or perhaps a party that in the area they operate has won every single election (Westminster seats where they contest those seats, european where they contest those seats, regional parliamentary and local council elections) over a 12 year period. I can't think of anything close.
Do the SNP have the powers implied in your term 'one party state'?
-
Do the SNP have the powers implied in your term 'one party state'?
Given that I have never made any claim about 'powers' there are no powers implied in my quasi-colloquial use of the one party state.
My use of the term is entirely about electoral and political dominance, nothing to do with the power that may bestow. So I might describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a 'one party state' if all elections to the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council were won by the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party by a significant margin over a 12 year period.
The Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council may have bugger all powers, responsible for nothing more than keeping the verges clean, but that wouldn't change the notion that the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party were electorally and politically dominant in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake and that one might colloqually describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a one party state.
And actually this perhaps isn't a great analogy as I'd imaging the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party would only contest parish council elections - the equivalent would be if the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party also always won the district council, and general election constituency(ies) in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake.
-
So apparently Sturgeon was just a unionist stooge.
Apparently she only pretended to want independence and the unionist establishment she was in cahoots with pretended to attack her.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-used-and-discarded/
Hmmm
-
There doesn't seem to be an heir apparent with Sturgeon resigning. This does seem to have come completely out of the blue and that means that the SNP doesn't appear to have carefully lined up a replacement as was the case when Sturgeon replaced Salmond.
It really is hard to see anyone easily able to step into the shoes of Sturgeon and before her Salmond who have dominated Scottish politics very successfully for more than a decade.
I guess the person who will be most delighted by her resignation will be Keir Starmer.
-
Given that I have never made any claim about 'powers' there are no powers implied in my quasi-colloquial use of the one party state.
My use of the term is entirely about electoral and political dominance, nothing to do with the power that may bestow. So I might describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a 'one party state' if all elections to the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council were won by the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party by a significant margin over a 12 year period.
The Little-Molding-on-the-Wake parish council may have bugger all powers, responsible for nothing more than keeping the verges clean, but that wouldn't change the notion that the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party were electorally and politically dominant in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake and that one might colloqually describe Little-Molding-on-the-Wake as a one party state.
And actually this perhaps isn't a great analogy as I'd imaging the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party would only contest parish council elections - the equivalent would be if the Little-Molding-on-the-Wake Residents Association Party also always won the district council, and general election constituency(ies) in Little-Molding-on-the-Wake.
is that in 'Little Molding on the Wake' terms?
-
is that in 'Little Molding on the Wake' terms?
Nope that would be in 'Little Molding on the Wake Parish council terms', or in Snoddersby District Council terms if based on the Little Molding on the Wake seats on Snoddersby District Council etc.
Any thoughts on Sturgeon being a sleeper unionist, presumably having been a deep cover operative since the age of 16.
Or thoughts on successor, given that none look particularly likely to have anything like the experience and/or profile/credibility that Sturgeon had nor that Salmond had before her.
Apparently the bookies favourites are (in order and with my opinions for what they are worth):
Robertson (hardly the charismatic leader that the SNP have been used to with Sturgeon and Salmond, but perhaps boring in a Starmer-like manner, which might not be a bad thing)
Forbes (v. inexperienced with the potential to be a female Tim Farron)
Swinney (he was the future once!)
Yousaf (seems lightweight to me)
-
Nope that would be in 'Little Molding on the Wake Parish council terms', or in Snoddersby District Council terms if based on the Little Molding on the Wake seats on Snoddersby District Council etc.
Any thoughts on Sturgeon being a sleeper unionist, presumably having been a deep cover operative since the age of 16.
Or thoughts on successor, given that none look particularly likely to have anything like the experience and/or profile/credibility that Sturgeon had nor that Salmond had before her.
Apparently the bookies favourites are (in order and with my opinions for what they are worth):
Robertson (hardly the charismatic leader that the SNP have been used to with Sturgeon and Salmond, but perhaps boring in a Starmer-like manner, which might not be a bad thing)
Forbes (v. inexperienced with the potential to be a female Tim Farron)
Swinney (he was the future once!)
Yousaf (seems lightweight to me)
Your dislike of the Labour leader is interesting
-
Your dislike of the Labour leader is interesting
I don't dislike the Labour leader, but my views on him seem to be a derail of the topic which is about Sturgeon's resignation and therefore the need for a new leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland.
As you are based in Scotland NS (and therefore the choice of First Minister will have a greater impact on you than on those living south of the border) perhaps you'd like to give us your views on the likely contenders. I've indicated the four top candidates in the betting so why don't you start with these four and perhaps add your views for anyone else you feel has a credible chance as there seems to be no clearly obvious heir apparent.
-
Nice bit of mis-quoting NS.
"... close to a one party state (certainly in Westminster terms) ..."
So in the elections she was leader.
Westminster result 2019
SNP 48 out of 59 seats - in other words over 80% of the seats.
Westminster result 2017
SNP 35 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 60% of the seats - clearly an appalling result, compared to.
Westminster result 2015
SNP 56 out of 59 seats - in other words approx 95% of the seats
Sounds pretty close to a one party state to me - I think my comment is demonstrably accurate.
A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.
-
I don't dislike the Labour leader, but my views on him seem to be a derail of the topic which is about Sturgeon's resignation and therefore the need for a new leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland.
As you are based in Scotland NS (and therefore the choice of First Minister will have a greater impact on you than on those living south of the border) perhaps you'd like to give us your views on the likely contenders. I've indicated the four top candidates in the betting so why don't you start with these four and perhaps add your views for anyone else you feel has a credible chance as there seems to be no clearly obvious heir apparent.
I think Robertson is the clear heir apparent and that's why he became an MSP. While the timing of Sturgeon's resignation was a surprise, Robertson taking over as leader has been talked about in the party for some time.
Of the other three, it's a bit too early for Forbes, and Swinney and Yousaf have no chance.
The SNP are an odd party in requiring 2 leaders, and one of those posts Robertson has already held. Due to the main aim of the party, the leader in Scotland, particularly if FM, is the senior role but there will be people looking at Stephen Flynn wondering if he can somehow become leader.
Oh and the idea that Sturgeon is a sleeper unionist is pish.
-
A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.
Just to note they don't have a majority in Holyrood
-
Other possible candidates, though I don't see them winning, are Keith Brown and Ash Regan. I do think they need a competition this time.
-
I think Robertson is the clear heir apparent and that's why he became an MSP. While the timing of Sturgeon's resignation was a surprise, Robertson taking over as leader has been talked about in the party for some time.
That certainly didn't seem to be the view of the 'talking heads' on the news programmes yesterday, nor does that seem to be born out in polling. In both cases the view seems to be that there is no obvious heir apparent and the field it pretty wide open.
So there was a poll released just a couple of days ago that rather presciently asked who should succeed Sturgeon. Now Robertson came third in the poll, after Forbes and Swinney. But that isn't the most interesting point - the numbers opting for anyone were tiny - top ranked Forbes was the preference of just 7%, Swinney 6% and Robertson 5%. An overwhelming 69% said 'don't know' - that is hardly consistent with the notion of an obvious heir apparent. Sounds as if people in Scotland have no idea who should take over, which isn't surprising given that Sturgeon has been such a dominant figure, that were announcement was rather unexpected and that there has been no clear successor groomed to take the role.
-
Of the other three, it's a bit too early for Forbes ...
Forbes has other challenges besides age, hence my point about the potential of her ending up as a female Tim Farron. She has been able to hide from voting on progressive social issues either through being given a conscious opt out due to her religious views or more recently due to being on maternity leave. It is one thing as the member of a government, but not the leader, personally not agreeing with government policy. It is an entirely different matter when you are leader as Farron discovered - you can't really legitimately exempt yourself from votes on government policy on conscience grounds as leader.
Sure, she could drive the SNP down a highly socially conservative route, which would align with her personal views but surely the SNP needs to be centre left, progressive and liberal if it is to continue to succeed.
-
That certainly didn't seem to be the view of the 'talking heads' on the news programmes yesterday, nor does that seem to be born out in polling. In both cases the view seems to be that there is no obvious heir apparent and the field it pretty wide open.
So there was a poll released just a couple of days ago that rather presciently asked who should succeed Sturgeon. Now Robertson came third in the poll, after Forbes and Swinney. But that isn't the most interesting point - the numbers opting for anyone were tiny - top ranked Forbes was the preference of just 7%, Swinney 6% and Robertson 5%. An overwhelming 69% said 'don't know' - that is hardly consistent with the notion of an obvious heir apparent. Sounds as if people in Scotland have no idea who should take over, which isn't surprising given that Sturgeon has been such a dominant figure, that were announcement was rather unexpected and that there has been no clear successor groomed to take the role.
And it wasn't a poll of the people who will vote for a leader.
-
Forbes has other challenges besides age, hence my point about the potential of her ending up as a female Tim Farron. She has been able to hide from voting on progressive social issues either through being given a conscious opt out due to her religious views or more recently due to being on maternity leave. It is one thing as the member of a government, but not the leader, personally not agreeing with government policy. It is an entirely different matter when you are leader as Farron discovered - you can't really legitimately exempt yourself from votes on government policy on conscience grounds as leader.
Sure, she could drive the SNP down a highly socially conservative route, which would align with her personal views but surely the SNP needs to be centre left, progressive and liberal if it is to continue to succeed.
My point wasn't about age but rather her career in the govt.
ETA - not sure she wants the role.
-
My point wasn't about age but rather her career in the govt.
And you don't see her religious views as being a problem? She was recently interviewed by Tim Farron for Premier Christianity - I think he could give her good advice about the impossibility of trying to square ultra-conservative religious views with being the leader of a party that is socially progressive and liberal.
-
A one-party state is one in which only one party is allowed, eg N. Korea. Therefore, Scotland, however much dominated at Holyrood by the SNP, is nothing like a one-party state.
Steve - I never intended to imply that Scotland/SNP were a literal one-party-state, as per North Korea. Nope it was merely an expression used to demonstrate the dominance in political and electoral terms of the SNP in Scotland over the past 12 years which, as far as I can see, seems pretty well unprecedented in political terms in Britain for as far back as I can see.
So the SNP operates in Scotland and therefore it is only relevant to look at their results in Scotland. Since 2011 I think there have been:
3 Westminster elections
3 Scottish Parliamentary elections
3 rounds of local elections
2 EU elections.
In terms of the results in Scotland and votes cast/seats won etc the SNP has won every one of those elections, in some cases by a country mile. That is a remarkably achievement and something I cannot see having been replicated by another UK party over a similar period in modern times. Sure parties have won general elections, but they've lost local elections, EU elections etc in between - but not the SNP, they've had a clean sweep since 2011.
-
And it wasn't a poll of the people who will vote for a leader.
Heir apparent definition (in this context):
one whose succession especially to a position or role appears certain under existing circumstances
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heir%20apparent
That isn't just to a small subsection of the population who might have voting rights, but more generally. Clearly the Scottish people do not see Robertson as heir apparent, indeed they don't seem to think that anyone is an obvious heir apparent. The SNP hasn't mapped the route forward in succession planning terms, as was the case for the transition from Salmond Sturgeon, or indeed from Blair to Brown.
Robertson might win, indeed currently looks to be the favourite in some people's view (although others are seeing Forbes as favourite), but he is no heir apparent.
Will be interesting to see whether SNP members have a better hit rate at picking a leader than Labour or the Tories (or indeed the LibDems). Recent history suggests party members are as likely to pick a complete no-hoper, an ideological extremist nutter or a buffoon as they are to pick a credible leader.
-
I see that details of the leadership selection process are being announced.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64671290
The process will be complete within a relatively short timeframe - by late March. I wonder whether this is sensible given that there isn't an obvious successor - perhaps more time, particularly following nominations, would allow less high profile candidates to become better known by the members. I remember in 2005 the Tories deliberately extended their leadership election to ensure that lower profile candidates gained recognition - and this was considered to be key for the relatively unknown David Cameron to be successful.
I know there was criticism that the most recent Tory leadership election - well the one that ended in Truss - took too long but I do think there are occasions when taking a little more time might be preferable - specifically when there are a range of potentially credible candidates but no overwhelming front runner. And I think the SNP have time - I don't believe there are any elections upcoming (e.g. in May), nor is there an issue over first minister in my opinion. Sturgeon was not forced to resign, she chose to, so I see no problem in her continuing for a few months longer. That wasn't really the case when Boris was forced out and had no real mandate to continue.
-
Given this has already happened perhaps 6 weeks might be too long.
-
And you don't see her religious views as being a problem? She was recently interviewed by Tim Farron for Premier Christianity - I think he could give her good advice about the impossibility of trying to square ultra-conservative religious views with being the leader of a party that is socially progressive and liberal.
I think it will be a problem but I think that there are other issues as mentioned. The party has a problem here in that if Forbes and Yousaf were both candidates, attacking Forbes because of her religion opens up the possibility of that happening to Yousaf. If that happens the perception of being a tolerant party will be strained.
There have already been comments that she might have problems with the job as she has a new baby - strangely missing that other touted male candidates have young children.
ETA: One of the current defences being used for Forbes's religious beliefs are that they are 'private beliefs', I'm not really sure how in running for FM you can have them as private. It's a bit different from liking Marmite.
-
That certainly didn't seem to be the view of the 'talking heads' on the news programmes yesterday, nor does that seem to be born out in polling. In both cases the view seems to be that there is no obvious heir apparent and the field it pretty wide open.
So there was a poll released just a couple of days ago that rather presciently asked who should succeed Sturgeon. Now Robertson came third in the poll, after Forbes and Swinney. But that isn't the most interesting point - the numbers opting for anyone were tiny - top ranked Forbes was the preference of just 7%, Swinney 6% and Robertson 5%. An overwhelming 69% said 'don't know' - that is hardly consistent with the notion of an obvious heir apparent. Sounds as if people in Scotland have no idea who should take over, which isn't surprising given that Sturgeon has been such a dominant figure, that were announcement was rather unexpected and that there has been no clear successor groomed to take the role.
Having looked at some sheep's innards yesterday, I think you are right. The intention existed to have Robertson as an heir apparent but the plan was not carried out. The reasons for that are ones that I will refrain from speculating on for legal reasons.
-
I think it will be a problem but I think that there are other issues as mentioned. The party has a problem here in that if Forbes and Yousaf were both candidates, attacking Forbes because of her religion opens up the possibility of that happening to Yousaf. If that happens the perception of being a tolerant party will be strained.
Perhaps - now I might be wrong, but my impression was that Forbes' religious convictions seem rather more prominent compared to Yousaf. I think Forbes has been clear that her religious belief are more important than her political belief/career. Has Yousaf made any similar kind of statement - maybe he has, but I not aware if that is the case.
ETA: One of the current defences being used for Forbes's religious beliefs are that they are 'private beliefs', I'm not really sure how in running for FM you can have them as private. It's a bit different from liking Marmite.
That is often used as a defence, but that rather relies on the Blair 'we don't do god' approach, which doesn't really cut it if you have indicated that her religious beliefs are more important than her political ones. Actually I thought that Forbes, rather than rely on the 'personal beliefs' approach she justified things on the 'collective responsibility' of cabinet approach. Now that works for a rank and file cabinet minister, it doesn't really work for the leader/First Minister who will be expected to lead, relying on others to follow via collective responsibility rather than rely on it themselves.
-
Given this has already happened perhaps 6 weeks might be too long.
So someone doesn't like Cherry and is therefore not saddened by her decision not to stand - so what.
And realistically she would have had zero chance of winning, not least because she isn't an MSP so wouldn't that effectively prevent her from being First Minister as well as leader of the SNP
-
So someone doesn't like Cherry and is therefore not saddened by her decision not to stand - so what.
And realistically she would have had zero chance of winning, not least because she isn't an MSP so wouldn't that effectively prevent her from being First Minister as well as leader of the SNP
Just to help you out that isn't just a random someone
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wishart
-
Just to help you out that isn't just a random someone
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wishart
I do know who Wishart is NS - indeed I actually have some of his records from his days with Runrig.
But what is your point - Cherry is a pretty controversial character within the SNP - indeed there was strong speculation that she might jump ship to Alba at one point. The notion that one of her parliamentary colleagues might not be particularly enamoured by her is hardly news and Wishart and Cherry have history - I think we all know that. She seems to have made enemies of large swathes of the party which is another reason why she'd have no chance.
Actually the whole notion of 'ruling yourself out' of standing when you had no chance anyhow speaks of a level of misguided self importance.
-
I do know who Wishart is NS - indeed I actually have some of his records from his days with Runrig.
But what is your point - Cherry is a pretty controversial character within the SNP - indeed there was strong speculation that she might jump ship to Alba at one point. The notion that one of her parliamentary colleagues might not be particularly enamoured by her is hardly news and Wishart and Cherry have history - I think we all know that. She seems to have made enemies of large swathes of the party which is another reason why she'd have no chance.
Actually the whole notion of 'ruling yourself out' of standing when you had no chance anyhow speaks of a level of misguided self importance.
Using 'someone' and not noting who Wishart was as if it didn't show the divides in the party is disingenuous at best.
-
Using 'someone' and not noting who Wishart was as if it didn't show the divides in the party is disingenuous at best.
Not meant to be disingenuous - maybe I should have include a ;) at the end of the sentence.
I was and am well aware of who he is and their prior history - they are hardly best buddies are they.
But I still think that Cherry publicly announcing that she isn't going to stand smacks of self importance given that I couldn't see how she could legitimately stand unless the SNP are going to separate the role of party leader and First Minister. And that's before you consider that she is neither a darling of her Scottish and Westminster parliamentary colleagues, nor, I suspect, of the membership at large.
-
Perhaps - now I might be wrong, but my impression was that Forbes' religious convictions seem rather more prominent compared to Yousaf. I think Forbes has been clear that her religious belief are more important than her political belief/career. Has Yousaf made any similar kind of statement - maybe he has, but I not aware if that is the case.
That is often used as a defence, but that rather relies on the Blair 'we don't do god' approach, which doesn't really cut it if you have indicated that her religious beliefs are more important than her political ones. Actually I thought that Forbes, rather than rely on the 'personal beliefs' approach she justified things on the 'collective responsibility' of cabinet approach. Now that works for a rank and file cabinet minister, it doesn't really work for the leader/First Minister who will be expected to lead, relying on others to follow via collective responsibility rather than rely on it themselves.
This seems to miss the point. I have no doubt gor many reasons that Yousaf is effectively a 'cultural' Muslim. That doesn't stop either his religion being more well known than Forbes to the genetral public, nor the issue being something that will be raised by Forbes's supporters in the event of a competition with both involved. Yousaf would then be placed in a position of stating how important hos teligious values are to him, and that may cause issues with some of his core support. Tbh, I think his main problem is his record as a minister. Forbes gets by with less record but that has its own issues.
Just to note the 'we don't do god' is surely a Campbell approach rather than a Blair one?
-
Not meant to be disingenuous - maybe I should have include a ;) at the end of the sentence.
I was and am well aware of who he is and their prior history - they are hardly best buddies are they.
But I still think that Cherry publicly announcing that she isn't going to stand smacks of self importance given that I couldn't see how she could legitimately stand unless the SNP are going to separate the role of party leader and First Minister. And that's before you consider that she is neither a darling of her Scottish and Westminster parliamentary colleagues, nor, I suspect, of the membership at large.
Flynn also ruled himself out because there has been some talk of changing the rules to allow MPs to stand.
-
Just to note the 'we don't do god' is surely a Campbell approach rather than a Blair one?
It is - but Blair clearly stood by that mantra - although he was known to be religious, I don't think he brought this overtly to his politics. In that regard he is like all sorts of politicians, where their religion may be a clear motivational 'background music' but the there is no evidence that specific religious positions were brought to bear in their political judgements. Forbes isn't like that - she has been clear about her religious convictions, their importance to her not in a backgrounded kind of manner, but very much 'foregrounded' so that they clearly influence her record of support on certain social matters.
-
It is - but Blair clearly stood by that mantra - although he was known to be religious, I don't think he brought this overtly to his politics. In that regard he is like all sorts of politicians, where their religion may be a clear motivational 'background music' but the there is no evidence that specific religious positions were brought to bear in their political judgements. Forbes isn't like that - she has been clear about her religious convictions, their importance to her not in a backgrounded kind of manner, but very much 'foregrounded' so that they clearly influence her record of support on certain social matters.
Campbell interrupted Blair to say that when he thought Blair was 'doing god'. Though given Blair what 'doing god' might mean is another question
-
This seems to miss the point. I have no doubt gor many reasons that Yousaf is effectively a 'cultural' Muslim. That doesn't stop either his religion being more well known than Forbes to the genetral public, nor the issue being something that will be raised by Forbes's supporters in the event of a competition with both involved. Yousaf would then be placed in a position of stating how important hos teligious values are to him, and that may cause issues with some of his core support. Tbh, I think his main problem is his record as a minister. Forbes gets by with less record but that has its own issues.
Sure I get what you are saying but that would effectively be just plain old fashioned racism. But once you step back from good old fashioned racism the differences are that Forbes is really, really religious in a manner that I don't believe Yousaf, Sunak or Khan are (to pick three non-white politicians). And more significantly Forbes appears happy to foreground her religious beliefs in her political judgement in a manner that Yousaf, Sunak or Khan don't.
-
Sure I get what you are saying but that would effectively be just plain old fashioned racism. But once you step back from good old fashioned racism the differences are that Forbes is really, really religious in a manner that I don't believe Yousaf, Sunak or Khan are (to pick three non-white politicians). And more significantly Forbes appears happy to foreground her religious beliefs in her political judgement in a manner that Yousaf, Sunak or Khan don't.
i think that works as long as you don't make your religion part of your campaign approach, and certainly Yousaf has highlighted his being a Muslim in the past, as had the SNP in talking about inclusiveness. If it's significant it's going to then look odd to campaign against someone who happens to be a Wee Free on their religion.
-
The interesting thing, imo, here is the general haunting of Scottish politics by religion. It's not that long ago that thd SNP were seen a.Protestant party, and Gordon Wilson was a Wee Free member. The party changed hugely to the extent that when Ulsterisation of Scottish politics is now talked about, the SNP are very much seen as RC biased.
-
i think that works as long as you don't make your religion part of your campaign approach, and certainly Yousaf has highlighted his being a Muslim in the past, as had the SNP in talking about inclusiveness. If it's significant it's going to then look odd to campaign against someone who happens to be a Wee Free on their religion.
But I don't think that the issue is Yousuf being a muslim or Forbes being a wee free per se. No it is her views on matters such as abortion, gay rights, transgender rights etc that are the issue. I know that these are driven by her religious conviction but it is the views that are problematic if she wants to be the leader of a party that is seen largely as progressive and socially liberal.
Exactly the same problems beset Farron - his religious views were at odds with his party.
-
But I don't think that the issue is Yousuf being a muslim or Forbes being a wee free per se. No it is her views on matters such as abortion, gay rights, transgender rights etc that are the issue. I know that these are driven by her religious conviction but it is the views that are problematic if she wants to be the leader of a party that is seen largely as progressive and socially liberal.
Exactly the same problems beset Farron - his religious views were at odds with his party.
Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.
-
Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.
Not true at all - let's not forget that he was selected to be leader of a major (if the LibDems are major) political party. The problem was that the values of that political party were fundamentally opposed to his values (driven by his religion) on some major social issues. He'd have had no issues in some other parties, notably the tories and UKIP etc where those views on social issues were pretty mainstream. But problem for Farron is that some of his other values and views would have been incompatible with UKIP and, probably, the tories.
So it isn't really that he was unacceptable in a broader sense in society, but that his values were incompatible with the party he was trying to lead on those issues.
And I note you have conveniently ignored May in your list of recent PMs - she was probably similarly as religious as Farron, but she had no issues as her religious values didn't really rub up against the values of the party she led.
-
Yes, he wasn't acceptable in an increasingly secular UK. Unlike Cameron, Johnson and Truss...good calls all.
What nonsense.
I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm
-
What nonsense.
I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm
Indeed - and over recent decades we've had a much greater proportion of active worshiping christians as PMs than in the general populace and our current PM is also actively religious, albeit not christian. So no evidence of secularist bias against religious PMs. So from Thatcher onwards in terms of active religiosity we have:
Thatcher - yes
Major - probably not, although he was happy to suck up to an old school kind of christianity
Blair - yes
Brown - yes
Cameron - only when magicFM was in range!
May - yes
Johnson - probably not, except for weddings, notably his own
Truss - no
Sunak - yes
-
Major shift in polls in Scotland.
For Westminster election - post-Sturgeon resignation puts SNP on 38%, just 2% above Labour who are now on 36% - tories down at 16%. For comparison the 2019 election had SNP on 45%, Labour on just 18% and the tories on 25%.
This could massively shift the situation for a UK general election with Labour winning back a whole raft of seats they lost in 2015 and have failed to regain since. Hugely increases the likelihood of a Labour overall majority.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10236610/labour-snp-next-general-election-poll/
-
Major shift in polls in Scotland.
For Westminster election - post-Sturgeon resignation puts SNP on 38%, just 2% above Labour who are now on 36% - tories down at 16%. For comparison the 2019 election had SNP on 45%, Labour on just 18% and the tories on 25%.
This could massively shift the situation for a UK general election with Labour winning back a whole raft of seats they lost in 2015 and have failed to regain since. Hugely increases the likelihood of a Labour overall majority.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10236610/labour-snp-next-general-election-poll/
The crucial thing about numbers like that is they are critical mass for people thinking that voting for Labour in Scotland may be the difference in what the govt is in Westminster.
-
Poll for Holrood puts SNP and Greens majority up to 23 seats due to large increase in Greens in regional vote.
https://archive.vn/KW5aa
-
The crucial thing about numbers like that is they are critical mass for people thinking that voting for Labour in Scotland may be the difference in what the govt is in Westminster.
One model of seat outcome on that poll with map below. One of the interesting points is that where the SNP did better than their vote when at the higher number they now do less well as their strength of having support across the country as opposed to 'heartlands' becomes a 'weakness' on these figures.
LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)
Changes w/ GE2019.
-
Poll for Holrood puts SNP and Greens majority up to 23 seats due to large increase in Greens in regional vote.
https://archive.vn/KW5aa
That rather presumptuously assumes that the Greens would be willing to enter a partnership with the SNP under a new leader. I think that decision might well depend on who that new leader is.
-
One model of seat outcome on that poll with map below. One of the interesting points is that where the SNP did better than their vote when at the higher number they now do less well as their strength of having support across the country as opposed to 'heartlands' becomes a 'weakness' on these figures.
LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)
Changes w/ GE2019.
Which is a standard feature of FPTP - there is a tipping point of support at which you begin to hoover up high proportions of seats.
But if these results did pan out it completely changes the dynamic for a general election. There has been an assumption that Labour would only get a handful of seats in Scotland making an overall majority. But if they get 30 seats that would make a massive difference. It would also be a double blow to the SNP - not only losing their stronghold on Scotland, but if there is a Labour overall majority they lose their potential king-maker powers.
-
There has also been a post-Sturgeon poll on indy-ref showing no change.
So, if the polls are to be believed there is some interesting nuance. Sturgeon's departure isn't altering support for independence, nor strength of SNP support for Holyrood. But for Westminster there is a big shift from SNP to Labour.
Interesting times - I think the choice of new leader will be critical and more polling suggests Forbes is the favourite. Although with a caveat, nearly a third of voters don't even know who she is, let alone have an opinion on her. Angus Robertson has even pooler recognition with 39% saying they don't know who he is.
Interesting virtually all the SNP figures in the poll have poor voter recognition (including Flyn, Cherry, Brown, McAllan), only Yousaf and Swinney have high recognition amongst the public, comparable to Sarwar and Ross.
https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1626653198063702032?s=46&t=5eCF0RfSA41UPWiBriYI8A
-
While interesting, it's still not a poll of those voting. It will give any Forbes campaign a boost, but Yousaf's pollings show the disbenefit in this case of being known.
-
Shortened campaign designed to make it harder for Forbes?
https://archive.vn/61GaB
-
While interesting, it's still not a poll of those voting.
True - I suspect there will be member polling soon. That said I imagine the current polling may provide some inference as in the cases of people with low recognition in the general public those that do know them and have an opinion are likely to be biased towards SNP supporters and members. Point being that a party member is far more likely to know who a minor figure in that party is, rather than the wider public.
It will give any Forbes campaign a boost, but Yousaf's pollings show the disbenefit in this case of being known.
Yup - interesting that Yousaf, while having a high recognition factor has a low 'positive' - I'd ignore the net figure as I think that is skewed for the reason I made above.
-
Shortened campaign designed to make it harder for Forbes?
https://archive.vn/61GaB
Might backfire if members have a superficially positive view of her but the campaign doesn't allow time for proper scrutiny of her rather extreme views.
Presumably there is some kind of nomination process before candidates get on to the members ballot. Do you know how this is run and whether MSPs and MPs might be able to block a candidate getting to the membership as is the case for the tories.
-
True - I suspect there will be member polling soon. That said I imagine the current polling may provide some inference as in the cases of people with low recognition in the general public those that do know them and have an opinion are likely to be biased towards SNP supporters and members. Point being that a party member is far more likely to know who a minor figure in that party is, rather than the wider public.
Yup - interesting that Yousaf, while having a high recognition factor has a low 'positive' - I'd ignore the net figure as I think that is skewed for the reason I made above.
And yet it's a perfectly logical argument to those voting that Yousaf is not popular with voters because of what he has done as a minister. Health is always a bit of a poisoned chalice.
-
Might backfire if members have a superficially positive view of her but the campaign doesn't allow time for proper scrutiny of her rather extreme views.
Presumably there is some kind of nomination process before candidates get on to the members ballot. Do you know how this is run and whether MSPs and MPs might be able to block a candidate getting to the membership as is the case for the tories.
My understanding is that nominations only need s total of 100 members across at least 20 constituencies. I don't think that's been changed here.
-
My understanding is that nominations only need s total of 100 members across at least 20 constituencies. I don't think that's been changed here.
Blimey - that's an incredibly low bar for getting on the ballot paper making it really easy for any crazies to be put in front of the membership. And as history tells us put a crazy in front of a party membership as often as not they'll vote that person in.
-
Blimey - that's an incredibly low bar for getting on the ballot paper making it really easy for any crazies to be put in front of the membership. And as history tells us put a crazy in front of a party membership as often as not they'll vote that person in.
I suppose that it's been 19 years since there was a leadership election in ths SNP, and I think that was the first OMOV one. Times have changed a bit since then.
I wonder if the 100 number was chosen to echo the Declaration of Arbroath:
'... for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
-
I suppose that it's been 19 years since there was a leadership election in ths SNP, and I think that was the first OMOV one. Times have changed a bit since then.
I wonder if the 100 number was chosen to echo the Declaration of Arbroath:
'... for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
Possibly a mistake not to update the rules that were in place 19 years ago. Might have been fit for purpose when membership was tiny, but with perhaps 100,000 members, needing just 0.1% for nomination might be a big risk given that political party members have a record of voting in the worst candidate in a list of two (Truss, IDS, Boris) and even the worst candidate in a list of many (Corbyn).
-
Possibly a mistake not to update the rules that were in place 19 years ago. Might have been fit for purpose when membership was tiny, but with perhaps 100,000 members, needing just 0.1% for nomination might be a big risk given that political party members have a record of voting in the worst candidate in a list of two (Truss, IDS, Boris) and even the worst candidate in a list of many (Corbyn).
I think it's in the constitution so changing it would not be the simplest thing. Be interesting to see if we get a real indication of the membership which as your 'perhaps' indicates is questionable, especially given the questions around finances.
-
I think it's in the constitution so changing it would not be the simplest thing. Be interesting to see if we get a real indication of the membership which as your 'perhaps' indicates is questionable, especially given the questions around finances.
Sure - changing the constitution for voting in new leader isn't something done overnight, but I think other parties have tended to do this as a matter of urgency when a previous election had turned out to be a car wreck. Now the SNP haven't had that issue yet, but they've only had one members ballot I believe and that a long time ago.
The 'perhaps' was that membership levels are always fluctuating a bit, but I think figures at the 100,000 level have been widely reported. I suspect 20 years ago membership would have been a fraction of that, so 100 nominations might have seemed like a reasonable proportion of the membership. The smart move would have been to require a particular proportion of membership rather than an absolute number. In that way the hurdle to getting on the ballot would be equivalent regardless of fluctuations in membership numbers.
This link:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354068820939799
Suggests that membership in 2004 was about one tenth of what it is now, which fits with the leadership election then when about 6,500 votes were cast. So to be comparable to get on the ballot paper should require approx. 1000 nominations.
-
And Robertson not going to run. There are reasons why I think he's not doing it but I am surprised that this wasn't part of s plan though it underlines that the resignation of Sturgeon was not done with any regard of timing for succession. It makes Yousaf the apparent Sturgeon choice, even if she will not express that openly. Given his unpopularity due to his performance in ministerial roles, it's going to be a difficult sell.
His attempted, but quietly dropped, suing of a nursery for racial discrimination, which always looked odd, will recieve more attention.
-
Forbes has entered the race, and I think that may be it. A field of Forbes, Regan, and Yousaf. Apart from GRRB differences, the only diffetentiator so far has been Regan talking about a more direct claim to what a mandate for indeoendence is (see attachment), and internal party democracy changes.
Be interested if we start to see something from Regan on freeports, as in opposition, and local democracy.
The Salmond case haunts the make up of the field.
-
And latest from Regan below on net zero commitments. The 'coalition' with the Greens only survives with Yousaf, if then.
Not that coalition has much impact as benefit for the SNP except at budget time, and even then it would be very difficult for the Tories, Lab, Lib Dems, Greens to vote in unison against one.
-
Forbes has entered the race, and I think that may be it. A field of Forbes, Regan, and Yousaf. Apart from GRRB differences, the only diffetentiator so far has been Regan talking about a more direct claim to what a mandate for indeoendence is (see attachment), and internal party democracy changes.
I think Forbes has views on abortion rights and gay rights that I would image are neither mainstream within the SNP nor replicated by the other candidates. She will need to try to portray these as 'personal' views but she's been pretty outspoken in the past so she may not be able to park them so easily as leader (or potential leader) than she would have been able to do in her previous finance brief. She will, no doubt, also receive far more scrutiny on those views as potential leader.
-
I think Forbes has views on abortion rights and gay rights that I would image are neither mainstream within the SNP nor replicated by the other candidates. She will need to try to portray these as 'personal' views but she's been pretty outspoken in the past so she may not be able to park them so easily as leader (or potential leader) than she would have been able to do in her previous finance brief. She will, no doubt, also receive far more scrutiny on those views as potential leader.
And as already covered, Yousaf has represented himself as Muslim to appeal to that constituency but with this concentration on such subjects will need to be clear what that means. And it has to be remembered that Blackford is a Wee Free as well and lead the SNP at Westminster where the vast majority of decisions on the 2 issues you have mentioned are reserved.
Given the involvement of the GRRB question here, what do you mean by 'gay rights"?
-
Given the involvement of the GRRB question here, what do you mean by 'gay rights"?
My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Forbes has repeatedly failed to indicate her support for gay marriage despite being questioned on it. She is also reported to be anti abortion, believing that protecting 'the unborn' is the 'measure of true progress' in our society.
Now perhaps Yousuf and Regan are similarly anti abortion and have similarly failed to indicate their support for gay people being allowed to marry, but if not then I suggest there is a major distinction between the candidates on this.
-
My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Forbes has repeatedly failed to indicate her support for gay marriage despite being questioned on it. She is also reported to be anti abortion, believing that protecting 'the unborn' is the 'measure of true progress' in our society.
Now perhaps Yousuf and Regan are similarly anti abortion and have similarly failed to indicate their support for gay people being allowed to marry, but if not then I suggest there is a major distinction between the candidates on this.
Has Forbes given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?
-
... the vast majority of decisions on the 2 issues you have mentioned are reserved.
Are they NS? I thought that abortion was a matter for the Scottish parliament, also gay marriage. Neither are reserved matters.
-
Are they NS? I thought that abortion was a matter for the Scottish parliament, also gay marriage. Neither are reserved matters.
You are right. Which brings us back to whether Forbes has given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?
-
You are right. Which brings us back to whether Forbes has given any indication of trying to overturn same sex marriage or abortion rights?
But it isn't just about the highest of high level legislation, but about how things operate in practice. So on abortion examples could be levels of funding, approach to protests outside clinics, promotion of availability of services etc etc.
-
But it isn't just about the highest of high level legislation, but about how things operate in practice. So on abortion examples could be levels of funding, approach to protests outside clinics, promotion of availability of services etc etc.
And has Forbes made any indication on those - and note that areas of protest outside abortion services hasn't been dealt with under Sturgeon.
-
And has Forbes made any indication on those - and note that areas of protest outside abortion services hasn't been dealt with under Sturgeon.
Just because she might not have made any direct comment on those matters doesn't mean that she shouldn't be expected to be clear on her own personal position and how it would impact her policies were she to become leader.
That she has been clearly vocally anti abortion on public platforms in the past would suggest a starting point that there is a clear risk that she would erode provision, promotion and protection for those attending clinics. It is for her to clearly state her position rather than for us to presume that everything will be OK because she hasn't overtly said they wouldn't be.
-
Just because she might not have made any direct comment on those matters doesn't mean that she shouldn't be expected to be clear on her own personal position and how it would impact her policies were she to become leader.
That she has been clearly vocally anti abortion on public platforms in the past would suggest a starting point that there is a clear risk that she would erode provision, promotion and protection for those attending clinics. It is for her to clearly state her position rather than for us to presume that everything will be OK because she hasn't overtly said they wouldn't be.
So you have no evidence that she has any plans to change any stances on this. Or indeed 'gay rights' which you seem to have entirely forgotten about here.
-
So you have no evidence that she has any plans to change any stances on this.
She is standing for leader - she has previously sat on an anti-abortion 'prayer breakfast' platform with Brian Souter during which she stated that progress in society is linked to how that society treats the unborn. Under those circumstances I think it is legitimate that she should be expected to restate her personal views and state the policy positions she would adopt if she because leader. Given her previously expressed personal views (added to her views that her religion is more important than her politics) it would be reasonable to conclude that abortion provision and protections could be at risk until or unless she clearly states otherwise.
Or indeed 'gay rights' which you seem to have entirely forgotten about here.
Similar issues apply - rights for gay people currently are as much about normalisation of genuine equality - in other words the embedding of promotion that cements the view that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are of equal value. A lot of that rests on approaches within education, which are very much a matter for the Scottish parliament. Don't forget that in the late 80s the government did not look to outlaw homosexuality but nonetheless section 28 had a toxic and chilling effect on gay people.
The point is that she needs to be clear on her views and as far as I'm aware she has scrupulously avoided indicating that she supports gay marriage, despite being questioned on it.
Don't you think we have a right to know what her views and policy positions are if she wants to be leader NS?
-
She is standing for leader - she has previously sat on an anti-abortion 'prayer breakfast' platform with Brian Souter during which she stated that progress in society is linked to how that society treats the unborn. Under those circumstances I think it is legitimate that she should be expected to restate her personal views and state the policy positions she would adopt if she because leader. Given her previously expressed personal views (added to her views that her religion is more important than her politics) it would be reasonable to conclude that abortion provision and protections would be at risk until or unless she clearly states otherwise.
Similar issues apply - rights for gay people currently are as much about normalisation of genuine equality - in other words the embedding of promotion that cements the view that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are of equal value. A lot of that rests on approaches within education, which are very much a matter for the Scottish parliament. Don't forget that in the late 80s the government did not look to outlaw homosexuality but nonetheless section 28 had a toxic and chilling effect on gay people.
The point is that she needs to be clear on her views and as far as I'm aware she has scrupulously avoided indicating that she supports gay marriage, despite being questioned on it.
Don't you think we have a right to know what her views and policy positions are if she wants to be leader NS?
I didn't say people don't have a right to kniw what she intends to do. So strawman argument from you. And still no evidence of any proposed changes in policy on these areas.
-
I didn't say people don't have a right to kniw what she intends to do. So strawman argument from you.
Not really as the implication of your posts (as I read them) was that in the absence of a statement to change policy we should accept that she wouldn't. I'm glad that you accept that she needs to address these issues by restating her personal views and her intentions for policy if she became leader.
And still no evidence of any proposed changes in policy on these areas.
And still no evidence that she does not propose to change policy to align with her personal convictions. So, what to do eh - oh yes, let's get her to clearly state her intentions for policies on abortion and gay rights as part of the leadership process. And while we are at it I think she needs to be clear about her personal views on gay marriage. I think it is reasonable for people to know whether someone who wants to be leader considers gay marriages to be legitimate or not, regardless of whether she intends to change policy.
-
Not really as the implication of your posts (as I read them) was that in the absence of a statement to change policy we should accept that she wouldn't. I'm glad that you accept that she needs to address these issues by restating her personal views and her intentions for policy if she became leader.
And still no evidence that she does not propose to change policy to align with her personal convictions. So, what to do eh - oh yes, let's get her to clearly state her intentions for policies on abortion and gay rights as part of the leadership process. And while we are at it I think she needs to be clear about her personal views on gay marriage. I think it is reasonable for people to know whether someone who wants to be leader considers gay marriages to be legitimate or not, regardless of whether she intends to change policy.
I asked for evidence that she would change policy. In no way does that imply that she shouldn't be asked about it. Do you accept that?
And since all I asked was you to show evidence for your idea that she would seek to change policy, you are now trying to reverse the burden of proof.
-
I asked for evidence that she would change policy. In no way does that imply that she shouldn't be asked about it. Do you accept that?
And since all I asked was you to show evidence for your idea that she would seek to change policy, you are now trying to reverse the burden of proof.
I don't want to be leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland - she does. It is for her, not me, to demonstrate her personal and policy positions, not me (not that I could do as I'm obvious not her).
You mentioned Ian Blackford earlier on the basis that he is also a wee free - but the issue isn't specifically her membership of a particular church or religion, but her personal view and how they might play out in policy.
She could, of course, have stated unequivocally that she supports gay marriage and abortion rights, like Blackford. Blackford has also shown his support in deed as well as words, by voting in favour of extending abortion rights and equal marriage to NI.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1148535515773362177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
-
I don't want to be leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland - she does. It is for her, not me, to demonstrate her personal and policy positions, not me (not that I could do as I'm obvious not her).
You mentioned Ian Blackford earlier on the basis that he is also a wee free - but the issue isn't specifically her membership of a particular church or religion, but her personal view and how they might play out in policy.
She could, of course, have stated unequivocally that she supports gay marriage and abortion rights, like Blackford. Blackford has also shown his support in deed as well as words, by voting in favour of extending abortion rights and equal marriage to NI.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1148535515773362177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It's always up to you to demonstrate your claims. You haven't.
And last time I looked not standing to be FM of Scotland didn't justifh using a strawman.
-
It's always up to you to demonstrate your claims. You haven't.
And what exactly are those claims NS.
I think I have claimed that Forbes has previously expressed anti abortion views in public - I think that is on the public record.
I think I have also claimed that Forbes has not indicted how her personal views might impact her policy decisions if she because leader - again I think that is also true.
I have also expressed an opinion that based on her stated personal views it is legitimate to have concerns that abortion rights could be eroded under her leadership and the way for people to understand whether this concern is real or not is for her to publicly state what her policy intentions are. Given her publicly stated personal views silence on her part simply won't do.
-
And what exactly are those claims NS.
I think I have claimed that Forbes has previously expressed anti abortion views in public - I think that is on the public record.
I think I have also claimed that Forbes has not indicted how her personal views might impact her policy decisions if she because leader - again I think that is also true.
I have also expressed an opinion that based on her stated personal views it is legitimate to have concerns that abortion rights could be eroded under her leadership and the way for people to understand whether this concern is real or not is for her to publicly state what her policy intentions are. Given her publicly stated personal views silence on her part simply won't do.
So when you state it is a legitimate concern that abortion rights 'could' be eroded under her leadership - what is your evidence based on her statements for being leader?
*Note anything 'could' happen under any leader so I think you may have to clarify your usage here as not sure it makes much sense.
And when you suggested that I wanted her not to be questioned on her intentiobmns, where is your evidence?
-
Forbes has been asked about equall marriage now.
From the BBC:
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
" In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practising Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
-
So when you state it is a legitimate concern that abortion rights 'could' be eroded under her leadership - what is your evidence based on her statements for being leader?
The evidence is in her personal views - she needs to be clear about her policy intentions.
*Note anything 'could' happen under any leader so I think you may have to clarify your usage here as not sure it makes much sense.
Sure in theory anything 'could' happen under any leader. But whether there is a legitimate concern would depend on the evidence of their views on a particular matter. So if someone has publicly stated their supported women's right to abortion (e.g. Blackford) then it would be reaonable to think it unlikely that they would erode women's rights to access abortion. On the other hand if someone had publicly stated at an anti abortion event that they considered progress in society to be linked to protecting the foetus then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a legitimate concern that they may erode women's rights to access abortion until or unless they clearly stated that that was not their policy intention. While Forbes policy intentions remain unclear that concern remains.
-
The evidence is in her personal views - she needs to be clear about her policy intentions.
Sure in theory anything 'could' happen under any leader. But whether there is a legitimate concern would depend on the evidence of their views on a particular matter. So if someone has publicly stated their supported women's right to abortion (e.g. Blackford) then it would be reaonable to think it unlikely that they would erode women's rights to access abortion. On the other hand if someone had publicly stated at an anti abortion event that they considered progress in society to be linked to protecting the foetus then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a legitimate concern that they may erode women's rights to access abortion until or unless they clearly stated that that was not their policy intention. While Forbes policy intentions remain unclear that concern remains.
No, her personal views are not evidence that she would campaign to change things which is what I asked.
It's good to see you have accepted my question about your use of 'could' but sadly missed that it made your statement worthless.
Odd that you edited out the comment about your strawman. Why did you do that?
-
Forbes has been asked now.
From the BBC:
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
" In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practising Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
Hmm - so nothing on abortion.
And on gay marriage she clearly thinks it is immoral. And living without harassment or fear isn't the same as living with equality and respect.
-
No, her personal views are not evidence that she would campaign to change things which is what I asked.
Nope, but if someone personally strongly supports, for example equality for gay people, you'd expect them to be much more likely to campaign to change the law to promote gay equality than someone who thought that homosexuality was sinful. That is surely obvious.
-
Nope, but if someone personally strongly supports, for example equality for gay people, you'd expect them to be much more likely to campaign to change the law to promote gay equality than someone who thought that homosexuality was sinful. That is surely obvious.
I want to know what they would actually do in the position. Their likelihood vs someone who disagrees with their position is not evidence of that. Do you have any evidence of what she would do?
And then you've now edited put my question about editing out stuff previously. Why is that?
-
Hmm - so nothing on abortion.
And on gay marriage she clearly thinks it is immoral. And living without harassment or fear isn't the same as living with equality and respect.
I don't respect her religion, are you saying I should?
-
I don't respect her religion, are you saying I should?
Nope, but you aren't wanting to be First Minister of Scotland. And that is a category error - gay people are err, people. Religion is err ... a organisation.
To merely consider that gay people deserve to be able to live and love without harassment or fear is a pretty low bar don't you think.
-
Nope, but you aren't wanting to be First Minister of Scotland. And that is a category error - gay people are err, people. Religion is err ... a organisation.
To merely consider that gay people deserve to be able to live and love without harassment or fear is a pretty low bar don't you think.
So you are suggesting that because I don't respect the Wee Free religion, I shouldn't be FM?
And religious people are err religious people.
-
I want to know what they would actually do in the position.
So do I which is why I think she needs to be clear on her personal views and on her intention for policy. Pleased that she is now addressing the issues, albeit with a very a carefully worded 'politician's answer' on gay marriage. I suspect this will be seen as such and she will be pressed to clarify her kind of non answer.
But what about abortion - I doubt that she would come out with something as banning abortion, but as I've pointed out there are many things that can be done to erode abortion rights short of a ban. So:
Will she protect increase funding for abortion clinics.
Will she protect funding to promote abortion services for women who need them
How will she deal with the issue of anti-abortion protesters outside clinics.
-
So you are suggesting that because I don't respect the Wee Free religion, I shouldn't be FM?
Nope, but if you had been publicly overt in your opposition to the wee free religion akin to stating that progress in society should be judged by protecting people from the influence of wee free religion then it would be legitimate to ask whether you had any policy intentions to curtail or restrict that particular organisation.
-
So do I which is why I think she needs to be clear on her personal views and on her intention for policy. Pleased that she is now addressing the issues, albeit with a very a carefully worded 'politician's answer' on gay marriage. I suspect this will be seen as such and she will be pressed to clarify her kind of non answer.
But what about abortion - I doubt that she would come out with something as banning abortion, but as I've pointed out there are many things that can be done to erode abortion rights short of a ban. So:
Will she protect increase funding for abortion clinics.
Will she protect funding to promote abortion services for women who need them
How will she deal with the issue of anti-abortion protesters outside clinics.
I don't know. I just have no evidence that she won't. And you have provided none.
And yet again you have chosen to edit out my question about your use of a strawman. I find that you have done that 3 times now and ignored my question about it again disingenuous at best.
-
And religious people are err religious people.
But religions aren't people - they are organisations and issues of respect/equality are not equivalent (or arguably even relevant) when applied to an organisation rather than people.
-
Nope, but if you had been publicly overt in your opposition to the wee free religion akin to stating that progress in society should be judged by protecting people from the influence of wee free religion then it would be legitimate to ask whether you had any policy intentions to curtail or restrict that particular organisation.
And you are back at your strawman as regards whether she should be questioned on what she would do.
And again you've edited my post and in this case ignored tgat religious people are err religious people. Why do you keep editing my posts? Why do you keep ignoring my questions about why you keep editing my posts?
-
But religions aren't people - they are organisations and issues of respect/equality are not equivalent (or arguably even relevant) when applied to an organisation rather than people.
Organisations are just made up of people. If I don't respect someone's religious beliefs , how is that difficult from not respecting what someone's beliefs are on sexuality?
-
Organisations are just made up of people.
But organisations develop and promulgate 'official' organisational positions on certain matters. And the people who are members of that organisation may or may not also agree with those positions - so for example Blackford and Forbes are, apparently, both members of the same religious organisation but their personal positions on gay marriage and abortion seem very different based on Blackford's tweets and Forbes comments at the prayer breakfast and today on BBC.
If I don't respect someone's religious beliefs , how is that difficult from not respecting what someone's beliefs are on sexuality?
Someone's beliefs on sexuality or someone's sexuality? Two different things NS.
-
But organisations develop and promulgate 'official' organisational positions on certain matters. And the people who are members of that organisation may or may not also agree with those positions - so for example Blackford and Forbes are, apparently, both members of the same religious organisation but their personal positions on gay marriage and abortion seem very different based on Blackford's tweets and Forbes comments at the prayer breakfast and today on BBC.
Someone's beliefs on sexuality or someone's sexuality? Two different things NS.
I respect neither Blackford's nor Forbes's belief in the Wee Free religion.
I don't respect anyone for their sexuality.
-
Regan definitely going for the not the Green Party person vote
-
I respect neither Blackford's nor Forbes's belief in the Wee Free religion.
But based on their pronouncement's their individual views on gay marriage and abortion appear to be rather different. Forbes' views seem much more aligned with the 'official' line of the wee frees in comparison with Blackford. Indeed Blackford seems to have incurred the wrath of the wee free hierarchy for voting in favour of allowing abortion and equal marriage in Northern Ireland.
So I don't see individuals who are religious, as necessarily having viewed that are synonymous with the official line of the religion of which they are a member. Nor do I assume that two people who are both members of the same religion will necessarily have similar views. Hence my focus on the expressed views of Forbes and Blackford rather than their membership of the wee frees per se.
-
But based on their pronouncement's their individual views on gay marriage and abortion appear to be rather different. Forbes' views seem much more aligned with the 'official' line of the wee frees in comparison with Blackford. Indeed Blackford seems to have incurred the wrath of the wee free hierarchy for voting in favour of allowing abortion and equal marriage in Northern Ireland.
So I don't see individuals who are religious, as necessarily having viewed that are synonymous with the official line of the religion of which they are a member. Nor do I assume that two people who are both members of the same religion will necessarily have similar views. Hence my focus on the expressed views of Forbes and Blackford rather than their membership of the wee frees per se.
I don't see them as having the same views either.
-
Regan definitely going for the not the Green Party person vote
From what I can see only Yousuf of the declared candidates would be likely to keep the deal with the Greens intact.
-
I don't see them as having the same views either.
Nor either of them necessarily having the same views as the 'official' views of the wee free church?
-
Nor either of them necessarily having the same views as the 'official' views of the wee free church?
No. Though I would suggest that being an atheist Wee Free is not possible.
With Forbes declaring she wouldn't have voted for same sex marriage, I think that may be her very unlikely to win. In one way I'm impressed. I am old enough to remember when the SNP and Sturgeon's views on repealing Clause 28 were influenced by Brian Soutar's cash.
-
From what I can see only Yousuf of the declared candidates would be likely to keep the deal with the Greens intact.
Yes, I mentioned that earlier but Regan's comments today such as the one on the A9 are about staking out a claim to those not persuaded by the coalition.
-
With Forbes declaring she wouldn't have voted for same sex marriage, I think that may be her very unlikely to win.
Has she said that - that didn't seem to be in the BBC piece. If she has said that, and added to her BBC pronouncement she seems absolutely all over the place. So piecing things together we seem to have:
She thinks gay marriage is morally wrong.
She would have voted against gay marriage
So far so consistent but also so toxic surely for her campaign.
But she somehow supports a law that she, err, would have opposed. Or is it that she simply supports laws in a general sense.
And that she doesn't want gay people to suffer harassment or fear (wow that's big of her), while thinking that their relationships are morally wrong and had she had the chance she's have tried to prevent them from being able to get married.
Oh and she wants more protection for those poor persecuted religious people!
Certainly all the betting momentum currently seems to be with Yousuf.
-
In one way I'm impressed.
What, by someone opposing the right for some people to be able marry because they are gay. Impressed is not a word I'd use for this.
-
See below on Forbes statement on same sex marriage
-
What, by someone opposing the right for some people to be able marry because they are gay. Impressed is not a word I'd use for this.
Because I think that using I'm religious but not in terms of politics is a weird idea of religion, and that this seems honest of her when she could have fudged it.
-
I am old enough to remember when the SNP and Sturgeon's views on repealing Clause 28 were influenced by Brian Soutar's cash.
I imagine Souter will be back bankrolling the SNP if Forbes becomes leader.
-
I imagine Souter will be back bankrolling the SNP if Forbes becomes leader.
That's some imagination you have.
-
That's some imagination you have.
Not really - don't forget that her anti abortion comments were made at an event he had organised. Hardly rocket science to think that he might be back as a major SNP donor if she was leader.
-
See below on Forbes statement on same sex marriage
"Marriage being between a man and a woman. That is what I practise".
What on earth does that mean by that is what I practise? - she's heterosexual so of course the practise of her marriage is between a man and a woman. Does she mean, that is what I believe but doesn't feel she can quite say that?
-
"Marriage being between a man and a woman. That is what I practise".
What on earth does that mean by that is what I practise? - she's heterosexual so of course the practise of her marriage is between a man and a woman. Does she mean, that is what I believe but doesn't feel she can quite say that?
Practise as in practise religion. Infelicitious phrasing but perfectly understandable
-
Practise as in practise religion. Infelicitious phrasing but perfectly understandable
Sounds rather like weasel words to my mind to try to avoid saying that this is what she believes which surely is the actual case.
-
Sounds rather like weasel words to my mind to try to avoid saying that this is what she believes which surely is the actual case.
I think stating that she would have voted against same sex marriage is exactly not weasel words.
-
I think the question is whether Forbes stays in the race.
-
Sounds rather like weasel words to my mind to try to avoid saying that this is what she believes which surely is the actual case.
The statement you quoted leaves me in no doubt as to the view of the person who said it. She is against same sex marriage.
On a slightly different point: are we surprised that there is a wide variety of views within the SNP? It originated as a single issue party and is therefore likely to have members with a large diversity of opinions on other topics. I'm quite surprised it isn't in danger of having a schism.
-
Talk about doubling down :o
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1628009155708571649?s=20
-
Talk about doubling down :o
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1628009155708571649?s=20
Certainly no 'weasel words'.
-
The statement you quoted leaves me in no doubt as to the view of the person who said it. She is against same sex marriage.
On a slightly different point: are we surprised that there is a wide variety of views within the SNP? It originated as a single issue party and is therefore likely to have members with a large diversity of opinions on other topics. I'm quite surprised it isn't in danger of having a schism.
Already had one with Alba.
-
Been interesting seeing the reactions to Forbes's statements. I think those MSPs who were supporting her but have now withdrawn their support must have bern bafflingly stupid to have not asked her, bafflingly stupid to have known but thought it wouldn't be raised, or astoundingly cowardly to have initially thought it was ok but wilted under the reaction.
-
Certainly no 'weasel words'.
She keeps using this term 'practise' rather than view or belief, which I find really weird and clunky, but maybe that is her turn of phrase - it is certainly deliberate. I don't think I've come across anyone else that I can think of that talks of their practise rather than their opinion, their view or their belief.
-
'Kate Forbes may have breached SNP rules on transphobia'
In this case Forbes is not the religious loon but is correct.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23336504.kate-forbes-may-breached-snp-rules-transphobia/
-
John Crace not missing several open goals, starting with the SNP's very own religious extremist problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/forbes-doubles-down-and-torpedoes-snp-chances-pass-the-idiot-pills
-
Two tweets of Pete Wishart. First one yesterday, second today
-
That's a good a volte-face as I ever seen.
-
Triggered by my thoughts on prayer as a reality TV show on Searching for God and that this, as with all elections now serm like a reality TV show, can't we get it done properly You Could Be FM with guest stars, and phone ins - all profits going to Michelle Mone.
-
Two tweets of Pete Wishart. First one yesterday, second today
It does seem weird that there are a whole raft of people who genuinely didn't seem to have recognised the nature of Forbes' views until the last 24 hours or so.
Had they just stuck their heads in the sand, knowing full well that her views were 'extreme' to put it mildly. Perhaps hoping that as she is articular and telegenic that this would never come up. In which case naive in the extreme.
Were they simply unaware - it is certainly the case that individuals may have views in their private lives that people they work with would be unaware of. Certainly I doubt many people where I work would be aware that I'm atheist. But surely when Forbes' was appointed to ministerial office the standard 'is there anything in your background or your views that were they to come out would bring the office/government into disrespect'. Was this never asked - was it asked but she just failed to mention that she was anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex before marriage, ant-children born out of wedlock.
Maybe they knew all along but didn't anticipate the possibility that rather than address these matters as private views, that she would use her campaign to evangelise and claim victim status on the (non-sense) notion that being religious is a bar to holding high office.
-
What nonsense.
I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm
Thatcher's take on Christianity was expounded in her famous sermon on the mound where it wasn't so much Thatcher exposed as a latter christian but Jesus announced as a proto Thatcherite.
Scots should vote labour.
-
Thatcher's take on Christianity was expounded in her famous sermon on the mound where it wasn't so much Thatcher exposed as a latter christian but Jesus announced as a proto Thatcherite.
oh look the No True Samaritan fallacy.
-
oh look the No True Samaritan fallacy.
There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.
-
Certainly no 'weasel words'.
I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.
-
There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.
If it's known to God and the individual, then you cannot even answer for you so the entire idea of attributing ant acts to a group is meaningless.
-
I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.
The 'weasel words' was in reference to Prof D's statement that she had been using them.
-
There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.
What's the relevance of Margaret Thatcher to this thread? Is she standing for First Minister?
-
I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.
Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:
'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'
It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.
Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.
So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.
-
Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:
'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'
It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.
Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.
So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.
I think that saying what you do is much less of weasally than saying what your view is.
-
I think that saying what you do is much less of weasally than saying what your view is.
But they aren't the same thing are they - I may practise karate, but that tell you nothing about what my views are other martial arts.
That she personally practices sex only within marriage isn't an answer to the question she is being asked, which is what her view is on sex outside of marriage. And when specifically pushed on her view she answers 'that is the approach I would practise'. That isn't an answer.
And when specifically asked whether she thinks sex outside of marriage is wrong she answers 'it would be wrong according to my faith', as if her faith is somehow something entirely detached from her.
-
But they aren't the same thing are they - I may practise karate, but that tell you nothing about what my views are other martial arts.
That she personally practices sex only within marriage isn't an answer to the question she is being asked, which is what her view is on sex outside of marriage. And when specifically pushed on her view she answers 'that is the approach I would practise'. That isn't an answer.
And when specifically asked whether she thinks sex outside of marriage is wrong she answers 'it would be wrong according to my faith', as if her faith is somehow something entirely detached from her.
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
We are talking about a case where no one, including you, seems in any doubt about what she is saying, to the extent that it's torpedoed her chances, and led supporters who seemed immune to her positions before to run away.
-
I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is one hell of bigoted, self-serving politician. And in this case also suffering from myopia.
-
I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is one hell of bigoted, self-serving politician. And in this case also suffering from myopia.
Are you suggesting that Forbes is doing this out of wanting to be elected but getting it wrong?
-
Are you suggesting that Forbes is doing this out of wanting to be elected but getting it wrong?
Isn't that what a lot of politicians do?
-
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
My view is that they are different.
-
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
It is not an approach that I would practise.
-
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
My academic training would say that they are different.
-
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
They would be different according to my academic understanding.
-
My academic training would say that they are different.
That's nice for it!
-
It is not an approach that I would practise.
Good for you.
-
Isn't that what a lot of politicians do?
Undoubtedly but is it true here?
-
Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.
See what I did there.
Only reply 197 gives a clear, unequivocal indication of my view. All the others add layers of ambiguity and or detachment of my view from me, by offloading it not some aspect of me, e.g. academic training or understanding.
-
That's nice for it!
But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.
-
Good for you.
But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.
-
But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.
She doesn't do it because she thinks it's wrong. That is not equivocal.
-
See what I did there.
Only reply 197 gives a clear, unequivocal indication of my view. All the others add layers of ambiguity and or detachment of my view from me, by offloading it not some aspect of me, e.g. academic training or understanding.
Yes, I see you have no idea of context.
-
She doesn't do it because she thinks it's wrong. That is not equivocal.
She is because she is somehow offloading her view onto being not about her, but about her faith or her practise - in other words something separate from her view, this is what she practises - this is what her faith says. In my view she is trying to sidestep actually owning her rather offensive views.
The point is that she has a choice to decide to follow a particular practice, she has the choice to agree with, or not to agree with specific tenets of her religious belief. Therefore if she has decided to follow that practice or agree with that particular tenet of faith then she owns them - they become her view, not merely some detached element of her practise or her faith separate from her.
-
She is because she is somehow offloading her view onto being not about her, but about her faith or her practise - in other words something separate from her view, this is what she practises - this is what her faith says.
The point is that she has a choice to decide to follow a particular practice, she has the choice to agree with, or not to agree with specific tenets of her religious belief. Therefore if she has decided to follow that practice or agree with that particular tenet of faith then she owns them - they become her view, not merely some detached element of her practise or her faith separate from her.
It's easy to say this is what my belief is. It's more significant if it's what you do.
-
Yes, I see you have no idea of context.
The context was answering a specific question about my view on a particular matter - just as Forbes was asked specific questions about her views on particular matters. You can either answer that directly (as I did in 197) or you can fail to answer it directly by offloading my view onto some quasi-separate element of myself, which is what I did in replies 198-200. That is the approach that Forbes keeps taking. I've no idea whether it is a deliberate approach or merely something innate in her answers but frankly I find it weird, evasive, and frankly irritating. And by the way those are my views not that according to my professional understanding it is weird, evasive, and frankly irritating.
-
The context was answering a specific question about my view on a particular matter - just as Forbes was asked specific questions about her views on particular matters. You can either answer that directly (as I did in 197) or you can fail to answer it directly by offloading my view onto some quasi-separate element of myself, which is what I did in replies 198-200. That is the approach that Forbes keeps taking. I've no idea whether it is a deliberate approach or merely something innate in her answers but frankly I find it weird, evasive, and frankly irritating. And by the way those are my views not that according to my professional understanding it is weird, evasive, and frankly irritating.
So just your feeling then.
-
Yousaf not popular with 'Indian Council of Scotland'
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/indian-council-scotland-claims-indian-29280740
-
More battles between the 'believers' in Scottish politics. (Note: I am aware that could be read as to cast doubt on those who believe in Scottish politics. The ambiguity is deliberate)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926
I am intrigued by this idea that there religious beliefs are a 'personal faith' that should not be brought into politics. First of all because politics needs to work in the area of morality and all morality choices are a ' personal faith'. Second, Wilberforce campaigned against slavery because of his personal faith beliefs, and many in the Labour movement were inspired by their personal faith.
The separation of morality that is based on a religious faith as being bad as opposed to other types of morality serms to me both bad philosophy and bad theology.
-
Meanwhile Yousaf and the Scottish NHS
https://www.scotsman.com/health/snp-leadership-contest-humza-yousafs-leadership-credentials-dealt-blow-by-nhs-report-4037771
-
Interesting poll of SNP members in favour of Forbes
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-leadership-election-kate-forbes-humza-yousaf-poll-2169987
-
Interesting poll of SNP members in favour of Forbes
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-leadership-election-kate-forbes-humza-yousaf-poll-2169987
And a reported reaction
-
And a reported reaction
As mentioned upthread - never underestimate the ability of party members to vote for a leader who is the least suitable of the candidates on the ballot paper. The Tories did it last time out, Labour the time before last, perhaps its the SNPs turn to realise that you leave the choice of leader to your members at your peril. Particularly a problem when the leader you vote in will also become PM/FM rather than just a useless leader in opposition (e.g. Corbyn).
-
As mentioned upthread - never underestimate the ability of party members to vote for a leader who is the least suitable of the candidates on the ballot paper. The Tories did it last time out, Labour the time before last, perhaps its the SNPs turn to realise that you leave the choice of leader to your members at your peril. Particularly a problem when the leader you vote in will also become PM/FM rather than just a useless leader in opposition (e.g. Corbyn).
The Tories and Labour don't leave the choice to the membership fully though. And you seem to be making the decision that both that Forbes is the wrong choice, and that one member one vote is a bad thing.
-
The Tories and Labour don't leave the choice to the membership fully though.
True but that is merely about who gets on the ballot paper. The SNP process seems to have the lightest of light touches to get on the ballot paper, merely 100 member nominations. If you have a stricter set of criteria for getting on the ballot paper you may filter out candidates who are deeply unsuitable but the membership might love.
And you seem to be making the decision that both that Forbes is the wrong choice
I think that her views make her unsuitable to be leader of the SNP and FM - in the latter role she needs to represent the whole population of Scotland and someone who has been so vocal in indicating that she believes that I would suspect the vast majority of that population are immoral suggests to me that she is unsuitable for that role.
, and that one member one vote is a bad thing.
I think allowing a tiny proportion of the population (who do not themselves have any electoral mandate) to select a person who becomes either PM or FM is a major problem democratically. This isn't just selecting a leader of a political party, it is about selecting a PM (in the case of Boris and Truss in recent times) or FM (in the current election). I don't have such a problem with leaving the selection to members when a party is in opposition as there is a further hurdle before that individual becomes PM or FM, namely the wider electorate.
-
True but that is merely about who gets on the ballot paper. The SNP process seems to have the lightest of light touches to get on the ballot paper, merely 100 member nominations. If you have a stricter set of criteria for getting on the ballot paper you may filter out candidates who are deeply unsuitable but the membership might love.
I think that her views make her unsuitable to be leader of the SNP and FM - in the latter role she needs to represent the whole population of Scotland and someone who has been so vocal in indicating that she believes that I would suspect the vast majority of that population are immoral suggests to me that she is unsuitable for that role.
I think allowing a tiny proportion of the population (who do not themselves have any electoral mandate) to select a person who becomes either PM or FM is a major problem democratically. This isn't just selecting a leader of a political party, it is about selecting a PM (in the case of Boris and Truss in recent times) or FM (in the current election). I don't have such a problem with leaving the selection to members when a party is in opposition as there is a further hurdle before that individual becomes PM or FM, namely the wider electorate.
So was Merkel unsuitable for her role after she voted against same sex marriage? And you seem not to mean represent the 'whole of Scotland' since no one can do that.
Without changing to a presidential system, how do you extend the electorate beyond a party's membership?
-
So was Merkel unsuitable for her role after she voted against same sex marriage?
I wasn't just talking about her views on gay married but that she considers people who have had sex without being married or have children without being married to be immoral. That, I imagine, is the vast majority of people in Scotland.
And you seem not to mean represent the 'whole of Scotland' since no one can do that.
That is exactly what the role of PM or FM is - they are expected to represent all of the population, not just the smaller proportion who voted for them.
Without changing to a presidential system, how do you extend the electorate beyond a party's membership?
When a party is in power, and therefore the election is not just for leader but for PM/FM I think it is better to leave the selection to elected representatives as these people do actually have an electoral mandate. Leaving the selection of a new PM or FM to a membership who have no democratic mandate nor any accountability for their choice isn't the right approach in my opinion.
-
I wasn't just talking about her views on gay married but that she considers people who have had sex without being married or have children without being married to be immoral. That, I imagine, is the vast majority of people in Scotland.
That is exactly what the role of PM or FM is - they are expected to represent all of the population, not just the smaller proportion who voted for them.
When a party is in power, and therefore the election is not just for leader but for PM/FM I think it is better to leave the selection to elected representatives as these people do actually have an electoral mandate. Leaving the selection of a new PM or FM to a membership who have no democratic mandate nor any accountability for their choice isn't the right approach in my opinion.
So you want a smaller electorate to vote for the FM because you think that the bigger electorate is too small. Hmmm..
And yet you were worried earlier about the FM not representative of the SNP.
As for representing the whole of Scotland, you appear to define whole as some magic number but not all, and to suggest that all those who think sex outside marriage is wrong shouldn't be FM. Seems a bit intolerant to me. Also in theory may apply to Yousaf.
-
So you want a smaller electorate to vote for the FM because you think that the bigger electorate is too small. Hmmm..
Are you being a bit dense - the point about the elected MPs or MSPs is that they are ... err ... elected. So although they may be smaller in number than the membership they have an electoral mandate from numbers way in excess of member numbers. And those individuals are also accountable to the electorate. That's how our democracy works - we elect representative and they are authorised by that electoral process to make decisions. Members have no democratic mandate, nor are they accountable.
As for representing the whole of Scotland, you appear to define whole as some magic number but not all, and to suggest that all those who think sex outside marriage is wrong shouldn't be FM. Seems a bit intolerant to me.
Not at all - I think Swinney put it really well:
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."
This concurs with my view - is Forbes entitled to hold the views she does - sure she is.
Is Forbes entitled to express those views - absolutely
Is Forbes entitled to stand for election in the leadership race - yup
If she wins do I think she should be banned from taking up the office - nope, she would have a mandate under the current rules (notwithstanding I'm not sure I agree those rules are very sensible).
But I am just as entitled to hold my own opinion on whether her views mean she is an appropriate person to be FM or not. And my view is that she is not. Nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.
-
Are you being a bit dense - the point about the elected MPs or MSPs is that they are ... err ... elected. So although they may be smaller in number than the membership they have an electoral mandate from numbers way in excess of member numbers. And those individuals are also accountable to the electorate. That's how our democracy works - we elect representative and they are authorised by that electoral process to make decisions. Members have no democratic mandate, nor are they accountable.
Not at all - I think Swinney put it really well:
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."
This concurs with my view - is Forbes entitled to hold the views she does - sure she is.
Is Forbes entitled to express those views - absolutely
Is Forbes entitled to stand for election in the leadership race - yup
If she wins do I think she should be banned from taking up the office - nope, she would have a mandate under the current rules (notwithstanding I'm not sure I agree those rules are very sensible).
But I am just as entitled to hold my own view on whether her views mean she is an appropriate person to be FM or not. And my view is that she is not. Nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.
So when you wrote that the leader should represent the SNP, you meant apart from the members.
The point about the intolerance is you seem to want to change the mandate to somehow ensure that she isn't elected.
-
So when you wrote that the leader should represent the SNP, you meant apart from the members.
Not sure if I've previously discussed this on the MB, but certainly have elsewhere. When we think of political parties, to my mind there are three main constituent elements. Firstly their elected representatives (e.g. MPs, MSPs etc), secondly there is the formal membership and thirdly there is their broader support within the electorate - their 'voters' so to speak. Some also have formally affiliated organisations, but I'll put that to one side.
The issue that a number of political parties have is that their formal membership is often not representative of either their elected representatives nor of their wider voter, let alone the populace as a whole. The clearest recent examples, of course, being Truss and Corbyn - both loved by their respective membership, yet not being favourite with MPs, who let's face it know and work with the individual in a manner that members don't. And similarly not clearly supported by broader voters.
Whisper it quietly, but when selecting a new leader, who presumably you want to be successful, of those three constuencies the least important should be the members. Why? - well because the MPs/MPSs know the person and have to work with the person and unless the broader electorate are prepared to vote for that individual they won't be successful.
This is in no way a comment about Forbes - I've expressed this view for many years - probably the first time being when Ed rather than David Miliband ended up as leader of the Labour party, which I was a member of at that time. That's situation was a little different to this one - but political parties need to think very, very carefully about how they select new leaders, and particularly how they do so when in power so that the individual becomes not only leader but PM/FM etc.
The point about the intolerance is you seem to want to change the mandate to somehow ensure that she isn't elected.
This is nothing to do with Forbes per se - indeed looking at where things are at the moment it is perhaps quite unlikely that the current SNP system will mean that she is elected. I made exactly the same points during the tory leadership election in the summer, so I cannot see how this can be construed as being anything to do with Forbes, let alone intolerance towards her.
NS - there are many ways in which you can select a new leader - thinking the approach taken by a particular political party isn't ideal is in no way intolerant. And by the way I raised the whole issue of the process, including numbers for nominations before Forbes had announced her leadership or started on her series of train wreck interviews.
-
So confirmed that there will be three candidates - Forbes, Regan, Yousaf.
As this is a form of STV it would be interesting to know how transfers are likely to play out for each candidate.
My (rather uninformed) thoughts being:
Forbes votes would split more towards Regan than Yousaf
Regan's votes will split more towards Yousaf than Forbes
Yousaf's votes will split more towards Regan than Forbes
Presuming (and I know this is a presumption) that Regan comes third on first preferences, then how her votes split may be decisive.
-
So confirmed that there will be three candidates - Forbes, Regan, Yousaf.
As this is a form of STV it would be interesting to know how transfers are likely to play out for each candidate.
My (rather uninformed) thoughts being:
Forbes votes would split more towards Regan than Yousaf
Regan's votes will split more towards Yousaf than Forbes
Yousaf's votes will split more towards Regan than Forbes
Presuming (and I know this is a presumption) that Regan comes third on first preferences, then how her votes split may be decisive.
Regan's prominence and standing is based on 2 things. Her GRRB rebellion, and a more aggressive approach to independence. I think because of the first her votes will split towards Forbes.
Forbes's candidacy is based mostly on the perceived competence as Finance Minister, and being a gradualist. I thonk her votes would split 70 - 30 to Yousaf currently.
Yousaf's votes are based on more of the same, loyality, and long service. Should his votes split, and I cannot see anyway that happens. I would think they go mostly to Forbes 85 - 15, possibly higher.
-
Regan's prominence and standing is based on 2 things. Her GRRB rebellion, and a more aggressive approach to independence. I think because of the first her votes will split towards Forbes.
Interesting view - I've read that Forbes is fairly centre-right in her political thinking and apart from independence could quite happily sit in the sCons. And that provided a distinction with Regan and Yousaf who are more centre-left and more aligned politically to the Sturgeon era. If that is the case you'd perhaps expect Yousaf to be a better alignment to Regan first pref supporters than Forbes.
Sure, there are differences on GRRB but will that really be a big issue - my understanding was that for all the froth and noise on this rank and file voters and SNP supporters did not consider this to be a major issue. I think it ranked something like 30th in the most recent issues monitor, which was actually polling at the height of the publicity on the bill. If I'm getting this right of 476 SNP supporters polled just 2 mentioned gender recognitions reforms as an important issue.
-
Interesting view - I've read that Forbes is fairly centre-right in her political thinking and apart from independence could quite happily sit in the sCons. And that provided a distinction with Regan and Yousaf who are more centre-left and more aligned politically to the Sturgeon era. If that is the case you'd perhaps expect Yousaf to be a better alignment to Regan first pref supporters than Forbes.
Sure, there are differences on GRRB but will that really be a big issue - my understanding was that for all the froth and noise on this rank and file voters and SNP supporters did not consider this to be a major issue. I think it ranked something like 30th in the most recent issues monitor, which was actually polling at the height of the publicity on the bill. If I'm getting this right of 476 SNP supporters polled just 2 mentioned gender recognitions reforms as an important issue.
I think applying left/right distinctions in the SNP is fraught with difficulty. All of the candidates are mainstream economic policy in the SNP with Regan seen as a small amount more 'left'.
The most significant differentiator is how to get to independence, both Yousaf and Forbes are gradualists, as is Regan but her 50%+1 position that I posted a couple of days ago is where she's trying to get through to the 'second round'.
Regan would not have a candidacy outside of the GRRB rebellion, though it that was already affected by Alba, which is why she was keen on people being able to rejoin to vote, and why the 'leadership' was not so keen. That also applies tp the less gradualist approach.
The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides.
-
The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides.
Evidence please - polling seems to suggest that for all the publicity around this issue the vast, vast majority don't see this an important issue. I know the polling I've seen is only for all of the electorate and SNP voters, and therefore not SNP members, but if you are to make that claim then you'll need to show me credible evidence that SNP members are markedly more concerned by the GRRB than the 2 in 476 data for SNP voters (who will, of course include a subset of members).
-
Evidence please - polling seems to suggest that for all the publicity around this issue the vast, vast majority don't see this an important issue. I know the polling I've seen is only for all of the electorate and SNP voters, and therefore not SNP members, but if you are to make that claim then you'll need to show me credible evidence that SNP members are markedly more concerned by the GRRB than the 2 in 476 data for SNP voters (who will, of course include a subset of members).
Regan's candidacy is the evidence. And that your 'evidence' is based on specifically irrelevant groupings is your problem
As an aside, I note that on the Oddschecker website she's diwn as Ash Denham - her 'married' name. Perhaps a sad lesson about such things.
-
I'd also ask Prof D what number of voters suggested sex outside marriage as an important topic, since he thinks that's where Forbes may have talen a position to alienate so many voters?
-
Regan's candidacy is the evidence. And that your 'evidence' is based on specifically irrelevant groupings is your problem
That isn't evidence at all - as we know it requires just 100 people, out of over 100,000 to get on the ballot paper.
But actually the existing polling gives a pretty clear indication.
So there were 476 SNP voters in the poll - we know that the SNP has a really high ratio of members/voters compared to other parties. So the SNP typically gets about 1.2 million votes and so about 8-9% of SNP voters will be members. So you can reasonably estimate that of those 476 SNP voters about 40 will be SNP members. So even if you make an assumption that the two people from the SNP voters who said gender recognition was an important issue are members (big assumption), then you'd still only have about 5% of members thinking gender recognition is an important issue.
Bottom line - don't confuse the amount of smoke, noise and media attention an issue gains in the Westminster/Holyrood bubble with whether people more broadly (whether all of the populace, or just SNP voters or members) think an issue is important.
-
I'd also ask Prof D what number of voters suggested sex outside marriage as an important topic, since he thinks that's where Forbes may have talen a position to alienate so many voters?
You may well be correct - but there is a difference. In the case of sex outside marriage, it isn't the issue per se, but Forbes telling (I'd imagine a large majority) of the electorate that she hopes to vote for her that she considers their personal choices to be wrong and immoral. There is a mantra in politics - don't insult the electorate, and I would have thought telling most of the electorate that their choices are immoral and wrong would fall foul of that mantra big time.
-
That isn't evidence at all - as we know it requires just 100 people, out of over 100,000 to get on the ballot paper.
But actually the existing polling gives a pretty clear indication.
So there were 476 SNP voters in the poll - we know that the SNP has a really high ratio of members/voters compared to other parties. So the SNP typically gets about 1.2 million votes and so about 8-9% of SNP voters will be members. So you can reasonably estimate that of those 476 SNP voters about 40 will be SNP members. So even if you make an assumption that the two people from the SNP voters who said gender recognition was an important issue are members (big assumption), then you'd still only have about 5% of members thinking gender recognition is an important issue.
Bottom line - don't confuse the amount of smoke, noise and media attention an issue gains in the Westminster/Holyrood bubble with whether people more broadly (whether all of the populace, or just SNP voters or members) think an issue is important.
You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.
-
You may well be correct - but there is a difference. In the case of sex outside marriage, it isn't the issue per se, but Forbes telling (I'd imagine a large majority) of the electorate that she hopes to vote for her that she considers their personal choices to be wrong and immoral. There is a mantra in politics - don't insult the electorate, and I would have thought telling most of the electorate that their choices are immoral and wrong would fall foul of that mantra big time.
That's nice. So you want to cite a poll for one case but your 'feeling' again for another.
-
You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.
You've missed the point in which you provided any credible evidence to back up your claim that:
"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."
-
You've missed the point in which you provided any credible evidence to back up your claim that:
"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."
And Regan's candidacy is based on that, and that you are discussing that is based on it. That you want to cite a poll on one thing but talk about your feeling on another just shows your confusion.
-
You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.
Note you are gently moving the goalposts.
Your claim was about 'active members, those likely to vote', not activists. Not sure you are or have been a member of a political party, but if so you will know that members, members likely to vote in a membership election, and activists aren't the same thing at all.
-
Note you are gently moving the goalposts.
Your claim was about 'active members, those likely to vote', not activists. Not sure you are or have been a member of a political party, but if so you will know that members, members likely to vote in a membership election, and activists aren't the same thing at all.
I disagree. Your evidence?
-
And Regan's candidacy is based on that, and that you are discussing that is based on it.
So what - we are talking about whether GRRB is actually considered important. That Regan has managed to get over the tiniest of nomination hurdles, finding 100 people out of 100,000 to nominate her tells us nothing about whether many of that 100,000 think the issue is important. Extrapolating from the polling suggests that perhaps 5% of that 100,000 may consider it important.
-
I disagree.
You disagree with what:
It is a demonstrable fact that you have changed your language from:
"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."
"You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that."
Your evidence?
Evidence for what? That a member of a political party and an activist aren't the same thing?
This from the party I know best (although my parents' activism within the Tory party tells me that they are the same too):
https://labour.org.uk/members/activist-area/
Activists actually do stuff for the party, beyond just paying their membership. An activist is a person who might, for example deliver leaflets, canvass, produce party literature, take on official functions within a local party organisation, perhaps actually stand as a candidate. These people are usually, but interestingly not always, members. But most members aren't activists - their involvement will go no further than paying their subs. I know, because I've been an activist and know the proportions of members who, although they are active members (i.e. have paid their subs) are not activists. I have also been a paid up member and not an activist - when I was not enthused enough about the leadership and direction of the party to be motivated to get off my arse. But guess what, while I was a member I always voted in any leadership election, regardless of whether I was an activist or not at the time.
-
Powerful stuff:
https://twitter.com/MhairiBlack/status/1629125518007189504?t=mlIfWF4NigoKdZ2Fsh8Qpg&s=19
-
The battle lines have been drawn up on the various camos that are now portrayed as the mad homophobe, the incompetent liar (about not being a homophobe) and the Tory traitor.
-
The battle lines have been drawn up on the various camos that are now portrayed as the mad homophobe, the incompetent liar (about not being a homophobe) and the Tory traitor.
I'm presuming that Regan is the tory traitor? Why is this? Genuine question as I know next to nothing about her, to the extent that I'd never heard of her before she was mentioned as a potential candidate after Sturgeon resigned. My lack of knowledge was so great that I wasn't even sure whether the person being mentioned as a candidate was male or female! Now I guess my ignorance is my issue, but I do like to think that I'm reasonably well informed politically so I'd suggest this also indicates that she has an exceptionally low profile.
Now I saw her being interviewed on the news last night - I think this is the first time I'd heard her speak/be interviewed. Blimey she was awful.
What on earth has happened to the SNP if these three are the best they can come up with. Salmond was one of the most talented and brilliant politicians of his generation (surely that cannot be denied regardless of whether you agree with his politics). And he ensured that there was a succession plan to someone who, if anything, was even more talented and brilliant as a politician (again surely that cannot be denied regardless of whether you agree with her politics). But after these two giants, not just of Scottish politics, but of UK politics we seem to have a complete vacuum. What went wrong?
-
I'm presuming that Regan is the tory traitor? Why is this? Genuine question as I know next to nothing about her, to the extent that I'd never heard of her before she was mentioned as a potential candidate after Sturgeon resigned. My lack of knowledge was so great that I wasn't even sure whether the person being mentioned as a candidate was male or female! Now I guess my ignorance is my issue, but I do like to think that I'm reasonably well informed politically so I'd suggest this also indicates that she has an exceptionally low profile.
....
So the traitor bit comes from being seen as to close to Alba, which is in part related to the opposition to the GRRB, and also because as part of her team she has an advisor whi is in Alba and advises Salmond (they also used to be an advisor to Sturgeon).
The Tory comes from the idea that some of the more 'imaginative' that Alba is effectively a 'British deep state' plot to stop independence. To be fair, those imaginative types are matched on the Alba side who think many in the SNP are blocks placed by the deep state to distract from independence.
So far myy investments in tinfoil and popcorn are doing very well
As to the quality of the candidates, I think there is a certain amount of regression to the mean combined with a general dearth of talent in all political parties.
-
Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:
'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'
It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.
Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.
So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.
Weasel words are words designed so you can say something (or appear to say something) without being pinned down to it in the future. I am in no doubt as to what this woman's views are and so how can her words be weasel words? It seems to me that her opinion was a perfectly rational and reasonable one ("this is my position based on my faith, but others have different views and that's fine too"). You and the interviewer are just angry that she didn't start frothing at the mouth and condemning people for having children outside marriage.
You should just give it up - as should the interviewer who must have known shew wasn't going to give him the ammunition he wanted after the third time of asking.
-
Hmmm....
https://archive.vn/IqXn1
-
Article in the Guardian illustrating the toxic mix of politics, religion and "wokeness" that has led to the current stramash (as our friends north of the border would put it):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/26/kate-forbes-politicians-have-right-to-strong-religious-views-but-not-shielded-from-scrutiny
-
Even in the Marianas Trench that is our political.depths, this from Yousaf plumbs new deprhs of stupidity.
https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533
-
Even in the Marianas Trench that is our political.depths, this from Yousaf plumbs new deprhs of stupidity.
https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533
You know how underhand it is when politicians vying for political leadership decide to bring politics into the political debate.
-
You know how underhand it is when politicians vying for political leadership decide to bring politics into the political debate.
Absolute bastards.
More of Yousaf being an idiot.
https://archive.vn/PJSeX
-
Half MSPs and a third of MPs have backed a candidate:
SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 8pm on 28th of February. 3 candidates, meaning 106 endorsements available.
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 34 (22/12)
Forbes: 9 (7/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 57 (28/29)
None: 5 (4/1)
https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023
History tells us that it is very difficult for a leader if they do not have the backing of their parliamentary colleagues. Are we going to end up with another scenario where members want one person and parliamentarians another.
-
Even given 'he would say that, wouldn't he?', Yousaf looks extremely dodgy on this.
https://news.sky.com/story/snp-leadership-hopeful-humza-yousaf-skipped-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-due-to-religious-pressure-says-scotlands-former-first-minister-alex-salmond-12823551
-
First poll of the SNP members:
'First poll of SNP members from @Savanta_UK puts @HumzaYousaf out in front.
Yousaf 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11% Don't know 32%
Excluding Don't know: Yousaf 46%; Forbes 37% Regan 17%
Members that do not know are more likely to be female (44% vs 22% male)'
-
At least some people in the SNP wondering why they should select their most unpopular candidate amongst the voters.
https://archive.is/2023.03.04-201252/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/senior-snp-figures-write-off-humza-yousaf-as-new-leader-b3k8b0wtt
-
First picture from The Herald is Kate Forbes, Bible awkwardly in hand. Second picture why it's awkward
-
Very funny
https://twitter.com/shiny02/status/1633514788071383055?t=5h_RkmQkz0Y3H-bGbMsPlQ&s=19
-
Very funny
https://twitter.com/shiny02/status/1633514788071383055?t=5h_RkmQkz0Y3H-bGbMsPlQ&s=19
Is that guy's beard actually Sturgeon's hair but ... like ... on his chin.
There was a debate the other night - saw about 20 secs of it on the news. Anyone actually watch it all? Any thoughts. New editorial line seemed to be that they all decided that the others were incompetent and by inference that the government they'd all served in (currently or recently) was effectively incompetent - or in Forbes (I think) words 'mediocre'.
-
Doesn't look as if the public are too enamoured by the prospect of any of them, given the direction the polls are going for the SNP:
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19
SNP on 29% (-11% compared to 2021 election) now just 3% ahead of Labour, on 26% (+8%) in poll on regional list.
-
Is that guy's beard actually Sturgeon's hair but ... like ... on his chin.
There was a debate the other night - saw about 20 secs of it on the news. Anyone actually watch it all? Any thoughts. New editorial line seemed to be that they all decided that the others were incompetent and by inference that the government they'd all served in (currently or recently) was effectively incompetent - or in Forbes (I think) words 'mediocre'.
Nope. Forbes decided Yousaf was incompetent.
-
Doesn't look as if the public are too enamoured by the prospect of any of them, given the direction the polls are going for the SNP:
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19
SNP on 29% (-11% compared to 2021 election) now just 3% ahead of Labour, on 26% (+8%) in poll on regional list.
Just to cover this is the constituency change
-
And Westminster
-
Note all of the above are against 2019 so doesn't really cover the effect of the resignation or the candidates clearly
-
Just to cover this is the constituency change
Which was also in the link I provided.
The constituency swing SNP to Labour is slightly less bad (-8% and +7%) than the swing for the regional list (-11% and +8%), but still a major swing away from the SNP nonetheless.
-
And interesting on the candidates
-
And Westminster
Similar level of swing SNP to Labour
So my reading is that we have:
8% swing for both Westminster and Holyrood constituency
9.5% swing for Holyrood regional list
-
And interesting on the candidates
As you've pointed out previously the people that will actually make the decision, SNP members, haven't been polled. I'd suspect they'd be more like SNP voters than all voters however.
Looking at the polling I think the SNP may be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Forbes having rather greater support in the public at large (but don't forget that will include a bunch of people who will never vote SNP regardless of who is leader). But critically she does not have the support of her parliamentary colleagues (at both Holyrood and Westminster) and history suggests that it is very hard for someone to lead a party (let alone govern) without having their parliamentary colleagues behind them.
Go for Yousaf and have someone who will likely command support in the parliamentary party, but may not be seen as the best candidate more widely.
Actually I think the most telling bit of data are the 'don't knows' - that 39% of SNP voters don't have enough confidence in any of the candidates to actually express an opinion should be especially worrying for the SNP.
-
....
Actually I think the most telling bit of data are the 'don't knows' - that 39% of SNP voters don't have enough confidence in any of the candidates to actually express an opinion should be especially worrying for the SNP.
Don't disagree but not sure what were equivalent figures at similar times, and even that is difficult to define, for Labour, Tory and Lib Dems leadership elections.
-
Half MSPs and a third of MPs have backed a candidate:
SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 8pm on 28th of February. 3 candidates, meaning 106 endorsements available.
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 34 (22/12)
Forbes: 9 (7/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 57 (28/29)
None: 5 (4/1)
https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023
History tells us that it is very difficult for a leader if they do not have the backing of their parliamentary colleagues. Are we going to end up with another scenario where members want one person and parliamentarians another.
Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)
Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.
-
Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)
Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.
Or they just think she has no chance of winning and so are thinking about their next jobs.
-
Or they just think she has no chance of winning and so are thinking about their next jobs.
And why would they think she has no chance of winning other than on the basis of her abilities?
-
Or they just think she has no chance of winning and so are thinking about their next jobs.
But as one wag put it somewhere else:
There are three candidates, one wants to be leader of the SNP, one wants to be leader of Alba and the third wants to be leader of the DUP!
-
Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)
Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.
Just seeing this on a different site:
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/03/09/snp-leadership-latest-betting/
Suggests that Regan is 4th in the betting in a 3 horse race! Blimey, that takes some doing and also demonstrates Joanna Cherry's judgement as she is the only MP or MSP to have endorsed Regan.
I think the betting for Yousaf/Forbes looks about right - Yousaf favourite but not overwhelmingly.
-
Just seeing this on a different site:
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/03/09/snp-leadership-latest-betting/
Suggests that Regan is 4th in the betting in a 3 horse race! Blimey, that takes some doing and also demonstrates Joanna Cherry's judgement as she is the only MP or MSP to have endorsed Regan.
I think the betting for Yousaf/Forbes looks about right - Yousaf favourite but not overwhelmingly.
What does it demonstrate about Cherry's judgement?
-
What does it demonstrate about Cherry's judgement?
That she seems to consider someone with no (other than her) support from parliamentary colleagues and with tiny support from the electorate to be the most suitable person to lead the SNP (and therefore be leader of those parliamentary colleagues) and also be first minister (and therefore need to command respect of, and ultimately votes from the wider electorate).
-
That she seems to consider someone with no (other than her) support from parliamentary colleagues and with tiny support from the electorate to be the most suitable person to lead the SNP (and therefore be leader of those parliamentary colleagues) and also be first minister (and therefore need to command respect of, and ultimately votes from the wider electorate).
Surely you endorse the person you think is best for the job rather than the most popular?
-
Surely you endorse the person you think is best for the job rather than the most popular?
When the job involves leading a political party, including its elected members and leading a government that requires the broader support of the electorate then I would have though that having the confidence of those parliamentary colleagues and the wider electorate is an absolutely key attribute for the best person for the job. It isn't a case of popularity, but that the individual has the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues and the electorate.
I'm struggling to see how someone whose job is to lead can be the best person in that leadership role if they don't have the confidence of their colleagues - but presumably Cherry doesn't think that matters.
-
When the job involves leading a political party, including its elected members and leading a government that requires the broader support of the electorate then I would have though that having the confidence of those parliamentary colleagues and the wider electorate is an absolutely key attribute for the best person for the job. It isn't a case of popularity, but that the individual has the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues and the electorate.
I'm struggling to see how someone whose job is to lead can be the best person in that leadership role if they don't have the confidence of their colleagues - but presumably Cherry doesn't think that matters.
so in order to choose to endorse someone you should wait to see who most of the other MPs and MSPs do before endorsing anyone. Can you see the problem with your logic?
-
New poll of Scottish public
https://news.stv.tv/politics/kate-forbes-leads-humza-yousaf-by-eight-per-cent-among-scottish-public-in-snp-race-channel-4-poll-finds
-
so in order to choose to endorse someone you should wait to see who most of the other MPs and MSPs do before endorsing anyone. Can you see the problem with your logic?
Don't you think that MPs and MSPs talk to each other, and will have done for years so it would be pretty clear to anyone who is engaged with his or her colleagues what their opinion of the candidates is. If you have to wait for a formal endorsement to understand views on candidates then that suggests you aren't really engaging with your colleagues. And maybe that it Cherry's issue - she certainly seems pretty detached from her colleagues.
-
New poll of Scottish public
https://news.stv.tv/politics/kate-forbes-leads-humza-yousaf-by-eight-per-cent-among-scottish-public-in-snp-race-channel-4-poll-finds
Showing Forbes ahead amongst all voters and Yousaf marginally ahead amongst SNP voters - don't think there is any assessment of SNP members.
Rock and hard place - go for Forbes who has more support in the wider electorate but doesn't have the support of her parliamentary colleagues or go for Yousaf who has the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues but isn't favoured by the wider electorate.
-
Don't you think that MPs and MSPs talk to each other, and will have done for years so it would be pretty clear to anyone who is engaged with his or her colleagues what their opinion of the candidates is. If you have to wait for a formal endorsement to understand views on candidates then that suggests you aren't really engaging with your colleagues. And maybe that it Cherry's issue - she certainly seems pretty detached from her colleagues.
I'm sure they do but you seem to be arguing that you should just go along with the majority view. And that it's bad judgement if you don't. Is that really your position?
-
I'm sure they do but you seem to be arguing that you should just go along with the majority view. And that it's bad judgement if you don't. Is that really your position?
I'm not arguing that at all. I am saying that if you want to be a leader of a group of people who already know you (as would be the case for the SNP and parliamentary colleagues) your ability to lead will be determined to a large extent by the confidence those people have in you already. And that will already be a known thing as MSPs (and likely MPs too) will already have a pretty clear view on the competence and leadership skills of Forbes, Yousaf and Regan from their working relationships with them over the past years. All that is already baked in before a single person endorses anyone.
It is absolutely clear that MSPs and MPs don't have confidence in Regan's ability to lead, and I imagine that isn't a new view but one that they've held for a while as they know and have worked with her. And that is critically important - if you don't take note of that you end up with Corbyn - a leader that most of his parliamentary colleagues thought was useless before becoming leader and still thought was useful once he had become leader. Cherry is an MP - she will have seen the effect first hand in Westminster, yet it doesn't seem to bother her that Regan does not have the confidence of her parliamentary colleagues. Or maybe she is so detached from her parliamentary colleagues that she's never had the conversation about what others think about potential leadership candidates.
-
Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 46 (30/16)
Forbes: 12 (10/2)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 43 (17/26)
None: 4 (4/0)
Poor old Regan - her parliamentary colleagues really do think she is rubbish. Not a single supporter from her Holyrood colleagues, who presumably are those that know her best and work most closely with her.
Something to note on the endorsement.
Both Forbes and Yousaf are Cabinet Secretaries with junior ministers working underneath them. These junior ministers probably have the best insight into the leadership skills of their respective Cabinet Secretary.
Both of Yousaf's junior ministers have endorsed him, none of Forbes four junior ministers have endorsed her. Make of that what you will.
-
'The SNP is living in a fantasy land'
https://archive.vn/74hAY
-
'The SNP is living in a fantasy land'
https://archive.vn/74hAY
Lot to agree with in this.
I think Salmond and Sturgeon devised a mantra around competence - effectively let's get into government, be trusted on delivery and then independence with naturally flow from that. And indeed all seemed to be working well ... except the spanner in the works that the 2014 referendum didn't got the right way.
But the current candidates seem to have forgotten this (very sensible) strategy. Or perhaps the issue is that it is much harder - firstly because the candidates need to be speaking to the narrow SNP membership who are presumably far more obsessed with independence than wider SNP vote, let alone the overall electorate. But there is another issue - the SNP have now been in power in Scotland for 12 years. When you've only been in power for a couple of years it is possible to say 'trust us, it is early days fixing the mess we inherited. But look we've made a good start'. But that argument doesn't really work as the SNP has been in power for over a decade and and the candidates are all firmly fixed to that record.
Same problem that the tories have had, particularly in 2019 and 2022 - candidates who cannot really market themselves as a change candidate as they were all at the cabinet table when failure was happening.
-
The SNP have managed to maintain the idea that any failings are caused by Westminster, and to be fair, Westminster have done a lot to help them.
-
More polling of Scottish voters
https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/03/10/news/poll_almost_half_of_scots_say_snp_candidates_have_not_made_independence_case-3125230/
-
Agree with this from Iain MacWhirter
https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/get-back-its-ok-to-be-muslim-but
-
The SNP have managed to maintain the idea that any failings are caused by Westminster, and to be fair, Westminster have done a lot to help them.
But there is also the 'the last lot screwed this up, we will fix it' argument - but that only works for a party who has recently come to power. The SNP cannot use that anymore, although they could have 10 years ago. So this removes a key target to hang their failures on - the previous government. In a devolved assembly you can always blame the government in Westminster if it is of a different political colour, but the SNP can no longer blame their predecessors at Holyrood for failures as they once could.
-
But there is also the 'the last lot screwed this up, we will fix it' argument - but that only works for a party who has recently come to power. The SNP cannot use that anymore, although they could have 10 years ago. So this removes a key target to hang their failures on - the previous government. In a devolved assembly you can always blame the government in Westminster if it is of a different political colour, but the SNP can no longer blame their predecessors at Holyrood for failures as they once could.
They very rarely did, that's the point. They used the 'It's all Westminster's fault' from the start. In one sense, it wasn't even political cunning, it's what follows from one approach to Scottish independence. Amazingly it held through Covid when the actions were essentially the same.
-
Agree with this from Iain MacWhirter
https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/get-back-its-ok-to-be-muslim-but
Nope - he's missing the point.
The difference between Yousaf and Forbes isn't that one is muslim and one is christian - no the difference, as it seems to me, are their personal views and also their indication of whether they would legislate on the basis of those views, where they align with a religious orthodoxy. From what I've seen Forbes personal views are pretty extreme and she has also indicated that her religious views are more important than her political views and that she would have voted against, for example gay marriage. By contrast Yousaf's personal views, as far as I can see are far more socially liberal and I know there has been a bit of a row over why he wasn't present for the final vote on gay marriage, but he certainly voted in favour of it earlier on and he certainly didn't vote against as Forbes said she would have done.
So the lazy comparison of muslim vs christian doesn't stack up. It is Yousaf vs Forbes, not muslim vs christian. If you want a comparison you'd need to compare Forbes with a muslim with similar personal views to her and a similar desire to bring those views into her or his political decision making. Not sure we have an easy comparison there in the SNP.
Or you'd need to compare Yousaf with a christian with socially liberal views and a willingness to bring those views into his or her political decision making. Oh, how fortunate, we have a perfect comparison - Ian Blackford, from the same church as Forbes yet socially liberal and willing to support socially liberal political decisions. Have Blackford and Yousaf had radically different treatment linked to their religion - nope - so it isn't about muslim vs christian but the actual views and actions of the individuals who may be muslim or christian.
So his headline: 'it’s ok to be Muslim but not Christian in the SNP' - is totally wrong, as Blackford and I guess a whole raft of other christians in the SNP would demonstrate. I think the point is that it is OK to be socially liberal in the SNP but not socially conservative - and a socially conservative muslim would probably get as much flak as Forbes, just as a social liberal christian (Blackford) gets as little flak as Yousaf.
-
Nope - he's missing the point.
The difference between Yousaf and Forbes isn't that one is muslim and one is christian - no the difference, as it seems to me, are their personal views and also their indication of whether they would legislate on the basis of those views, where they align with a religious orthodoxy. From what I've seen Forbes personal views are pretty extreme and she has also indicated that her religious views are more important than her political views and that she would have voted against, for example gay marriage. By contrast Yousaf's personal views, as far as I can see are far more socially liberal and I know there has been a bit of a row over why he wasn't present for the final vote on gay marriage, but he certainly voted in favour of it earlier on and he certainly didn't vote against as Forbes said she would have done.
So the lazy comparison of muslim vs christian doesn't stack up. It is Yousaf vs Forbes, not muslim vs christian. If you want a comparison you'd need to compare Forbes with a muslim with similar personal views to her and a similar desire to bring those views into her political decision making. Not sure we have an easy comparison there in the SNP.
Or you'd need to compare Yousaf with a christian with socially liberal views and a willingness to bring those views into his or her political decision making. Oh, how fortunate, we have a perfect comparison - Ian Blackford, from the same church as Forbes yet socially liberal and willing to support socially liberal political decisions. Have Blackford and Yousaf had radically different treatment linked to their religion - nope - so it isn't about muslim vs christian but the actual views and actions of the individuals who may be muslim or christian.
And yet Yousaf's lying about arranging a meeting to avoud the vote on same sex marriage is entirely ignored.
-
Another poll
-
In one sense this is just stating the obvious, but in a more specific view of the race thos is a reaction to Yousaf having been pulled into talking about snap elections by trying to appeal to Regan's supporters for the possible transferred votes. Meanwhile Forbes places herself more as the continuity candidate, and also implied criticism of Yousaf's competence.
This has lead to some of Regan's supporters arguing that Forbes is Plan B of continuity to Yousaf being Plan A, which again is somewhat stating the obvious, but they then go on to opine that it's effectively been a conspiracy to keep Regsn out from day 1, and both Forbes and Yousaf are in on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/12/snps-kate-forbes-signals-scottish-independence-vote-could-be-years-away
-
Update on backing from parliamentary colleagues:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1634692615785332736
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
Forbes: 14 (11/3)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 37 (14/23)
None: 4 (4/0)
I think this means that Yousaf has a majority of MSPs now supporting him. I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for Regan - surely she must have one supportive friend amongst her MSP colleagues ;)
-
Polling for Westminster and Holyrood
-
Polling for Westminster and Holyrood
The full tables are here:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/356mxqu760/Sky_Scotland_Results_230313_W.pdf
There are some interesting sub-questions.
On whether the leadership candidates would be a good or bad FM for all voters we have:
Forbes
27% good
36% bad
Yousaf
22% good
44% bad
So Forbes betters Yousaf, but both in negative territory - I've ignored Regan!!
But with SNP voters we get:
Forbes
34% good
38% bad
Yousaf
41% good
31% bad
So Yousaf betters Forbes and Forbes is still in negative territory. Nothing on SNP members in this poll.
Another interesting snippet is that people were asked whether each of the candidates would be better or worse than Sturgeon and the numbers are horrendous for the candidates, particularly amongst SNP voters where we get:
Forbes
10% better
51% worse
Yousaf
5% better
54% worse
Ouch!
-
So Forbes thinks conversion therapy can be consented to.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/13/two-snp-leadership-candidates-call-jk-rowling-a-national-treasure
-
So Forbes thinks conversion therapy can be consented to.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/13/two-snp-leadership-candidates-call-jk-rowling-a-national-treasure
It's an idea that only makes sense if you live or have lived in a society or are part of some grouping that looks down on homosexuality. I remember on thread of Sriram's, where he raised the idea of conversion therapy, the much missed Leonard James saying he would have done it had it been available when he was growing up, and I think Owlswing said similar. In their cases given they grew up in a society whete ot was criminalised and taboo, you can see an appeal but would it really be consent?
I can imagine that there are those in faiths and ideological groupings to whivh it might still have appeal but the same question arises. Also there is no magic conversion, and no way of developing it without both condoning the idea that homosexuality is bad, and that you would be willing to experiment on people to develop it.
Forbes's answer seems to me both affected by her faith, and by a facile grasping of the idea of freedom for an individual.
-
So Forbes thinks conversion therapy can be consented to.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/13/two-snp-leadership-candidates-call-jk-rowling-a-national-treasure
The idea that someone else knows whether a person has "genuinely" consented or not where there has been no coercion seems very problematic to me. The people assessing the genuineness or authenticity of someone else's consent or thoughts will have their own biases and agenda. Everyone's thoughts are shaped by their nature / nurture so how can anyone's thoughts be deemed "genuine"?
If a person's thoughts are influenced by their faith/ social or economic or political belief systems/ values/ morals, I am not seeing how that makes them any less genuine. Especially as a lot of faith/ belief system/ values/ morals encourage you to transform yourself or your thoughts or restrain your impulses or adopt new behaviours, habits and lifestyles to achieve certain goals. And these goals may require sacrifice of individual or personal or short-term gratification for the "greater good", whatever that means. Hence people sacrifice comforts, well-being, family life and their own lives sometimes for the good of their community or their country.
My children, when they were in primary school, were deemed to be able to decide for themselves if they wanted to fast during Ramadan i.e. not eat or drink anything including water until sunset.
If someone decides their sense of well-being or their sense of purpose and place in society will be enhanced if they become vegetarian or restrict their consumption of food or resources or if they become celibate or do not act on some of their sexual impulses, or dress more modestly or restrict themselves in their choice of further education, profession or in the criteria for their choice of spouse based on their political or faith beliefs, surely that's their choice. In the absence of coercion, how does someone else get to decide which choices are genuine?
-
As a non SNP member, but a voter who has an interest in who is the FM of the Scottish Govt, the 3 candidates seem to me
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with
-
As a non SNP member, but a voter who has an interest in who is the FM of the Scottish Govt, the 3 candidates seem to me
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with
Are we allowed to guess - oo, pick me, pick me.
-
Are we allowed to guess - oo, pick me, pick me.
Feel free, Hermione
-
And this is, of course, entirely normal in an election for a paryy leader
-
Feel free, Hermione
I guess it depends on whether you consider 'agree with' to be in its broadest sense rather than on a narrow matter such as gender identity. I presume you are thinking broadly as you only have one candidate you 'vaguely' agree with but there are two candidates who oppose the gender recognition legislation.
So on that basis, we have:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Yousaf
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Regan
-
And this is, of course, entirely normal in an election for a paryy leader
Actually it isn't uncommon for a political party not to have accurate records of who is, and who is not, a member for the purposes of election of a party leader. I think the Tories had the same issue in their leadership election in the summer.
-
And this is, of course, entirely normal in an election for a paryy leader
Has Ash Regan gone the full Trump - ready to claim that the election was stolen from her when she doesn't get a thumping victory!
-
Has Ash Regan gone the full Trump - ready to claim that the election was stolen from her when she doesn't get a thumping victory!
You missed it was from Forbes as well?
-
Actually it isn't uncommon for a political party not to have accurate records of who is, and who is not, a member for the purposes of election of a party leader. I think the Tories had the same issue in their leadership election in the summer.
Being as shite as the Tories is a usual excuse for the SNP. Interesting that you use them as a gold standard.
-
You missed it was from Forbes as well?
I didn't, but the letter is signed by Regan alone, not Regan and Forbes. And actually the letter only references Forbes' campaign team, not her personally, while it is signed by Regan personally.
I suspect Forbes is clever enough to keep a decent distance from conspiracy theories.
-
I guess it depends on whether you consider 'agree with' to be in its broadest sense rather than on a narrow matter such as gender identity. I presume you are thinking broadly as you only have one candidate you 'vaguely' agree with but there are two candidates who oppose the gender recognition legislation.
So on that basis, we have:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Yousaf
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Regan
5 points off Gryffindor
-
I didn't, but the letter is signed by Regan alone, not Regan and Forbes.
Try reading the first line. Honestly this is getting embarassing, Hermione
-
5 points off Gryffindor
Blimey - love to see your marking scheme, given that there are only three 'questions'.
-
Blimey - love to see your marking scheme, given that there are only three 'questions'.
and another 10 points off for not having an understanding of the relevant cultural allusion.
-
5 points off Gryffindor
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
-
and another 10 points off for not having an understanding of the relevant cultural allusion.
I understand the Harry Potter references, just not how you can get to minus five marks for a three mark question, even with negative marking.
-
I understand the Harry Potter references, just not how you can get to minus five marks for a three mark question, even with negative marking.
Thank you for illustrating that you don't understand. Maybe reading the course material might help.
-
Try reading the first line. Honestly this is getting embarassing, Hermione
Try reading my response - the letter isn't signed by Forbes nor does it claim to come from Forbes personally, only 'on behalf' of her campaign team.
Hufflepuff at -50 points, -25 for failing to read the letter accurately and another -25 for failing to recognise that what I said about the letter was entirely correct.
-
Thank you for illustrating that you don't understand.
The Harry Potter references are alluding to JK Rowling and her views on gender identity I would imagine.
But with regard to the letter I think you are having a 'conversation with Brian Clough moment'.
I've re-ordered my answers - any closer yet?
-
Try reading my response - the letter isn't signed by Forbes nor does it claim to come from Forbes personally, only 'on behalf' of her campaign team.
Hufflepuff at -50 points, -25 for failing to read the letter accurately and another -25 for failing to recognise that what I said about the letter was entirely correct.
Your lack of understanding of politics as well as Potter means that you are merely a Professor of Wishful Thinking.
-
The Harry Potter references are alluding to JK Rowling and her views on gender identity I would imagine.
But with regard to the letter I think you are having a 'conversation with Brian Clough moment'.
I've re-ordered my answers - any closer yet?
And yet, while the gender stuff was a bonus, no it wasn't the reference as regards marks. That reference was to the books. So I award you a T.
-
Your lack of understanding of politics as well as Potter means that you are merely a Professor of Wishful Thinking.
I think I understand the politics very well - Forbes has created an arms-length relationship to the issue. She's not signed the letter personally and she's only allowed to it be 'on behalf of her campaign team'. Regan on the other hand, is literally signed up to the issue.
Therefore Forbes has distanced herself from appearing to undermine the credibility of the vote - why? because if she loses she can pivot to Trump, if she wins she hasn't undermined her own victory. Clever politics. From what I can see, she's allowed Regan to be her useful idiot on the matter.
-
And yet, while the gender stuff was a bonus, no it wasn't the reference as regards marks. That reference was to the books. So I award you a T.
The you will have to enlighten us all, as sometimes the inner workings of your brain can be as impenetrable as Vlad's.
And while you are at it, you haven't marked my second bite:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
-
The you will have to enlighten us all, as sometimes the inner workings of your brain can be as impenetrable as Vlad's.
And while you are at it, you haven't marked my second bite:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
it's nothing to do with the 'inner workings' of my brain. It's to do with your lack of knowledge of the HP books.
-
it's nothing to do with the 'inner workings' of my brain. It's to do with your lack of knowledge of the HP books.
Then do please enlighten us all - I think I know the books quite well, it is just that your teasers on the matter seem totally opaque.
And again I ask:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
-
Then do please enlighten us all - I think I know the books quite well, it is just that your teasers on the matter seem totally opaque.
And again I ask:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
Great, so you know the books quite well. Outline the award of the house prize in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone referencing the points awarded to Gryffindor at the end of term feast, and how it relates to your idea about exam marks.
A single length of parchment will do.
-
Great, so you know the books quite well. Outline the award of the house prize in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone referencing the points awarded to Gryffindor at the end of term feast, and how it relates to your idea about exam marks.
A single length of parchment will do.
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
Almost as if you are using avoidance tactics NS
-
Great, so you know the books quite well. Outline the award of the house prize in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone referencing the points awarded to Gryffindor at the end of term feast, and how it relates to your idea about exam marks.
A single length of parchment will do.
But you deducted points on the basis of me getting a question wrong - as far as I understand it house points were never removed in that way. Deduction of points was for breaking rules or misdemeanours, not for getting a question wrong. Largely points were added for something over and above in the extra-curricular space but think there may have been the odd example of points awarded for exceptional academic work.
Now if you were being super, super subtle you might have equated Regan standing up to the SNP on their process with Neville standing up to his friends, which as you and I both know generated the 10 points that won the house cup for Gryffindor.
BUT, and here is a but BUT - the Harry Potter references started before you'd posted the Regan letter - it was in response to me 'oo, ask me, ask me' which was (as you rightly pointed out) was a very Hermione kind of thing to say.
BUT that was before the Regan letter and my response to it was posted so unless you can read the future I cannot see how you could have pre-empted a thread leading to a connection between Regan standing up to her friends (the SNP) and Neville standing up to his friends.
Still waiting on your marking of:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with - Forbes
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent - Regan
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with - Yousaf
-
And more popcorn is required
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10372263/snp-leadership-vote-watchdog-kate-forbes-secrecy-row/
-
And more popcorn is required
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10372263/snp-leadership-vote-watchdog-kate-forbes-secrecy-row/
My money is on cock-up rather than conspiracy.
The SNP haven't had a leadership election for decades and the last time their membership was two men and a dog. Also I don't think anyone was really expecting an election now rather than in a few years, so they will have been caught on the backfoot.
I suspect they've also woken up to the fact that although they've been used to doing stuff with decent resources for admin in government, this vote cannot use government resources, only SNP party resources which will be limited. I've also noted that other parties have had problems identifying how many members they have and who can vote. This is exacerbated with parties that rely greatly on constituency organisations where national level lists are a collation of local lists. Not sure if the SNP works in this way, but a brief glance at their rules suggest it might.
The vote may be an almighty mess due to incompetence but that isn't the same as it being rigged - to rig an election, I would suggest, actually requires competence and you wouldn't do it by stopping some legitimate members getting to vote - why? Because those people not receiving ballot papers will go straight to the press and also you'd need to know which way those who get ballot papers, and those that do not, will vote - I don't think that is possible to know reliably.
But then right from the start of this thread I've criticised the speed of the process - and this is one of the consequences. - pretty difficult to put in place a process within a few weeks from a standing start and when you haven't done anything similar for decades, realistically if at all.
That said - sure they should have independent oversight of the process - whenever I've voted in Union elections or (I think) in Labour party elections this has been run through an independent organisation, often the Electoral Reform Society.
-
My money is on cock-up rather than conspiracy.
The SNP haven't had a leadership election for decades and the last time their membership was two men and a dog. Also I don't think anyone was really expecting an election now rather than in a few years, so they will have been caught on the backfoot.
I suspect they've also woken up to the fact that although they've been used to doing stuff with decent resources for admin in government, this vote cannot use government resources, only SNP party resources which will be limited. I've also noted that other parties have had problems identifying how many members they have and who can vote. This is exacerbated with parties that rely greatly on constituency organisations where national level lists are a collation of local lists. Not sure if the SNP works in this way, but a brief glance at their rules suggest it might.
The vote may be an almighty mess due to incompetence but that isn't the same as it being rigged - to rig an election, I would suggest, actually requires competence and you wouldn't do it by stopping some legitimate members getting to vote - why? Because those people not receiving ballot papers will go straight to the press and also you'd need to know which way those who get ballot papers, and those that do not, will vote - I don't think that is possible to know reliably.
But then right from the start of this thread I've criticised the speed of the process - and this is one of the consequences. - pretty difficult to put in place a process within a few weeks from a standing start and when you haven't done anything similar for decades, realistically if at all.
That said - sure they should have independent oversight of the process - whenever I've voted in Union elections or (I think) in Labour party elections this has been run through an independent organisation, often the Electoral Reform Society.
What we have here is a false dichotomy -caused by thinking that politicians's are saying what they mean, and by cincentrating on this being all about the election process.
I doubt that Forbes or the vast majority of her supporters think there is a widespread manipulation of the votes. Rather is playing into trying to pick up the second votes from Regan supporters by appearing as definitely not a continuity candidate - there's been some mumblings amongst the more imaginative of Regan's supporters that the attacks by Yousaf and Forbes on each other are all a front and that both are chosen continuity candidates.
Even Regan's supporters, well the ones in the SNP, aren't really arguing that the votes being highly manipulated. There are ones outside the SNP who think that Yousaf is a CIA plant.
The overall issue is much more to do with the whole problem of having had a married couple who were leader and CEO. I've always been amazed that more wasn't made of this by the other parties as Sturgeon's husband is Caesar's wife.
You then overlay that with the various previous problems, the Dalmond case and who knew what when, the alphabetties in the Salmond case, the 'missing' £600,000 and the police investigations into that, the £107,000 loan from Murrell that Sturgeon was apparently unaware of when it was made, an ongoing question about membership numbers, resignations from the finance committee due to not being able to see the finances.
The relatively short election process is then seen as at least an attempt to reduce the possibility of such things being raised.
Your point about independent oversight is interesting as the argument from the SNP central team is that it is done independently by MiVoice. The challenge to them has been that MiVoice do not appear to be validating the electorate at all. It's not clear what the situation is - which then links bacl to the lack of transparency in the election being seen as a symptom of the overall lack of transparency.
-
What we have here is a false dichotomy -caused by thinking that politicians's are saying what they mean, and by cincentrating on this being all about the election process.
I doubt that Forbes or the vast majority of her supporters think there is a widespread manipulation of the votes. Rather is playing into trying to pick up the second votes from Regan supporters by appearing as definitely not a continuity candidate - there's been some mumblings amongst the more imaginative of Regan's supporters that the attacks by Yousaf and Forbes on each other are all a front and that both are chosen continuity candidates.
Even Regan's supporters, well the ones in the SNP, aren't really arguing that the votes being highly manipulated. There are ones outside the SNP who think that Yousaf is a CIA plant.
But the article you linked to is headlined (my emphasis):
'SNP leadership vote secrecy row twist as Kate Forbes demands independent watchdog amid ‘rigged ballot’ fears'
Rigged ballot is clearly a claim of conspiracy, not just of cock-up.
-
Not sure I can afford more popcorn
https://wingsoverscotland.com/rogue-trooper/
-
It's all become a bit farcical - perhaps Larry, Moe and Curly are secretly running the (shit)show.
-
It's all become a bit farcical - perhaps Larry, Moe and Curly are secretly running the (shit)show.
Indeed
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1636142871773429761.html
-
Indeed
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1636142871773429761.html
Not sure it is fair to blame the SNP executive for that one tbh.
-
It's all become a bit farcical - perhaps Larry, Moe and Curly are secretly running the (shit)show.
I agree - and I come back to what seems to be the hub of the issue - that a party that hadn't run a leadership election for decades, and never run one of this magnitude decided it was sensible to complete the whole process, which needed a members vote in just over 6 weeks. And the clock started ticking in an unexpected manner (a sudden resignation), rather than an entirely expected event, e.g. a leader resigning following an election defeat.
Compare with a similar, out of the blue need for an election - e.g. the sudden death of John Smith - the Labour party took about twice as long over the process and they'd had the experience of a similar process just two years earlier.
In 2005 the tories took over 6 months to elect a new leader from the point that Michael Howard announced he was resigning.
Having a longer contest would have had two massive benefits - first, in the absence of a clear frontrunner and with the massive shadow cast over the party first by Salmond and then by Sturgeon, it would have allowed more time for relatively unknown, but credible candidates, to make their case and shine. This is what Labour did in 1994 and ended up with Blair who didn't have a huge profile before the contest, and similarly what the Tories did in 2005 and ended up with Cameron, again relatively unknown at the start of the process. But also taking longer would have allowed a proper robust process for the election to be developed and rolled out.
I simply cannot understand why the SNP determined that they needed to get the process over in 6 weeks when there was no power vacuum and I think most people would have been perfectly happy for Sturgeon to carry on as FM for a few months - it wasn't as if she was being forced out.
-
I agree - and I come back to what seems to be the hub of the issue - that a party that hadn't run a leadership election for decades, and never run one of this magnitude decided it was sensible to complete the whole process, which needed a members vote in just over 6 weeks. And the clock started ticking in an unexpected manner (a sudden resignation), rather than an entirely expected event, e.g. a leader resigning following an election defeat.
Compare with a similar, out of the blue need for an election - e.g. the sudden death of John Smith - the Labour party took about twice as long over the process and they'd had the experience of a similar process just two years earlier.
In 2005 the tories took over 6 months to elect a new leader from the point that Michael Howard announced he was resigning.
Having a longer contest would have had two massive benefits - first, in the absence of a clear frontrunner and with the massive shadow cast over the party first by Salmond and then by Sturgeon, it would have allowed more time for relatively unknown, but credible candidates, to make their case and shine. This is what Labour did in 1994 and ended up with Blair who didn't have a huge profile before the contest, and similarly what the Tories did in 2005 and ended up with Cameron, again relatively unknown at the start of the process. But also taking longer would have allowed a proper robust process for the election to be developed and rolled out.
I simply cannot understand why the SNP determined that they needed to get the process over in 6 weeks when there was no power vacuum and I think most people would have been perfectly happy for Sturgeon to carry on as FM for a few months - it wasn't as if she was being forced out.
As already covered, they didn't want a long process as they didn't want to end up exactly where they have.
-
As already covered, they didn't want a long process as they didn't want to end up exactly where they have.
That makes no sense and let's not forget that your original view was that the short process was to ensure that Robertson (who in your view was the heir apparent) got in quickly. Robertson never even stood.
If we are talking about competence of running a process - it isn't rocket science to recognise that if you try to put together a process that you haven't had to run for decades at breakneck speed there is far greater likelihood of it all going PeteTong than if you take more time over it.
-
That makes no sense and let's not forget that your original view was that the short process was to ensure that Robertson (who in your view was the heir apparent) got in quickly. Robertson never even stood.
If we are talking about competence of running a process - it isn't rocket science to recognise that if you try to put together a process that you haven't had to run for decades at breakneck speed there is far greater likelihood of it all going PeteTong than if you take more time over it.
Happily stick my hands up and say I got the Robertson candidacy wrong, as I didn't think they would be so foolish not to have checked that he felt he could stand, and tgat they were even more panicked. That I got that wrong is irrelevant as to whether they went for a short campaign.
I am slightly baffled as to why you think that going for a short campaign wouldn't be motivated by wanting to avoud what has happened. I didn't think you were quite that politically naive. But then given that you seem to only see the election as an isolated incident in Scottish politics rather than interwoven into the mad farcical tapestry, I suppose that naivety is inevitable.
-
I am slightly baffled as to why you think that going for a short campaign wouldn't be motivated by wanting to avoud what has happened. I didn't think you were quite that politically naive. But then given that you seem to only see the election as an isolated incident in Scottish politics rather than interwoven into the mad farcical tapestry, I suppose that naivety is inevitable.
I really can't understand why you are baffled. These are the key issues as I see them.
1. Any process for running an election for PM or FM will receive huge media and public interest and scrutiny and therefore you cannot expect any failures of process to simply not be revealed, commented on and potentially criticised.
2. The SNP has never run a process of this magnitude before and not run any leadership election for decades so has no recent experience of running the process successfully.
3. Running a process of this nature is complex and the starting point - knowing who your membership is - is often of itself challenging as other parties (with far more experience of leadership elections) have shown.
Given the above, you can either:
A. Take your time to get the process right, noting that if you get it wrong those issues will be revealed. And also noting that there is no particular urgency OR
B. Run before you can walk - try to complete a process that you've never run before at a timetable far faster than any equivalent party has thought it sensible to follow. Noting again that if you get it wrong those issues will be revealed.
Hardly rocket science that the correct answer is A. Bonkers why anyone (whether you or the SNP would think ... hmmm ... yet let's go for B).
And that's before you add in the fact that there was no heir apparent, no obvious front running so taking your time allows more candidates to develop a campaign and gain recognition. Had Labour run at this pace in 1997, would they have selected Blair - hmm maybe not. Had the Tories run at this pace in 2005, would they have selected Cameron - almost certainly not.
-
That I got that wrong is irrelevant as to whether they went for a short campaign.
Then why don't you tell us why they went for a short campaign as I simply cannot fathom a reason other than to slide in an heir apparent before anyone else gained traction. But there was no heir apparent - even Robertson (who didn't even stand) wasn't the overwhelming favourite that an heir apparent would imply.
Other than that I cannot fathom any sensible reason for, and plenty against - the most obvious being that it makes it far harder to put together a robust process, when you have no experience, in weeks rather than months. And doing it quickly was never going to prevent scrutiny and criticism but would make it more likely that it would be a sh*t show.
-
Then why don't you tell us why they went for a short campaign as I simply cannot fathom a reason other than to slide in an heir apparent before anyone else gained traction. But there was no heir apparent - even Robertson (who didn't even stand) wasn't the overwhelming favourite that an heir apparent would imply.
Other than that I cannot fathom any sensible reason for, and plenty against - the most obvious being that it makes it far harder to put together a robust process, when you have no experience, in weeks rather than months. And doing it quickly was never going to prevent scrutiny and criticism but would make it more likely that it would be a sh*t show.
The obvious reason is that Nicola Sturgeon is a lame duck First Leader. Most of the examples previously cited of long campaigns took place while the party was in opposition.
-
The obvious reason is that Nicola Sturgeon is a lame duck First Leader. Most of the examples previously cited of long campaigns took place while the party was in opposition.
Err ... how about the Tory election in the summer - that took months. And Boris really was a lame duck.
Actually I don't think Sturgeon is a lame duck - following her resignation she retained high levels of support. Indeed in the most recent polling the electorate as a whole and specifically SNP voters all though that Sturgeon would make a better FM than any of the three candidates ... by a country mile.
I sense no clamour for her to be gone yesterday. Had she said in mid Feb; 'I plan to resign but will remain in office until the process of selecting my successor will be completed. This will be in the early summer' then I can't see many people having an issue with that at all.
-
Err ... how about the Tory election in the summer - that took months. And Boris really was a lame duck.
And the 2019 tory election (that went to the members) took longer.
And had the 2016 tory election gone to the members, rather than May ending up as the only candidate, that process would have taken from 24th June to 9th Sept, again considerably longer than the SNP election.
And even more relevant - when Mark Drakeford replaced Carwyn Jones the process took nigh on 8 months, from Jones' resignation on 24th April until the election was complete on 6th Dec.
I may be wrong but I cannot think of a leadership election that required a membership ballot attempting to be completed in 6 weeks from a complete standing start - or in fact from a running start (i.e. where the resignation of the previous leader was clearly anticipated). Perhaps fine if you have processes and experience of running those processes in place (albeit still challenging). Completely bonkers when you have no experience.
-
Your point about independent oversight is interesting as the argument from the SNP central team is that it is done independently by MiVoice. The challenge to them has been that MiVoice do not appear to be validating the electorate at all. It's not clear what the situation is - which then links bacl to the lack of transparency in the election being seen as a symptom of the overall lack of transparency.
I've no idea exactly what MiVoice do and don't do.
However I'm not sure that an independent oversight organisation will (or indeed can) validate the electorate in an independent manner. Simply because they would have to rely on the organisation that they are supposed to be independent of (the political party) to give them the membership list. Sure they could randomly pick some people on the list and contact them to check they were members, but it would be very hard to do the reverse - i.e. contact people not on the membership list to see whether they were in fact members. Realistically I think the oversight would be in effect 'self declared' - valid members coming forward because they have not received ballot papers.
My experience is that the independent organisation runs the process - they get the list of the electorate from the union/political party, but the independent organisation sends out the ballot papers, which are returned to the independent organisation, not the union/political party and the independent organisation are responsible for verifying and counting the ballot papers sent back to generate the result.
In my union the whole ballot process is run by Civica Election Services on behalf of the union.
-
Well they've released the membership numbers
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10371830/snp-membership-figures-leadership-race/
-
Well they've released the membership numbers
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10371830/snp-membership-figures-leadership-race/
So is the reluctance because they are embarrassed about member numbers? Perhaps, which would again be stupid as ultimately the number of votes would need to be revealed which would have to indicate turnout so you'd ultimately know overall number of ballots.
In fairness (not sure why I'm being fair) I think getting accurate member numbers can be challenging at the best of times (see the tories), but it is even more difficult when numbers are changing rapidly, particularly declining. Most parties will have a category of 'lapsed' members, who are in arrears in terms of paying their membership fees but in a kind go 'grace' period. You will need to give these people the opportunity to rectify those arrears before necessarily declaring that they are no longer members and therefore unable to vote. It wouldn't be very fair to dump someone off a ballot because they have missed their payment date by a few days, but perfectly fair to dump someone who has genuine left the party. So it is perfectly possible, and reasonable, that a lot of time and effort has been needed to tidy up the members list to get rid of those who have genuinely left, given those a little in arrears the opportunity to pay up etc. But again that would have been easier if the process wasn't so rushed - I doubt anyone would have blinked an eyelid if the SNP hadn't release their final members list for the purposes of the vote yet if the ballot wasn't opening until May.
Another bonkers aspect about the process - the SNP must have recognised that their membership was dropping. Other parties have realised that a great way to boost membership (and coffers) is to give individuals the opportunity to become members in order to allow them to vote in the election. So the SNP seem to have missed a trick here no both member numbers and finances.
-
The SNP leadership campaign shows one of the eternal verities.
-
And the farce continues
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/murray-foote-resigns-snp-media-29488628
-
And the farce continues
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/murray-foote-resigns-snp-media-29488628
As does the lying
-
New truck of popcorn needed
https://archive.vn/oMzy7
-
Who needs the rugby this weekend.
https://archive.is/2023.03.18-054028/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23395483.ash-regan-team-discuss-court-action-pause-snp-leadership-contest/
-
And another one bites the dust - Murrell resigns with immediate effect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65000606
-
Struggling to see how any of the candidates would be able to put the party back together after all this.
-
Struggling to see how any of the candidates would be able to put the party back together after all this.
Their only saving grace is the general ineptitude of the opposition
-
Euan McColm, being quite mild imo
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/euan-mccolm-snp-took-its-supporters-for-granted-and-the-rest-of-us-for-fools-4070033
-
And Alex Massie being reasonable about Scottish Labour
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9b8cb4f6-c5c2-11ed-b301-27281774ac59?shareToken=17ffce685d589b22ceaf164993ab8656
-
Shauny Boy's take on the 3 candidates campaigns
Forbes
https://youtu.be/fMU91i7xQHo
Regan
https://youtu.be/3GZ02zXtE7c
Yousaf
https://youtu.be/AzW8a41YkAI
-
Their only saving grace is the general ineptitude of the opposition
Seems as if the most effective opposition to the SNP is ... err ... other parts of the SNP.
-
What's all this about a missing £600k that I'm reading about on the sites - anything definitive on this or is it just claim and speculation.
And I guess if you assumed you had 30,000 more members than you actually had and in accounting terms assumed their membership fees (say average £20) were an unpaid debt then you may well presume £600k more income than you actually had.
-
Seems as if the most effective opposition to the SNP is ... err ... other parts of the SNP.
And has been for some time
-
What's all this about a missing £600k that I'm reading about on the sites - anything definitive on this or is it just claim and speculation.
And I guess if you assumed you had 30,000 more members than you actually had and in accounting terms assumed their membership fees (say average £20) were an unpaid debt then you may well presume £600k more income than you actually had.
It's been going on for somewhat longer than that, and isn't directly to do with the membership numbers, nor with the £107k loan from Murrell to the SNP that Sturgeon didn't know about.
This is a reasonable primer from last year.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/files-snps-missing-600k-finally-28934498
-
It's been going on for somewhat longer than that, and isn't directly to do with the membership numbers, nor with the £107k loan from Murrell to the SNP that Sturgeon didn't know about.
This is a reasonable primer from last year.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/files-snps-missing-600k-finally-28934498
I note that the Express always write "missing" rather than missing, which implies that this is speculation and if they claimed it as fact they'd get the hell sued out of them.
The other thing I've taken from the article is that it isn't clear whether the money has vanished (which would be the implication of "missing' or certainly missing), or has been spent on purposes that aren't related to the purpose for which the funds were raised - specifically "on a campaign for a second referendum". I guess the challenge here would be to determine whether monies raised in such a manner were 'restricted' or 'unrestricted' in terms of their use and if 'restricted' the limits for their use. I would image that the SNP, as a party that supports independence which can only be achieved through a referendum could claim that any campaigning activity is, at least indirectly, aimed at achieving a second referendum. Whether that would be deemed legitimate would be, I guess, for the courts to decide.
But coming back to the original question - is this money literally missing, in other words no-one knows what has happened to it, or is there an audit trail where it was received and has been spent, but arguably not on the purposes for which it was raised.
I think the bigger picture here is that a little over a decade ago the SNP was a small campaigning operation which probably has processes and systems in place suitable for an organisation with a membership of about 10,000. Then suddenly it increases in size 10 fold and failed to put in place processes and systems that work for a much larger organisation and continued to operate in a cottage industry manner as if it remained a 10,000 member organisation.
-
I note that the Express always write "missing" rather than missing, which implies that this is speculation and if they claimed it as fact they'd get the hell sued out of them.
The other thing I've taken from the article is that it isn't clear whether the money has vanished (which would be the implication of "missing' or certainly missing), or has been spent on purposes that aren't related to the purpose for which the funds were raised - specifically "on a campaign for a second referendum". I guess the challenge here would be to determine whether monies raised in such a manner were 'restricted' or 'unrestricted' in terms of their use and if 'restricted' the limits for their use. I would image that the SNP, as a party that supports independence which can only be achieved through a referendum could claim that any campaigning activity is, at least indirectly, aimed at achieving a second referendum. Whether that would be deemed legitimate would be, I guess, for the courts to decide.
But coming back to the original question - is this money literally missing, in other words no-one knows what has happened to it, or is there an audit trail where it was received and has been spent, but arguably not on the purposes for which it was raised.
I think the bigger picture here is that a little over a decade ago the SNP was a small campaigning operation which probably has processes and systems in place suitable for an organisation with a membership of about 10,000. Then suddenly it increases in size 10 fold and failed to put in place processes and systems that work for a much larger organisation and continued to operate in a cottage industry manner as if it remained a 10,000 member organisation.
Not having adequate pricedures in place doesn't mean there isn't a cover up as well. I'd add that having a political party with the CEO and leader married to each other is likely going to cause issues. I'd extend the 'little over a decade ago' a bit further since they have been in govt for 16 years.
As to what's actually happened to the money, who knows? Part of the problem has the finances of the SNP have mysterious for some time, including resignations from the finance commitee nearly 2 years ago over this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57299030
-
'Doughty media' ha!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b36ae55e-c5c5-11ed-bd5d-fb821bb192f5?shareToken=257705f059569d5e4332e4e42862a4cc
-
The story so far...
From a biased source (anti SNP) but.they don't have to do much
https://www.notesonnationalism.com/p/previously-on-the-snp
-
Err ... how about the Tory election in the summer - that took months. And Boris really was a lame duck.
Do you understand the meaning of the word “most”?
Actually I don't think Sturgeon is a lame duck - following her resignation she retained high levels of support. Indeed in the most recent polling the electorate as a whole and specifically SNP voters all thought that Sturgeon would make a better FM than any of the three candidates ... by a country mile.
That’s not what lame duck means. She can’t really do anything except in a caretaker capacity because she is leaving.
-
Do you understand the meaning of the word “most”?
Did you miss my other examples - all of which involved parties electing a new leader in power.
For obvious reasons there tend to be more leadership elections for parties in opposition than in power - simply because there may be many parties in opposition, but usually just one in power. So let's turn this around lightly - from what I can see there are no examples of a party (whether in opposition or in power) attempting an election timetable of just 6 weeks where the membership are give a vote as part of the process.
Sometimes the timetable gets truncated as only one person achieves the threshold for nomination (e.g. Brown in 2007, May in 2016, Sunak in 2022 part 2), but even then had there been more than one nominee the timetable would have been longer than the current SNP election.
So over to you - provide me with a single example in UK politics where a party has attempted a leadership election involving a membership vote in 6 weeks from the date when the incumbent announced their plan to resign from office.
-
That’s not what lame duck means. She can’t really do anything except in a caretaker capacity because she is leaving.
Actually the strict definition of a lame duck is a person who remains in office after their successor has been elected - e.g. in US presidential election from the election in Nov until the Jan inauguration of the new president.
But I get that in a more general sense it is a person who has no authority any more. But this is where I disagree - Sturgeon having announced that she is to resign has no bearing constitutionally on what she can and cannot do as FM. Typically the lame duck element comes not from the constitution but from the fact that in most cases a resignation is due to the person having lost the confidence of their own elected parliamentarians and often by association, the public. This was the case for Boris and May - neither could get anything done because their MPs were mutinying.
That isn't the case for Sturgeon - even following her announcement she retained high levels of support in the public (who prefer her to any of the candidates by miles) and she seems to have very strong support amongst the majority of her parliamentary colleagues who I think would much prefer her to have decided to continue. So in those circumstances Sturgeon might choose not to push forward new legislation, but constitutionally she could and were she to decide to do so I don't think she'd have particular problems getting her parliamentary colleagues on board too.
So in that more general respect she's not a particularly lame duck, and in the more accurate definition she won't become a lame duck for another week when she successor will be announced.
-
Kevin McKenna fulminating
https://archive.vn/gkFql
-
Not having adequate pricedures in place doesn't mean there isn't a cover up as well.
True, but nor does it mean that there is.
There needs to be investigation as to whether, at the one extreme this relates to poor accounting practice and inadequate governance over audit and risk. Or whether there has been additionally a deliberate cover-up. Further whether monies raised for one purpose have been used for a purpose that is beyond that restriction. And finally whether the funds are actually 'missing' - in other words their whereabouts is actually not know and/or funds have been embezzled.
I don't know the answers to these questions and I suspect nor do others, which is the whole point why an investigation needs to get to the bottom of this. However the media using "missing' isn't really very helpful as it implies that the issue is at the worst end of the severity rather than merely poor practice. Now that is not to say that poor practice and government isn't a concern and needs to be dealt with - it is and it should be - but it isn't the same as someone running off with £600k.
-
I'd add that having a political party with the CEO and leader married to each other is likely going to cause issues.
Also correct potentially, although the notion of declaration of interests should be able to deal with this. There are loads of organisations where husband and wife teams have controlling interests - that doesn't mean that there is malpractice. As an example I have a few company directorships - one of these has four directors, two pairs of husband and wife.
I think it is also worth noting that (I think) Murrell was CEO of the SNP before he became involved with Sturgeon. And similarly Sturgeon was in a leading position in the SNP before she became involved with Murrell. Point being that this isn't the case of one person with power contriving to bring their spouse into another position of power within the same organisation.
-
I'd extend the 'little over a decade ago' a bit further since they have been in govt for 16 years.
Then you would be wrong, because you would be confusing the SNP as a government with the SNP as a political party. These have to be kept scrupulously distinct and you cannot spend civil service public money on political campaigning when in government. That is the role of the political party itself.
And the sudden rise in the size of the SNP as a political party happened around, and I believe just after, the referendum in 2014, when their membership increased approx. 6 fold. And that is actually less than a decade ago, not even a 'little over a decade ago'. That is, potentially where the problems arose. In 2013 the SNP was a small political party with approx. 20,000 members and income of probably less than £1M - within a year it had swollen to about 120,000 members and income of about £5M. It looks to me that their accounting practices and governance never caught up.
-
Then you would be wrong, because you would be confusing the SNP as a government with the SNP as a political party. These have to be kept scrupulously distinct and you cannot spend civil service public money on political campaigning when in government. That is the role of the political party itself.
And the sudden rise in the size of the SNP as a political party happened around, and I believe just after, the referendum in 2014, when their membership increased approx. 6 fold. And that is actually less than a decade ago, not even a 'little over a decade ago'. That is, potentially where the problems arose. In 2013 the SNP was a small political party with approx. 20,000 members and income of probably less than £1M - within a year it had swollen to about 120,000 members and income of about £5M. It looks to me that their accounting practices and governance never caught up.
So according to this you think it is 'wrong' to think that a party that is on govt should run in a professional manner if they don't have whatever random number of the population you deem relevant.
And given the smaller electorate in Scotland, the equivalent in the UK of 20,000 would be roughly 200,000 bit lower than that you would be happy with them being run by someone who had watched a youtube video on Excel and had a season pass for their local internet cafe.
-
Also correct potentially, although the notion of declaration of interests should be able to deal with this. There are loads of organisations where husband and wife teams have controlling interests - that doesn't mean that there is malpractice. As an example I have a few company directorships - one of these has four directors, two pairs of husband and wife.
I think it is also worth noting that (I think) Murrell was CEO of the SNP before he became involved with Sturgeon. And similarly Sturgeon was in a leading position in the SNP before she became involved with Murrell. Point being that this isn't the case of one person with power contriving to bring their spouse into another position of power within the same organisation.
Because some random companies are the same as the party of govt.
-
True, but nor does it mean that there is.
There needs to be investigation as to whether, at the one extreme this relates to poor accounting practice and inadequate governance over audit and risk. Or whether there has been additionally a deliberate cover-up. Further whether monies raised for one purpose have been used for a purpose that is beyond that restriction. And finally whether the funds are actually 'missing' - in other words their whereabouts is actually not know and/or funds have been embezzled.
I don't know the answers to these questions and I suspect nor do others, which is the whole point why an investigation needs to get to the bottom of this. However the media using "missing' isn't really very helpful as it implies that the issue is at the worst end of the severity rather than merely poor practice. Now that is not to say that poor practice and government isn't a concern and needs to be dealt with - it is and it should be - but it isn't the same as someone running off with £600k.
Who said it was the same as someone running off with £600k? Obviously you don't need that much money for straw.
-
So according to this you think it is 'wrong' to think that a party that is on govt should run in a professional manner if they don't have whatever random number of the population you deem relevant.
Where on earth do you get that from.
To be clear I expect all organisations whether companies, charities, political parties etc to be run in a professional manner and if they are not I expect the relevant authorities to take action which may include barring certain individuals from holding office through to charging individuals with offences should that prove to be the case.
But you are again blurring the issue of the SNP being in government and the SNP as a political party. In government they will need to abide by a whole raft of rules and have a huge amount of public money to distribute and they need to do this professionally and lawfully. But they have the support of the civil service to help them do this.
Their financing as a political party must be completely separate to the public money they may control in government - and quite rightly too. Regardless of whether they are in government or not they will have to abide by the same rules and responsibilities of political funding so the notion of their being in government is a red herring. They are required to act professionally and lawfully whether in government or not.
And given the smaller electorate in Scotland, the equivalent in the UK of 20,000 would be roughly 200,000 bit lower than that you would be happy with them being run by someone who had watched a youtube video on Excel and had a season pass for their local internet cafe.
Which is kind of my point - despite being in government, as a political party in organisational terms they are tiny. My estimates being that their income was sub £1M prior to the big membership rise and approx £5M after. Even at its peak I suspect that is about half the annual income of the school where, as a trustee, I have governance responsibility for audit and risk.
So I think you have an organisation run on a shoe string where people want to spend as much time and effort on their political activities and look not to have prioritised their accounting obligations. That's entirely wrong and if I did that as a trustee I should expect to get into serious hot water, as should the SNP hierarchy.
So I'm not excusing their incompetence (even if it is merely that), just looking to explain it.
-
Who said it was the same as someone running off with £600k? Obviously you don't need that much money for straw.
If a headline talks of a "missing' £600k, that is the impression they want their readership to get.
-
If a headline talks of a "missing' £600k, that is the impression they want their readership to get.
What would you call it? The £600k that was formerly known as in the accounts?
-
Because some random companies are the same as the party of govt.
Both have to be run to the same professional standard.
And again you seem to be blurring the distinction between the Scottish Government and the SNP as a political party. Perhaps you can tell us what position or role Murrell has ever held in the Scottish Government.
-
What would you call it? The £600k that was formerly known as in the accounts?
But it isn't even clear that it is missing, is it - hence the media needing to put "missing" in "".
-
Both have to be run to the same professional standard.
And again you seem to be blurring the distinction between the Scottish Government and the SNP as a political party. Perhaps you can tell us what position or role Murrell has ever held in the Scottish Government.
Why would I? It's irrelevant to a political party needing to be run professionally and the need for democratic transparency.
There was this bloke called Julius Caesar, not sure if you know about him, anyway he had a wife...
-
But it isn't even clear that it is missing, is it - hence the media needing to put "missing" in "".
And again, what would you call it? Schrodinger's £600k?
-
Where on earth do you get that from.
To be clear I expect all organisations whether companies, charities, political parties etc to be run in a professional manner and if they are not I expect the relevant authorities to take action which may include barring certain individuals from holding office through to charging individuals with offences should that prove to be the case.
But you are again blurring the issue of the SNP being in government and the SNP as a political party. In government they will need to abide by a whole raft of rules and have a huge amount of public money to distribute and they need to do this professionally and lawfully. But they have the support of the civil service to help them do this.
Their financing as a political party must be completely separate to the public money they may control in government - and quite rightly too. Regardless of whether they are in government or not they will have to abide by the same rules and responsibilities of political funding so the notion of their being in government is a red herring. They are required to act professionally and lawfully whether in government or not.
Which is kind of my point - despite being in government, as a political party in organisational terms they are tiny. My estimates being that their income was sub £1M prior to the big membership rise and approx £5M after. Even at its peak I suspect that is about half the annual income of the school where, as a trustee, I have governance responsibility for audit and risk.
So I think you have an organisation run on a shoe string where people want to spend as much time and effort on their political activities and look not to have prioritised their accounting obligations. That's entirely wrong and if I did that as a trustee I should expect to get into serious hot water, as should the SNP hierarchy.
So I'm not excusing their incompetence (even if it is merely that), just looking to explain it.
It's nice to see you think that your trusteeship is more important than the Scottish govt.
-
It's nice to see you think that your trusteeship is more important than the Scottish govt.
I don't - I think all organisations should be competently and professionally run, including both the Scottish Government and the SNP, which are two separate organisations.
And I'm a bit confused - where exactly is the accusation that the Scottish Government has a missing £600k raised as part of a campaign for a second referendum. I think there would be bigger issues than one of accounting if the Scottish Government was raising funds for a party-political campaign.
-
I don't - I think all organisations should be competently and professionally run, including both the Scottish Government and the SNP, which are two separate organisations.
And I'm a bit confused - where exactly is the accusation that the Scottish Government has a missing £600k raised as part of a campaign for a second referendum. I think there would be bigger issues than one of accounting if the Scottish Government was raising funds for a party-political campaign.
I can't really help your political naivete.
-
Why would I? It's irrelevant to a political party needing to be run professionally and the need for democratic transparency.
It isn't irrelevant - the separation between a Government and the political party that may, from time to time, run that government is absolutely critical for democratic transparency.
And I also think that it is critical that both of those organisations - the Government and political parties should be run professionally.
Now your misunderstanding of the distinction between the Government and the political party isn't uncommon. Often people think that a political party who are in government is absolutely flush with money. Often they aren't because they cannot (quite rightly) spend government money on political activities. So you end up with this somewhat weird mismatch where a political party that is run on a shoe string is in charge of a government responsible for a massive budget.
That's my point when I mention the annual income of my school - the entire budget of the SNP will be less than that of a single fairly sizeable secondary school, funding of which will represent a minute proportion of the annual budget of the government.
-
I can't really help your political naivete.
Have you ever been an active member of a political party, perhaps holding office in that party and standing for election?
I don't think it is me demonstrating naïveté - that is represented by someone who seems to misunderstand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are not the same.
-
I can't really help your political naivete.
So given that you seems to consider you have more political nouse can you answer the following questions that you've ignored:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
-
So given that you seems to consider you have more political nouse can you answer the following questions that you've ignored:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
Thank you for illustrating my point by your questions.
-
Have you ever been an active member of a political party, perhaps holding office in that party and standing for election?
I don't think it is me demonstrating naïveté - that is represented by someone who seems to misunderstand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are not the same.
And again you seem determined to demonstrate my point for me. Ta!
-
It isn't irrelevant - the separation between a Government and the political party that may, from time to time, run that government is absolutely critical for democratic transparency.
And I also think that it is critical that both of those organisations - the Government and political parties should be run professionally.
Now your misunderstanding of the distinction between the Government and the political party isn't uncommon. Often people think that a political party who are in government is absolutely flush with money. Often they aren't because they cannot (quite rightly) spend government money on political activities. So you end up with this somewhat weird mismatch where a political party that is run on a shoe string is in charge of a government responsible for a massive budget.
That's my point when I mention the annual income of my school - the entire budget of the SNP will be less than that of a single fairly sizeable secondary school, funding of which will represent a minute proportion of the annual budget of the government.
And yet they are a party that forms a govt and you are a school trustee.
-
And yet they are a party that forms a govt and you are a school trustee.
And Peter Murrell until a couple of days ago was the CEO or an organisation with an annual budget of approx half of the school where I am a trustee. And the "missing" £600k relates to that organisation, not the Scottish Government.
-
And Peter Murrell until a couple of days ago was the CEO or an organisation with an annual budget of approx half of the school where I am a trustee. And the "missing" £600k relates to that organisation, not the Scottish Government.
Married to the FM of Scotland.
-
Thank you for illustrating my point by your questions.
Are you actually going to answer them or engage in your usual evasion and obfuscation.
I note that you've still failed to answer the question on your opinions of the three candidates which I asked in replies 318, 326, 328, 330, 331.
-
Married to the FM of Scotland.
No cigar - last time I looked being married to someone wasn't a role, office or position within a government.
So why don't you try again:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
-
No cigar - last time I looked being married to someone wasn't a role, office or position within a government.
So why don't you try again:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
It would save time if you just add 'I'm politically naive' as a signature.
-
Are you actually going to answer them or engage in your usual evasion and obfuscation.
I note that you've still failed to answer the question on your opinions of the three candidates which I asked in replies 318, 326, 328, 330, 331.
Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?
-
Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?
Given that one of the questions was actually posed by you in the first place, namely:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with
You seem to be declaring your own posts irrelevant.
Albeit interesting that you came straight back at me when I got the answers wrong, but then steadfastly refused to respond to my second bite. Hmm, wonder why that might be.
-
Why would I answer irrelevant questions that just show your ignorance of politics?
Why is it irrelevant to ask, which organisation Murrell was CEO (and which organisation that as far as I know he has never worked for) of and which organisation is accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum (and which organisation has not been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum).
These are absolutely locked on relevant questions.
-
Given that one of the questions was actually posed by you in the first place, namely:
1. Vaguely competent, but disagree with
2. Vaguely agree with, but doesn't seem competent
3. Doesn't seem competent, and disagree with
You seem to be declaring your own posts irrelevant.
Albeit interesting that you came straight back at me when I got the answers wrong, but then steadfastly refused to respond to my second bite. Hmm, wonder why that might be.
You mean reply 304? I didn't pose a question in that.
-
Why is it irrelevant to ask, which organisation Murrell was CEO (and which organisation that as far as I know he has never worked for) of and which organisation is accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum (and which organisation has not been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum).
These are absolutely locked on relevant questions.
For a politically naive person who had never heard of Julius and his wife. You know I try to help you put but you just keep on pulling yourself back in.
-
You mean reply 304? I didn't pose a question in that.
You posited views without indicating which candidate, which I think you'd be take as 'see if you can guess which is which'. Which is exactly what I did and you weer straight back at me when I was wrong. Yet when I made a second guess, you completely ignored it, despite me asking you to answer. Why might that be?
-
You posited views without indicating which candidate, which I think you'd be take as 'see if you can guess which is which'. Which is exactly what I did and you weer straight back at me when I was wrong. Yet when I made a second guess, you completely ignored it, despite me asking you to answer. Why might that be?
And yet I didn't ask a question.
-
For a politically naive person who had never heard of Julius and his wife. You know I try to help you put but you just keep on pulling yourself back in.
Sure I've heard of them - but as far as I'm aware ancient Rome didn't operate a system where the government funding and the funding of political parties are required, by law, to be kept scrupulously separate.
So, it isn't relevant. However if someone is so politically naive that they don't understand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are different organisations then there isn't much anyone can do to help.
So I'll ask my entirely relevant questions again:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
-
Sure I've heard of them - but as far as I'm aware ancient Rome didn't operate a system where the government funding and the funding of political parties are required, by law, to be kept scrupulously separate.
So, it isn't relevant. However if someone is so politically naive that they don't understand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are different organisations then there isn't much anyone can do to help.
So I'll ask my entirely relevant questions again:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
Yeah amazingly in a less democratic system than our's there was a concept of transparency, that you seem to have no clue about.
-
Yeah amazingly in a less democratic system than our's there was a concept of transparency, that you seem to have no clue about.
Yes - I'm well aware of the story and note your continuing evasion and obfuscation.
Once again, please can you answer the following:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
-
Yes - I'm well aware of the story and note your continuing evasion and obfuscation.
Once again, please can you answer the following:
What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?
Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?
And yet again you illustrate your lack of understanding. Asking irrelevant questions remains irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat them.
-
Did you miss my other examples - all of which involved parties electing a new leader in power.
Did you miss "of the examples cited" in my post? The examples previously listed were mostly elections while the party was in opposition.
It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's. Johnson's did drag on a bit. Gordon Brown slipped in pretty quickly (that was probably a mistake). When the party is in power, it seems there is often a lot of pressure for the leader to be decided without a membership vote precisely because of the power vacuum.
Regardless of the history of leadership elections while in power, wouldn't you accept the a short transition is generally a good thing, provided you don't screw it up?
-
Actually the strict definition of a lame duck is a person who remains in office after their successor has been elected - e.g. in US presidential election from the election in Nov until the Jan inauguration of the new president.
But I get that in a more general sense it is a person who has no authority any more. But this is where I disagree - Sturgeon having announced that she is to resign has no bearing constitutionally on what she can and cannot do as FM.
Not everything is about the constitution. Politically she is impotent because we know that within a few weeks her successor will be in place and her successor might want to do things differently. It doesn't matter that Sturgeon hasn't lost the confidence of the party - although the way things are going, that might not last.
-
And yet again you illustrate your lack of understanding. Asking irrelevant questions remains irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat them.
What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?
-
What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?
Because in political terms having a party in govt where the CEO is married to the leader, and therefore FM in this case, makes it look as if any notional Chinese walls don't exist.
-
Because in political terms having a party in govt where the CEO is married to the leader, and therefore FM in this case, makes it look as if any notional Chinese walls don't exist.
So you are arguing that there is a conflict of interest because the Scottish First Minister is married to the CEO of her party. I'm not sure I agree with that or that there needs to be any "Chinese walls" other than to avoid Scottish government money, privileged information and other resources being used for party purposes, although I guess I've just defined a Chinese wall.
Murrell's resignation was correct given that he seemed to have forgotten to tell any of his staff that the SNP only had 70,000 members. Regardless of who his wife is, he had to go.
-
Did you miss "of the examples cited" in my post? The examples previously listed were mostly elections while the party was in opposition.
Actually I think I have given six examples to date:
Blair replacing Smith (in opposition)
Cameron replacing Howard (in opposition)
May replacing Cameron (in power, but truncated due to only one candidate)
Johnson replacing May (in power)
Truss replacing Johnson (in power)
Drakeford replacing Carwyn (in power)
I make that majority of example being for a party in power - and in every case the timetable was considerably longer than the 6 weeks for the SNP election.
It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's. Johnson's did drag on a bit. Gordon Brown slipped in pretty quickly (that was probably a mistake). When the party is in power, it seems there is often a lot of pressure for the leader to be decided without a membership vote precisely because of the power vacuum.
But in the case of Brown and May, the reason why the election was quick was because there was only one nominees and therefore the membership election part never happened. Had there been more than one candidate in 2007 or 2016 the process to replace Blair and Cameron respectively would have taken considerably more than 6 weeks had there been the need for a member vote.
And the flip side is also true - had there been only one nominee for the SNP election we'd have had a new leader by now.
But comparing the current SNP with Brown or May is comparing apples and oranges - non equivalents as in the latter cases there was no membership vote due to there being only one candidate while the former requires a membership vote. To compare apples with apples you need to look at either selections where there was a membership vote e.g. for Johnson, Truss, Drakeford or the timetable for Brown/May had this gone to a member vote.
Regardless of the history of leadership elections while in power, wouldn't you accept the a short transition is generally a good thing, provided you don't screw it up?
I said elsewhere that I do not think the selection of a new leader when in office should involve a membership vote as the key distinction is the selection of a new FM/PM and that should be either directly with an electoral mandate or indirectly via elected MP/MSPs. So yes it is preferable for it to be shorter but if you are going to have a member vote it cannot be short as the process gets much more complicated - and particularly so if you have no idea who your members actually are!!
-
So you are arguing that there is a conflict of interest because the Scottish First Minister is married to the CEO of her party. I'm not sure I agree with that or that there needs to be any "Chinese walls" other than to avoid Scottish government money, privileged information and other resources being used for party purposes, although I guess I've just defined a Chinese wall.
Legally there will be all sorts of things that Sturgeon would not have been allowed to discuss with Murrell and were she have done so she would potentially have been in breach of the official secrets act.
And the same will go for Sunak - there will be all sorts of things that he is legally not permitted to discussed with senior conservative party officials as they are confidential government matter. The issue isn't whether person X is person Y's spouse, it is that the role of FM or PM is distinct from the role of party leader. And that is because the government and the political party are different things, but NS really doesn't seem to understand that rather simple principle of politics despite patronisingly claiming that I am politically naive.
Murrell's resignation was correct given that he seemed to have forgotten to tell any of his staff that the SNP only had 70,000 members. Regardless of who his wife is, he had to go.
Yup I agree with that.
-
What are you guys arguing about now? Why is it (ir)relevant that the SNP is not identical with the government?
Because it is a fundamental (and fundamentally important) element of our constitution that we separate the role of government - which is a part of the functioning of the state, and supported by state-funded civil servants - with the role of a political party, which is largely a privately funded organisation.
As such if in government you must create a complete boundary between the money that you control in government and the money you use for political purposes for campaigning etc. So an MP or MPS will not be able to use public money for campaigning.
The slightly grey area is the so-called Short money - this is public money largely given to opposition parties to support policy develop. The argument is that parties in government have an advantage as their policy develop is support by the civil service, which is legitimate as this is government policy. Oppositions are therefore on the back foot so short money is provided to level the playing field. However Short money is not supposed to be used for campaigning purposes, nor to support party central office functions.
-
I said elsewhere that I do not think the selection of a new leader when in office should involve a membership vote as the key distinction is the selection of a new FM/PM and that should be either directly with an electoral mandate or indirectly via elected MP/MSPs. So yes it is preferable for it to be shorter but if you are going to have a member vote it cannot be short as the process gets much more complicated - and particularly so if you have no idea who your members actually are!!
I agree. Paradoxically, a leadership election is more democratic if it's limited to MPs rather than allowing the party membership to vote. This is because (taking the Tories as an example with a membership of around 172,000 in 2022), you can win with fewer votes than the population of one constituency. Liz Truss won with 81,326 votes and there are a number of constituencies with more people in it than that. It would be far better IMO for the leader who is going to end up as prime minister because their party already has a majority in parliament, to be elected by MPs alone.
In fact, with the current Tory system, there is a small risk that, following the membership vote, the Tory MPs who voted for the loser could join the opposition in a no confidence vote and cause the collapse of the government.
Anyway, back to the SNP...
-
It seems to me that, as a general rule, elections when the party is in power don't often drag on. Sunak's didn't, neither did May's.
Out of interest, in 2016 had Leadsom not pulled out to leave May as the only candidate the election would have run from 24th June (when Cameron announced his plan to resign) to 9th Sept. That's pretty well double the length of the SNP election.
-
Because it is a fundamental (and fundamentally important) element of our constitution that we separate the role of government - which is a part of the functioning of the state, and supported by state-funded civil servants - with the role of a political party, which is largely a privately funded organisation.
I don't think any of us would disagree with that.
As such if in government you must create a complete boundary between the money that you control in government and the money you use for political purposes for campaigning etc. So an MP or MPS will not be able to use public money for campaigning.
Agreed.
The slightly grey area is the so-called Short money - this is public money largely given to opposition parties to support policy develop. The argument is that parties in government have an advantage as their policy develop is support by the civil service, which is legitimate as this is government policy. Oppositions are therefore on the back foot so short money is provided to level the playing field. However Short money is not supposed to be used for campaigning purposes, nor to support party central office functions.
I didn't know such money existed. The Wikipedia page says it is for "parliamentary duties", not policy development. In any case, the SNP being in power would not qualify for whatever the Scottish equivalent is.
-
In any case, the SNP being in power would not qualify for whatever the Scottish equivalent is.
Although they would qualify for the Westminster version, of course. My question is therefore, would it be paid to the parliamentary party or to the party as a whole. In the latter case, there would have to be controls to make sure it was used for its proper purpose and it seems that the SNP has issues in the area of accounting.
-
I agree. Paradoxically, a leadership election is more democratic if it's limited to MPs rather than allowing the party membership to vote. This is because (taking the Tories as an example with a membership of around 172,000 in 2022), you can win with fewer votes than the population of one constituency. Liz Truss won with 81,326 votes and there are a number of constituencies with more people in it than that. It would be far better IMO for the leader who is going to end up as prime minister because their party already has a majority in parliament, to be elected by MPs alone.
I'm not sure it is a paradox. I think the key is whether you are selecting:
A. A new party leader and/or
B. A new PM/FM
The problem arises when you are selecting both and to my mind a party membership has no legitimate authority to select a PM/FM, although they do to select a new party leader. A PM/FM is actually selected on the basis of support from the parliamentary party (i.e. MPs or MSPs), although in many cases this is through the selection of those MPs at a general election. But constitutionally we don't actually vote in a PM/FM - nope we vote in members of parliament and they determine that there is an individual as PM and a government that commands the confidence of the house.
In opposition there isn't a problem because you are only selecting a new party leader - for them to become PM/FM will require a general election (or another mechanism) by which that individual commands the confidence of the house.
-
The Wikipedia page says it is for "parliamentary duties", not policy development.
Largely the same thing - it is not for party political activities, i.e. campaigning. It is largely used for researchers who support the development of policies etc or for running the office of a parliamentary role holder - e.g. official leader of the opposition.
In any case, the SNP being in power would not qualify for whatever the Scottish equivalent is.
Don't know whether there is a Scottish equivalent, but the SNP do get considerable Short money's (£1.2M in 2020) - this is largely because they are a major opposition party in Westminster. They can use that money for policy development - for example to develop plans as to how they propose to operationalise independence. They would not be permitted to use that money on an active political campaign for independence (although that campaign may well be based on the policies they'd developed using the Short money).
-
Although they would qualify for the Westminster version, of course. My question is therefore, would it be paid to the parliamentary party or to the party as a whole. In the latter case, there would have to be controls to make sure it was used for its proper purpose and it seems that the SNP has issues in the area of accounting.
Actually there is a Scottish equivalent:
https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2020/8/18/Scottish-Parliament--Assistance-for-Political-Parties--Bill#What-is-Short-money-#What-is-Short-money-
As far as I'm aware is is distributed via, and accounted for via, the parliamentary party - so similar to money used for MPs office expenses. So it would come close to the political party expenses or that accounting process.
-
Alex Massie on the farewell tour.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/96f5ec50-c73e-11ed-84e7-e2697ffed9a9?shareToken=ab053660884038ee2f5e5d102d50e4cb :)
-
Because it is a fundamental (and fundamentally important) element of our constitution that we separate the role of government - which is a part of the functioning of the state, and supported by state-funded civil servants - with the role of a political party, which is largely a privately funded organisation.
...
This seems to imply that you think it would be ok for the FM and the head of the Civil Service in Scotland to be married.
-
Disingenuous lying wee wanker
-
This seems to imply that you think it would be ok for the FM and the head of the Civil Service in Scotland to be married.
Interesting thought experiment, but I'd suspect much less likely than FM and CEO of a political party being married. That's because those most active in political parties tend to eat, sleep and breath their politics so highly likely to ed up with someone like-minded in a party political sense as their whole lives revolve around the tiny bubble of their party politics.
A career in the civil service and a party political career are completely different things although they, of course, align in government. But as senior civil servants cannot be involved in party politics less likely that their worlds will revolve around each other as their careers develop.
But on the actual question - and I'm going to shift it to PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary as I know more about those roles.
Well on the one hand the role of the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary is to support the government of the day, its ministers and implement government policy. So in that respect, provided the boundaries between politicisation of the civil service are maintained to some degree the roles of PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary are a bit like a husband and wife, playing different roles to achieve a common goal. There probably wouldn't be too many issues with information flow as both the PM and Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary would have very high level intelligence clearance and access to similar information.
I think where there would be issues would be the ability of the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary to give robust and candid advice to the PM if that person was also their spouse.
A challenge would be appointment - the PM appoints the Cabinet Secretary so it would be challenging to be confident that the process was fair and transparent. And the position is not a political appointment - by this I mean that there is no requirement that a Cabinet Secretary is replaced when a new government comes in - indeed there have been a number of examples of Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary serving under both tory and labour PMs.
Weirdly there might be more challenge if the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet secretary was married to the leader of the opposition where you might worry more that confidential government/cabinet information would leak into the wrong hands.
-
Is it a legacy? And how can you graph the baby box?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64785030
-
A take from a former aide
https://archive.vn/3Yn8c
-
If Forbes gets elected as leader I wonder what are the chances that she cannot be confirmed as FM as this requires the support of the Scottish Parliament. I think it is unlikely that the Greens would support her to be FM and given her lack of support amongst MSPs, there must be a fair possibility that a number of them wouldn't support her either. Worth noting that Forbes only gained the endorsement of 11 MSPs - that's just 17% of SNP MSPs.
It really would be popcorn time if she becomes SNP leader but cannot get the support to become FM.
-
If Forbes gets elected as leader I wonder what are the chances that she cannot be confirmed as FM as this requires the support of the Scottish Parliament. I think it is unlikely that the Greens would support her to be FM and given her lack of support amongst MSPs, there must be a fair possibility that a number of them wouldn't support her either. Worth noting that Forbes only gained the endorsement of 11 MSPs - that's just 17% of SNP MSPs.
It really would be popcorn time if she becomes SNP leader but cannot get the support to become FM.
Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday
-
Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday
I think if Yousaf is elected by the membership he'll get a majority as FM, given that the Greens will be on board and I think sufficient of the Yousaf non-endorsees will fall behind him given that it would be clear to them that he would have commanded a mandate from the membership and also has majority endorsement from the parliamentary party.
Forbes, well, not so much!
And for completeness Regan's final total of MSP endorsements was a big fat zero - with the maverick Cherry the only SNP parliamentarian to endorse her in either Westminster or Holyrood.
-
Yes, this was floated early in the campaign by certain MSPs. Can't see how anyone else manages to get elected. If it does happen you need your order in to arrive early Tuesday
Here's a thought.
If Forbes gets elected by the members I wonder whether the Conservatives in Holyrood get her over the line for FM - she is, after all, effectively a conservative except on the issue of independence, which she's kicked into the long grass. Now that really would be popcorn time.
-
Some interesting stuff in here
https://www.focaldata.com/blog/can-yousaf-or-forbes-save-the-snp
-
Here's a thought.
If Forbes gets elected by the members I wonder whether the Conservatives in Holyrood get her over the line for FM - she is, after all, effectively a conservative except on the issue of independence, which she's kicked into the long grass. Now that really would be popcorn time.
They don't need an absolute majority though so that seems an unlikely proposition. You need to have more votes than the other candidates combined. Labour haven't put up a candidate, I think, since 2007 preferring to stay out of it. If they were to follow that then the SNP candidate would likely be elected first ballot - unless there are 2 SNP candidates!
I suspect Ross will be put forward for the Tories, not sure if Alex Cole Hamilton will go for it but given Willie Rennie tried the last 2 times quite possibly yes.
The lack of any MSPs in the Regan camp means that it's almost certain that she has no chance of a nomination.
I'm not sure that in the event of 2 SNP candidates that the split would be even enough to alliw a situation where it came down to Forbes v Yousaf, where your megapopcorn scenario might tempt the Tories.
-
They don't need an absolute majority though so that seems an unlikely proposition. You need to have more votes than the other candidates combined. Labour haven't put up a candidate, I think, since 2007 preferring to stay out of it. If they were to follow that then the SNP candidate would likely be elected first ballot - unless there are 2 SNP candidates!
I suspect Ross will be put forward for the Tories, not sure if Alex Cole Hamilton will go for it but given Willie Rennie tried the last 2 times quite possibly yes.
The lack of any MSPs in the Regan camp means that it's almost certain that she has no chance of a nomination.
I'm not sure that in the event of 2 SNP candidates that the split would be even enough to alliw a situation where it came down to Forbes v Yousaf, where your megapopcorn scenario might tempt the Tories.
OK - hadn't understood the details of the process.
What, in your view, is the likelihood of Yousaf being put forward as well as Forbes if the letter wins the members vote, but only through second ballots and by a whisker.
-
OK - hadn't understood the details of the process.
What, in your view, is the likelihood of Yousaf being put forward as well as Forbes if the letter wins the members vote, but only through second ballots and by a whisker.
The original idea floated for that was that Sarwar would stand and enough might vote for him without ot being large numbers. I haven't heard any suggestion that they would nominate Yousaf in that scenario. I don't know their constitution well enough but think it might be arguable that such a nomination may be a breach of it, though I think thf same would apply for voting for Sarwar.
I think if Forbes wins the ballot she would be elected as FM as well but where she might then have issues is people refusing to serve in her cabinet.
-
Sarwar saying no mandate for new FM - the generalised hypicrisy on this is stunningly tedious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65080560
-
I think if Forbes wins the ballot she would be elected as FM as well but where she might then have issues is people refusing to serve in her cabinet.
I think you may be correct - her support amongst SNP MSPs is at Corbyn-like levels.
-
Euan McColm on the prospects of the next SNP leader
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/snp-leadership-contest-next-leader-cannot-bank-on-goodwill-held-by-nicola-sturgeon-euan-mccolm-4079689
-
Spectacular idiocy from Jim Murphy
-
Spectacular idiocy from Jim Murphy
Looks like standard politics to me.
Your opponents change their leader mid term when in government. If you feel your opponents are in a weak position of course you will claim that a new leader has no mandate and that their policy positions aren't what the electorate voted for. That allows a call for an election, which is, of course likely to be rejected. So you can follow an attack line that the new leader has no mandate and refuses to seek one from the electorate.
-
Yousaf wins ... 52% to 48% in the second round. Hmm - sure I've heard those percentages before!
-
Looks like standard politics to me.
Your opponents change their leader mid term when in government. If you feel your opponents are in a weak position of course you will claim that a new leader has no mandate and that their policy positions aren't what the electorate voted for. That allows a call for an election, which is, of course likely to be rejected. So you can follow an attack line that the new leader has no mandate and refuses to seek one from the electorate.
I get that you are happy to accept glaring hypocrisy as ok, but I wonder that you were happy to do that on this level when Gordon Brown took over?
-
Close to the start of this thread I said Yousaf had no chance of winning. I had forgotten that political parties are often a collection of idiots. I was wrong. Mea feckin culpa. While I wish I wasn't, the alternatives were also shocking.
-
Hmmm....
-
I get that you are happy to accept glaring hypocrisy as ok, but I wonder that you were happy to do that on this level when Gordon Brown took over?
I never made any comment to that regard at all - merely pointed out that it is standard politics. And the same tactic has been used by the SNP, e.g. when Jack McConnell became FM and when various Tories became PM, and by the Tories, when Brown became PM and by Labour when various Tories became PM and now with a new SNP FM.
So they are basically all at it - and you can see why, the approach is to try to undermine the new PM/FM on the basis that they have no legitimate mandate.
-
Hmmm....
What's your point?
Looks to me like Yousaf won in all three categories - MPs, MSPs and members. Sure his margin of victory was smallest with members, but we aren't in Truss/IDS/Corbyn territory where the members wanted one person and the MPs another.
-
What's your point?
Looks to me like Yousaf won in all three categories - MPs, MSPs and members. Sure his margin of victory was smallest with members, but we aren't in Truss/IDS/Corbyn territory where the members wanted one person and the MPs another.
There's a large disjunct between those groups.
-
There's a large disjunct between those groups.
So what? He won in all three categories - surely that's the only point that really matters in terms of legitimacy - that the preference of the members aligns with the preference of the parliamentarians. The problems start when the members foist someone onto the parliamentarians that the latter don't want. But that isn't the case here.
-
If this is correct:
https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023
It demonstrates that more of Forbes' first preference voters went for Yousaf rather than Regan as second preference, and
More of Yousaf's first preference voters went for Forbes rather than Regan as second preference.
Also worth noting that while Regan second preferences split predominantly to Forbes it wasn't anything like the overwhelming 'en masse' transfer that some people predicted.
-
So what? He won in all three categories - surely that's the only point that really matters in terms of legitimacy - that the preference of the members aligns with the preference of the parliamentarians. The problems start when the members foist someone onto the parliamentarians that the latter don't want. But that isn't the case here.
Who is talking about legitimacy? A large disjunct is surely interesting politically?
-
Who is talking about legitimacy? A large disjunct is surely interesting politically?
It only becomes significant if one or other group wants a different candidate.
Actually from here on in the people who will be most important to Yousaf will be his MSPs and they are the most supportive. Those are the people who will need to serve in his cabinet, ensure his policies get though parliament etc.
So from the perspective of Yousaf I think I'd prefer high levels of support amongst MSPs even if he won the membership by a single vote, rather than the other way around, which would mean a very substantial block of his parliamentarian not having supported him. I'd also be relieved that the people who will know him best (MSPs who work alongside him day in day out) are most supportive.
-
It only becomes significant if one or other group wants a different candidate.
Actually from here on in the people who will be most important to Yousaf will be his MSPs and they are the most supportive. Those are the people who will need to serve in his cabinet, ensure his policies get though parliament etc.
So from the perspective of Yousaf I think I'd prefer high levels of support amongst MSPs even if he won the membership by a single vote, rather than the other way around, which would mean a very substantial block of his parliamentarian not having supported him. I'd also be relieved that the people who will know him best (MSPs who work alongside him day in day out) are most supportive.
So you don't even have a glimmer of understanding of how this might be used by other parties?
-
So you don't even have a glimmer of understanding of how this might be used by other parties?
'Well Mr Yousaf - can you explain why you didn't win by as much a margin with the membership as you did with your MSPs?' - hardly a great attack line!
-
'Well Mr Yousaf - can you explain why you didn't win by as much a margin with the membership as you did with your MSPs?' - hardly a great attack line!
Humza, why is it that nearly half your party hate gay people?
You seem to be adrift of how politics works.
-
Humza, why is it that nearly half your party hate gay people?
Yousaf: 'They don't and please don't insult our fantastic members - SNP members are liberal, progressive and are committed to equality. That's why they are members of a party that legislated to allow everyone to get married regardless of their sexuality. That's why they are members of a party that is committed to ensuring that transgender people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. And I'm humbled to say that they are the members that elected the first First Minister from an Asian heritage and the first muslim FM. I'm proud to stand alongside those members'
Now Yousaf might lack the political nouse to respond in that manner - but a comment of that nature would be a gift for him, not least on the basis of the first rule of politics - don't insult the electorate (even if it's just those members of the electorate who are SNP members).
-
Yousaf: 'They don't and please don't insult our fantastic members - SNP members are liberal, progressive and are committed to equality. That's why they are members of a party that legislated to allow everyone to get married regardless of their sexuality. That's why they are members of a party that is committed to ensuring that transgender people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. And I'm humbled to say that they are the members that elected the first First Minister from an Asian heritage and the first muslim FM. I'm proud to stand alongside those members'
Now Yousaf might lack the political nouse to respond in that manner - but a comment of that nature would be a gift for him, not least on the basis of the first rule of politics - don't insult the electorate (even if it's just those members of the electorate who are SNP members).
It's amazing that the Tories get elected.
-
Aye...
https://youtu.be/FZ3SC02Q-DY
-
Love that!
-
It's amazing that the Tories get elected.
Your point being?
-
Any bets on how long before Regan leaves the SNP?
She's completely trashed her reputation and spent much of the campaign trashing the party she claimed she wanted to lead.
Did you see her body language at the announcement. Forbes was magnanimous in defeat, albeit was clearly finding it hard to put on a brave face. Regan - not so much - she was a bundle of fury who could barely bring herself to even give Yousaf a hand-shake in congratulation. Not a good look and potentially the final straw - can't see a way back for her.
-
Aye...
https://youtu.be/FZ3SC02Q-DY
Very good - the whole process has been a disaster for the SNP. Probably the only outcome that holds the party together - just.
-
Any bets on how long before Regan leaves the SNP?
She's completely trashed her reputation and spent much of the campaign trashing the party she claimed she wanted to lead.
Did you see her body language at the announcement. Forbes was magnanimous in defeat, albeit was clearly finding it hard to put on a brave face. Regan - not so much - she was a bundle of fury who could barely bring herself to even give Yousaf a hand-shake in congratulation. Not a good look and potentially the final straw - can't see a way back for her.
It's a weird one. I agree with your take but if she does go to Alba then it's maybe a waste of a platform. If I were her, then I might think it would be better to get suspended from the SNP before any move.
-
Useful graphic on the talent puddle
-
Useful graphic on the talent puddle
Does emphasise the challenges Forbes would have faced if she'd won.
There are only three people with current or former ministerial experience who supported her ... and two of those three are siblings!
As much as the SNP are in a hole, they narrowly dodged a bullet. The 'perfect storm' would have been if Yousaf won the members ballot on first preferences, but Forbes overtook him by a whisker on second preferences. That would have been an absolute nightmare scenario for the party.
-
Does emphasise the challenges Forbes would have faced if she'd won.
There are only three people with current or former ministerial experience who supported her ... and two of those three are siblings!
As much as the SNP are in a hole, they narrowly dodged a bullet. The 'perfect storm' would have been if Yousaf won the members ballot on first preferences, but Forbes overtook him by a whisker on second preferences. That would have been an absolute nightmare scenario for the party.
The Ewing thing makes me want to do some sort of Dallas mash up, including Douglas Ross watching cows. But it's interesting to remember that there is a long history here and the Ewing dynasty in the SNP predates Salmond never mind Sturgeon. It's also I think indicative of a split in the SNP between town and country, and indeed one that is true of Scotland beyond the SNP
The ferry debacle has seemed to many central and urban Scots an invention of the media but it's about life to those on the islands.
-
The Ewing thing makes me want to do some sort of Dallas mash up, including Douglas Ross watching cows. But it's interesting to remember that there is a long history here and the Ewing dynasty in the SNP predates Salmond never mind Sturgeon.
Not saying the Ewings aren't important in SNP heritage - of course they are. All I'm saying is that if your support amongst ministers/former ministers is one person plus a brother/sister combo, that is somewhat less impressive than three completely independent people. Remember just a few posts ago you were making not dissimilar points about the co-dependency of other related pairs of people in the SNP.
And actually the Ewings are both former ministers, so she only had the support of a single current minister.
-
Not saying the Ewings aren't important in SNP heritage - of course they are. All I'm saying is that if your support amongst ministers/former ministers is one person plus a brother/sister combo, that is somewhat less impressive than three completely independent people. Remember just a few posts ago you were making not dissimilar points about the co-dependency of other related pairs of people in the SNP.
And actually the Ewings are both former ministers, so she only had the support of a single current minister.
I think my points on co-dependency are entirely consistent.
-
It's also I think indicative of a split in the SNP between town and country, and indeed one that is true of Scotland beyond the SNP
The ferry debacle has seemed to many central and urban Scots an invention of the media but it's about life to those on the islands.
This is an important point - in population density terms, Scotland is far more concentrated in a single area (the central belt) than the UK is, which although London/SE dominates there are major population centres in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and (of course, Glasgow).
So while I fully accept that Scotland currently rails against 'Westminster' rule - in other words, people from down south who don't understand us, there is a risk that an independent Scotland becomes even more centralised, towards the central belt population, to the exclusion of the rest of the country.
The problem is that regardless of how you carve up a country there will always be people who feel disenfranchised because another part of the country, with most of the population, necessarily dominates. And typically that will be where the parliament will be based.
-
I think my points on co-dependency are entirely consistent.
As are mine.
-
This is an important point - in population density terms, Scotland is far more concentrated in a single area (the central belt) than the UK is, which although London/SE dominates there are major population centres in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and (of course, Glasgow).
So while I fully accept that Scotland currently rails against 'Westminster' rule - in other words, people from down south who don't understand us, there is a risk that an independent Scotland becomes even more centralised, towards the central belt population, to the exclusion of the rest of the country.
The problem is that regardless of how you carve up a country there will always be people who feel disenfranchised because another part of the country, with most of the population, necessarily dominates. And typically that will be where the parliament will be based.
So arguing for a union of the UK for any of the above is vacuous. What's your argument for the union?
-
As are mine.
Not sure I suggested anything different.
-
So arguing for a union of the UK for any of the above is vacuous. What's your argument for the union?
I'm not a nationalist, neither a UK nationalist nor an English nationalist, nor a Scottish nationalist.
To me the notion of some mythical 'nation' status is an anathema - we should look to determine where in the hierarchy of geography decisions are best taken, without somehow claiming that all levels are equal, but one (the mythical nation state) is more equal than others just doesn't make sense to me. That's why I favour devolved power to regions, and then on to more local communities, but also being a member of the EU, as there are some decisions better taken at a geographic level higher than the UK.
My argument for some decisions being taken at the level of the UK is that it works pretty well within the rule of 10-20 times - in other words that you create political structures where the next biggest step is approx. 10-20 times larger in terms of population, so you neither create layers which are too close to each other in terms of size that they tread on each other's toes, nor too different in size that you create a vacuum in the middle.
But then I'm not a petty nationalist.
-
What's your argument for the union?
Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.
So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.
I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.
Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.
-
Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.
So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.
I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.
Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.
Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.
O.
-
Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.
O.
But noting NS's comments previously, wouldn't the same argument be just as true about parts of Scotland and aimed at Holyrood.
Actually Scotland is the most centralised in Europe - so if the argument is that the UK is too centralised on London and the SE, then certainly the evidence from devolution suggests that an independent Scotland would be more centralised than the UK as a whole. So perhaps great for the central belt, not so great for the less populace parts that have been denuded of local democratic power over the past decades, and particularly over the past few years.
It is an interesting (but all too common) foible of nationalists that they rail against centralisation in a distant capital, but when given power are arch centralisers - making decision in a different capital but one just as distant to many of the people they wish to represent.
-
Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.
O.
Interesting that the arch brexiteers have a similar approach - the fault is the EU, holding back Britain. If only we could get rid of this union but stay in some more distant union (e.g. the Commonwealth).
Ultimately this isn't really about the interests of individuals in the population (or you'd want to distribute power downwards to those people, and also upward when appropriate - e.g. climate policies). Nope it is based on nationalism - effectively a 'faith'-based view that some geographic block (my country) is somehow pre-eminent and must take priority.
It beggars belief that policing across the whole of Scotland is run effectively from Holyrood - the second biggest in the UK. While I can see the argument for one police force for the whole of London (not that they are doing a great job), I simply cannot see how it is a good idea to centralise the whole of policing in Scotland, ranging as it does from inner city drug issues to some of the most remote parts of the UK.
But as I've said it is often in the DNA of nationalists to centralise - as long as it is in 'their' capital city and run by 'their' people.
-
Are you in favour of EU membership NS? I thought you were.
So why do you argue in favour of one union (the EU) but potentially against another (the UK). That seems to make no sense to me unless you are back to the hoary old mythical status of the nation state argument.
I'm in favour of parts of the UK being within the union of the UK, where certain decisions may be best taken at UK level and others best taken at more local geographic levels. But I'm also in favour of the UK being part of the EU, where certain decisions may be best taken at EU level and others best taken at more local geographic levels.
Seems a pretty clear and consistent argument to me.
You are fabulous at making up arguments and then arging against yourself. My popcorn investment is safe.
-
You are fabulous at making up arguments and then arging against yourself. My popcorn investment is safe.
I'm not arguing against myself at all - I think I'm pretty consistent. My argument being based on:
1. Not being obsessed by some mythical notion of a nation state which must be the pre-eminent level of governance.
2. Recognising that decisions that affect people are best taken at different geographic levels depending on the decision - so a decision on who to award a contract to cut the grass on a local park is probably best made by people locally, but they are unlikely to be best placed to take decisions on defence (for example).
3. Leading from 2, you want hierarchies of decision-making structures (presumable with democratic mandates) and so that the decisions can be taken at the most appropriate level.
4. That democratic decision-making structure should go above and below the notion of the 'nation-state' and actually I'd prefer the whole notion of the nation state to be blurred so that we don't see it as somehow the most important level, and certainly not become obsessed by it.
5. You decentralise and you shift power up and down as appropriate, making sure that decisions are taken at the most local appropriate level.
6. You don't centralise power unless there is a darned good reason for power to rest at that level - and cos Edinburgh is the capital of our beloved nation state is as poor an argument as cos London is the capital of our beloved nation state.
7. You recognise that some decisions are taken at a level broader than the nation state (which you've blurred anyway). So you want to form unions.
8. You try to avoid a situation where there is too big a gap between one level of democratic governance and another, or too little gap. About 10-20 times in population terms being a good rule of thumb - hence why Scottish devolution (and London devolution makes perfect sense), but an English parliament, alongside a UK parliament makes no sense at all.
-
I'm not arguing against myself at all - I think I'm pretty consistent. My argument being based on:
1. Not being obsessed by some mythical notion of a nation state which must be the pre-eminent level of governance.
2. Recognising that decisions that affect people are best taken at different geographic levels depending on the decision - so a decision on who to award a contract to cut the grass on a local park is probably best made by people locally, but they are unlikely to be best placed to take decisions on defence (for example).
3. Leading from 2, you want hierarchies of decision-making structures (presumable with democratic mandates) and so that the decisions can be taken at the most appropriate level.
4. That democratic decision-making structure should go above and below the notion of the 'nation-state' and actually I'd prefer the whole notion of the nation state to be blurred so that we don't see it as somehow the most important level, and certainly not become obsessed by it.
5. You decentralise and you shift power up and down as appropriate, making sure that decisions are taken at the most local appropriate level.
6. You don't centralise power unless there is a darned good reason for power to rest at that level - and cos Edinburgh is the capital of our beloved nation state is as poor an argument as cos London is the capital of our beloved nation state.
7. You recognise that some decisions are taken at a level broader than the nation state (which you've blurred anyway). So you want to form unions.
8. You try to avoid a situation where there is too big a gap between one level of democratic governance and another, or too little gap. About 10-20 times in population terms being a good rule of thumb - hence why Scottish devolution (and London devolution makes perfect sense), but an English parliament, alongside a UK parliament makes no sense at all.
The popcorn suppliers cannae take it
-
The popcorn suppliers cannae take it
Yawn.
You could even engage in some discussion, rather than making supercilious (and completely pointless) comments.
-
Can't speak for NS, but from my perspective - membership of the EU was good from Britain, with free movement of people and market access. However, given how Britain is run with a focus on service industry and investment disproportionately in the South and South East, Scotland had an opportunity to alter the fundamentals of the economy with independence - the Independence movement at the time was not pitching that (and although my mother was born there, I didn't have say in the referendum), so I couldn't back it, but there was a potential there to see that there could be benefits to voting to stay in one union but to leave the other.
O.
Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?
I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.
-
Yawn.
You could even engage in some discussion, rather than making supercilious (and completely pointless) comments.
'must not confuse effort with achievement'
-
Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?
I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.
And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?
-
Scotland has significantly devolved powers now. Is there any reason why they can't alter the fundamentals of their economy within the current governing framework? What extra powers would the Scottish government need to achieve that?
I agree that being in the EU has its benefits but there would be significant downsides to being in the EU whilst its nearest neighbour and only neighbour with which it shares a land border is not.
Absolutely - I think the best approach is 'nested' - Scotland within the UK and the UK within the EU. Shame we don't have that any more.
I also agree with the concept of 'subsidiarity'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
Effectively that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level that is consistent with their resolution. This is actually a core principle of the EU, but one that (I think deliberately) was misinterpreted by the media in the UK as being almost exactly the opposite.
But the whole notion of subsidiarity runs counter to a view that some mythical nation state level is somehow the key and most important level. Sadly, neither the UK, nor the Scottish parliaments, seem very keep on subsidiarity, preferring to centralise. And actually the Scottish parliament, under the nationalist, are worse than the UK. And this is expected for nationalists as it is critically important for them to create the impression that their own national level governance is somehow key and superior.
-
And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?
We aren't in the EU because of brexit voters, not because of English voters. I'm an English voter - I voted remain - I'm not to blame for brexit.
-
We aren't in the EU because of brexit voters, not because of English voters.
who were in the majority English.
-
And so being in the EU would have benefits but being unable to be in the EU because of English votes is ok with you?
If Scotland is in the EU but England is not, there will have to be a hard border between England and Scotland. This will be between two countries whose businesses had hitherto traded without any kind of hindrance. The damage done would be enormous on both sides.
It will be far better to get the whole UK back into the EU at the first opportunity and that's easier with Scotland than without. I don't think English votes will be a problem on any reasonable time scale.
-
Part of me finds it quite emotional. When will Labour in the UK chose a non white male as leader?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65098609
-
who were in the majority English.
The Brexit vote was not a regional vote. Everybody had one vote. PD and I both used our votes for the Remain cause.
Not that it matters because I doubt if Brexiteers could muster a majority in England now. If they could, it might be small enough that the Scottish vote swings it the right way.
-
Part of me finds it quite emotional. When will Labour in the UK chose a non white male as leader?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65098609
Why is skin colour significant?
-
If Scotland is in the EU but England is not, there will have to be a hard border between England and Scotland. This will be between two countries whose businesses had hitherto traded without any kind of hindrance. The damage done would be enormous on both sides.
It will be far better to get the whole UK back into the EU at the first opportunity and that's easier with Scotland than without. I don't think English votes will be a problem on any reasonable time scale.
I don't disagree about the impact. Indeed, it's why I would vote no in any indyref2 as I have covered before. Doesn't mean that Scotland wasn't removed from the UK by English votes.
-
Why is skin colour significant?
Why did you raise skin colour in reply but not sex?
-
Sturgeon on the back benches - and doing her job - meanwhile Johnson...
-
Why is skin colour significant?
Although, interestingly Yousaf isn't the first muslim of south asian origin to lead a devolved assembly. Nor does he lead the largest devolved assembly in terms of people represented.
In fact, I think the individual in the UK with the largest direct personal electoral mandate is Sadiq Khan. Actually I think Khan's votes in 2016 were the most direct votes received by an individual in UK politics ever - his votes in 2021 drifted down slightly from the 1.3 million he received in 2016.
-
Although, interestingly Yousaf isn't the first muslim of south asian origin to lead a devolved assembly. Nor does he lead the largest devolved assembly in terms of people represented.
In fact, the individual in the UK with the largest direct personal electoral mandate is Sadiq Khan. Actually I think Khan's votes in 2016 were the most direct votes received by an individual in UK politics ever - his votes in 2021 drifted down slightly from the 1.3 million he received in 2016.
And yet Labour has never had a leader that is a non white male.
-
And yet Labour has never had a leader that is a non white male.
Actually both Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman were both acting leaders, but I take your point.
-
Doesn't mean that Scotland wasn't removed from the UK by English votes.
I think you mean the EU!
But is was a UK-wide vote.
You might just as well argue that London was removed from the EU by non-London votes.
Or that Glaswegians were held in the UK against their will by non-Glaswegian votes.
-
I think you mean the EU!
But is was a UK-wide vote.
You might just as well argue that London was removed from the EU by non-London votes.
Or that Glaswegians were held in the UK against their will by non-Glaswegian votes.
Yep, you are right. The UK EU thing is just me being exhausted by dealing with eejits
Your point, such as it is, says no votes are valid.
-
Bye, Kate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65105951
-
Yep, you are right. The UK EU thing is just me being exhausted by dealing with eejits
Your point, such as it is, says no votes are valid.
No - the point is making generalising and borderline xenophobic comments about 'English votes' is ignorant, pathetic and rather unpleasant 'othering'.
13 million voters in England voted remain (compared to 1.6 million in Scotland) - don't you dare suggest those 13 million are somehow responsible for brexit - they aren't.
The only people to blame for brexit are those that voted 'leave' regardless of whether of whether they lived in Abingdon, Aberdeen, Aberdare or Armagh.
And, no my point doesn't suggest that no votes are valid. It suggests that all votes are valid, but in a UK-wide referendum the only result that actually matters is the overall UK wide vote.
Oh and by the way, if I'm to blame for brexit because I voted in England, then you are just as much to blame (as I am doubly) because we are both male. You'll be aware no doubt that women voted to remain - or is it only the English that deserve your ire on this matter. And on that matter, depending on how you assess matters I'm part Scottish as my mother and her whole family were Scottish - indeed from just down the road from you NS.
-
No - the point is making generalising and borderline xenophobic comments about 'English votes' is ignorant, pathetic and rather unpleasant 'othering'.
13 million voters in England voted remain (compared to 1.6 million in Scotland) - don't you dare suggest those 13 million are somehow responsible for brexit - they aren't.
The only people to blame for brexit are those that voted 'leave' regardless of whether of whether they lived in Abingdon, Aberdeen, Aberdare or Armagh.
And, no my point doesn't suggest that no votes are valid. It suggests that all votes are valid, but in a UK-wide referendum the only result that actually matters is the overall UK wide vote.
Oh and by the way, if I'm to blame for brexit because I voted in England, then you are just as much to blame (as I am doubly) because we are both male. You'll be aware no doubt that women voted to remain - or is it only the English that deserve your ire on this matter. And on that matter, depending on how you assess matters I'm part Scottish as my mother and her whole family were Scottish - indeed from just down the road from you NS.
Straw going cheap?
-
Straw going cheap?
Nope - but petty nationalists are.
Resorting to simplistic generalisations about people from other countries who they claim are to blame for their problems. Even when those people aren't to blame whatsoever, and indeed even if they actually agree with them (as is the case for you and me on brexit).
So straw may not be going cheap - but chips are - you know the type that petty nationalists keep on their shoulders.
-
Nope - but petty nationalists are.
Resorting to simplistic generalisations about people from other countries who they claim are to blame for their problems. Even when those people aren't to blame whatsoever, and indeed even if they actually agree with them (as is the case for you and me on brexit).
So straw may not be going cheap - but chips are - you know the type that petty nationalists keep on their shoulders.
Shiny shiny mirror
-
Shiny shiny mirror
Oo - a mirror - that's exactly what you need, so you can work out whether that chip is on your left shoulder or your right shoulder ;)
-
Bit of a tough one for Yousaf.
Get's elected as a British-Asian muslim, only to realise that he's number 3 in the list of British-Asian political leaders by political significance of the role, and number 2 in the list of muslims in political leadership positions in the UK by political significance. Political leadership of just 5.4 million, compared to Sadiq Khan's 9 million and Rishi Sunak's 67 million.
Ah well.
-
Stunning footballing turnaround under Yousaf ;)
-
Stunning footballing turnaround under Yousaf ;)
Indepedence Now.
-
Indepedence Now.
Then you could have your own national team just like other independent nations!!!
-
Bye, Kate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65105951
So the MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, a huge rural constituency that includes a number of islands does not want to be Cabinet Secretary for ... err ... Rural Affairs and Islands, because it is beneath her. Not a good look.
Actually, politically, I suspect this is a bit of a win/win (or maybe it is lose/lose), or most likely a brokered compromise - allows Yousaf to offer her a position in the cabinet, but for her to have an easy route out. Given that Forbes effectively came back from maternity leave to run in the leadership election, I suspect she's probably quite happy to have a bit of time as a back bencher, both for family reasons and to regroup.
Yousaf could have offered a hospital pass (the positions where you can only ever fail) such as Health or Policing, which she couldn't easily have refused without seeming disloyal.
-
So the MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, a huge rural constituency that includes a number of islands does not want to be Cabinet Secretary for ... err ... Rural Affairs and Islands, because it is beneath her.
Politically, I suspect this is a bit of a win/win (or maybe it is lose/lose) - allows Yousaf to offer her a position in the cabinet, but for her to have an easy route out. Given that Forbes effectively came back from maternity leave to run in the leadership election, I suspect she's probably quite happy to have a bit of time as a back bencher, both for family reasons and to regroup.
Yousaf could have offered a hospital pass (the positions where you can only ever fail) such as Health or Policing, which she couldn't easily have refused without seeming disloyal.
Pretty much. It's sad but true that Rural Affairs is a demotion because the SNP govt don't much care for them. And I think you are right, it suited both parties for this to be the call. Part of me would have liked for him to offer Health on the basis of 'So you think you can do better' - not sure that is the best part of me though.
-
Yousaf tweeting last night. Really not sure how I feel about it. Had Forbes won would a picture of her saying grace be ok?
-
Part of me would have liked for him to offer Health on the basis of 'So you think you can do better'
Exactly - now of course we all know that Yousaf is useless (unless he now surprises on the upside) I actually have a lot of time for the rather defensive argument he made in reply to Forbes attack on his record.
Effectively he basically claimed that Forbes had never done a 'delivery' job in government and it is much harder to actually deliver stuff than just allocate money, with no real accountability for what that spending actually deliver (that responsibility lies with the delivery departments).
And I actually think that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has to be one of the easiest jobs going. You get most of the good stuff from being the equivalent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer - divvying out monies to departments, but you largely avoid the bad stuff that the chancellor has to do, making major decisions on taxation to raise the money from the public and businesses in the first place. Most of the funding for the Scottish Government is from the block grant and/or taxation that isn't devolved to the Scottish Goverment in terms of variance.
It is notable that in her absence Forbes role wasn't really back filled but just added to the existing portfolio of the Deputy FM. Suggests it isn't really a particularly challenging role.
-
Part of me would have liked for him to offer Health on the basis of 'So you think you can do better' - not sure that is the best part of me though.
I think if Yousaf was being particularly mischievous he could have offered Forbes roles requiring decisions that would have directly abutted against her religious faith. She never had to do that as 'bean-counter in chief', but if she was in the health remit she'd need to determine funding levels for abortion services and directly deal with campaigning to restrict/extend access and in both that and a policing/justice role she'd need to address the issue of exclusion spaces around abortion clinics.
-
Yousaf tweeting last night. Really not sure how I feel about it. Had Forbes won would a picture of her saying grace be ok?
Is the point about him doing it (he's a muslim, it's Ramadan - what do you expect) or him publicising it on twitter?
-
Is the point about him doing it (he's a muslim, it's Ramadan - what do you expect) or him publicising it on twitter?
The second.
-
The second.
And would your 'feeling' be different if it was a victorious Forbes in Bute House on her first night saying grace with her family?
-
Yousaf tweeting last night. Really not sure how I feel about it. Had Forbes won would a picture of her saying grace be ok?
No better or worse, which is to say 'not really'. That he's praying - or that she might have - isn't a problem, it's the turning it into a public spectacle. 'Performative prayer'... just seems a bit American, to be honest.
O.
-
And would your 'feeling' be different if it was a victorious Forbes in Bute House on her first night saying grace with her family?
That's the question I originally asked. It feels off. And I think it would feel more obviously off if Forbes had done similar, and I not sure why I think it would feel different. As Outrider mentions it feels performative.
-
That's the question I originally asked. It feels off. And I think it would feel more obviously off if Forbes had done similar, and I not sure why I think it would feel different. As Outrider mentions it feels performative.
I know what you mean, and I guess the issue will be whether it is a one-off. I get that this is a particularly big moment for Yousaf and his family and (frankly his broader community), so I understand why he might want to publicly mark this with his family in a manner that is the way his family would do things.
We've had plenty of similar photo-ops from others - whether May and her husband off to church with photographers in entourage - or Sunak helping out at his local temple. Perhaps the difference is that those were more 'public' rather than photographic private family moment.
By the way I think Forbes saying grace may also feel similar. I think part of the issue is that neither activity seems 'normal' to most of the population - we don't fast and pray when we break that fast and most people don't say grace before eating. Now that isn't to say that this isn't completely normal an acceptable for individuals who do engage in those activities, but they do feel private, rather than public.
-
I know what you mean, and I guess the issue will be whether it is a one-off. I get that this is a particularly big moment for Yousaf and his family and (frankly his broader community), so I understand why he might want to publicly mark this with his family in a manner that is the way his family would do things.
We've had plenty of similar photo-ops from others - whether May and her husband off to church with photographers in entourage - or Sunak helping out at his local temple. Perhaps the difference is that those were more 'public' rather than photographic private family moment.
By the way I think Forbes saying grace may also feel similar. I think part of the issue is that neither activity seems 'normal' to most of the population - we don't fast and pray when we break that fast and most people don't say grace before eating. Now that isn't to say that this isn't completely normal an acceptable for individuals who do engage in those activities, but they do feel private, rather than public.
I think that's a good point about whether it's a one off, and I suspect we will get regular photo ops with Yousaf doing stuff likd May and Sunak. I think for this it's what seems to me should be private. I'm sure his family were happy to have the picture tweeted but were it me, I might say that it was a family matter.
It being about his wider community is a good point as well and I think is part of why it would feel more off if Forbes had posted her familiy saying grace.
-
I think that's a good poimt about whether it's a one off, and I suspect we will get regular photo ops with Yousaf doing stuff likd May and Sunak. I think for this it's what seems to me should be private. I'm sure his family were happy to have the picture tweeted but were it me, I might say that it was a family matter.
It being about his wider community is a good point as well and I think is part of why it would feel more off if Forbes had posted her familiy saying grace.
I think there is also a 'public interest' in the new. What do I mean by that - well Yousaf is the first muslim PM or FM so I think there is some general public interest in what that means, how he might be different in the way he leads his life compared to previous PMs or FMs on the basis that he's the first muslim. So, there is almost an element of education for the public many of whom might have no real idea, have very little interaction with muslims etc.
That argument doesn't work with Forbes as she'd just be the latest in a long line of PMs (and I expect FM) who had been christian to a greater or lesser extent. So I suspect there have been plenty of PMs who would have routinely said grace so there is nothing new to see there. So were Forbes to tweet this (not that I think she ever did in previous roles) it would be all about her showing she's a christian rather than a broader interest in the first muslim in a role of that seniority, in other words someone from a community that had never previously been represented in that role.
-
I would agree with PD. I think it was done to try to normalise the act of Muslim prayer to a mainly non-Muslim population as the actions of prayer seem really normal to Muslims but looks a bit strange if you are not familiar with it. Possibly Yousaf thought this picture may go some way to making it seem less unfamiliar, strange, worrying to see men lined up to pray. I remember a while ago reading stories about a few people freaking out on planes in relation to Muslims engaging in normal religious acts e.g reciting the Quran in Arabic on a plane.
It is also possibly a way of relating to the Muslim population by mentioning fasting and showing them lining up to pray i.e. to say to the Muslims that Yousaf's faith is still very important to him and he is still relatable - he is doing what a lot of them would be doing in their own houses. Possibly because many Muslims will think there are policies he supports that would seem at odds with his faith - according to their interpretation.
What is interesting is that his wife appears to be standing in the same line as the men, but the angle of the photo means she also seems to have been mostly obscured by Yousaf. All the times I have prayed with Muslims or seen it on TV, the ladies stand behind the men rather than in the same line. It's almost as if Yousaf does not follow that tradition but neither does he want to publicise it too overtly if he doesn't follow that tradition.
From my experience, the only time men pray in the same line as women or behind them is on Hajj - when the call to prayer is heard while you are doing the ritual of circumambulation of the Kaaba you all stop and pray where you are, and in that instance men and women could be next to each other or behind each other.
-
I would agree with PD. I think it was done to try to normalise the act of Muslim prayer to a mainly non-Muslim population as the actions of prayer seem really normal to Muslims but looks a bit strange if you are not familiar with it. Possibly Yousaf thought this picture may go some way to making it seem less unfamiliar, strange, worrying to see men lined up to pray. I remember a while ago reading stories about a few people freaking out on planes in relation to Muslims engaging in normal religious acts e.g reciting the Quran in Arabic on a plane.
Indeed - and there is a short piece on the BBC live stream linking to the tweet which is basically an education piece for people unfamiliar with islamic practice:
"Humza Yousaf's family are among millions of Muslims in the UK and around the world who are marking Ramadan, one of the holiest months in the Islamic calendar.
It involves a period of fasting before Eid al-Fitr, which translates as "the festival of the breaking of the fast", on 21 April.
Muslims have an early morning meal before dawn, known as suhoor or sehri.
They do not eat or drink anything - including water - until they break their fast after sunset for the evening meal, called iftar or fitoor."
I suspect there are plenty of people who have little understanding of this, but it is helpful to have this brought out into the open more - not least because many workplaces will now have muslims who are fasting and small adjustments to workplace practice (including simply being sensitive) can go a long way to support an inclusive workplace that functions better.
It is also possibly a way of relating to the Muslim population by mentioning fasting and showing them lining up to pray i.e. to say to the Muslims that Yousaf's faith is still very important to him and he is still relatable - he is doing what a lot of them would be doing in their own houses. Possibly because many Muslims will think there are policies he supports that would seem at odds with his faith - according to their interpretation.
Perhaps, although I'd be rather less convinced that the muslim community in Scotland needs much educating on the importance of Yousaf's faith - I think he's been pretty clear on this throughout his time in politics, not least wearing traditional dress for some ceremonial situations when many would have just worn a suit.
-
Perhaps, although I'd be rather less convinced that the muslim community in Scotland needs much educating on the importance of Yousaf's faith - I think he's been pretty clear on this throughout his time in politics, not least wearing traditional dress for some ceremonial situations when many would have just worn a suit.
I have not really followed what Yousaf has been doing. iI was thinking more reassurance than education though - as in just because he has moved up in the world he is still a practising Muslim first. And probably also a way of being a role model or motivating other Muslims to be aspirational and get involved in politics or whatever their interests are and letting them know that if they are law-abiding, they do not need to abandon their beliefs and they would be accepted / treated equally as practising Muslims by the tolerant non-Muslim majority in a democratic system.
-
I have not really followed what Yousaf has been doing. iI was thinking more reassurance than education though - as in just because he has moved up in the world he is still a practising Muslim first. And probably also a way of being a role model or motivating other Muslims to be aspirational and get involved in politics or whatever their interests are and letting them know that if they are law-abiding, they do not need to abandon their beliefs and they would be accepted / treated equally as practising Muslims by the tolerant non-Muslim majority in a democratic system.
Sorry - never my intention to suggest they needed educating - that would be daft.
Yes I agree - but I think there is another aspect, which is reassurance to perhaps younger and more liberal muslims, that you can be muslim, think your faith is important but also agree with extending gay rights, transgender rights etc.
So I think Yousaf is a rather good example/role model for a complex range of individualities that I suspect many second/third generation immigrants, including but not limited to, muslims feel. That they are muslim, but also British (... or Scottish!!!), respect traditions and faith, but are also modern and liberal in outlook. And are ambitious and aspirational.
And I think there is also an important difference between Yousaf and Forbes, as indicated in the leadership election. Forbes said her faith comes first and her politics second. I don't believe Yousaf ever said that - I think he a politician who is also a practicing muslim, not a politician who is a practicing muslim first. Subtle but important difference.
-
Hmm. I thought we agreed that political posts were to be divided into "spiritual" and "temporal". I thought Vlad said not doing so would disadvantage religionists.
-
Sorry - never my intention to suggest they needed educating - that would be daft.
Yes I agree - but I think there is another aspect, which is reassurance to perhaps younger and more liberal muslims, that you can be muslim, think your faith is important but also agree with extending gay rights, transgender rights etc.
So I think Yousaf is a rather good example/role model for a complex range of individualities that I suspect many second/third generation immigrants, including but not limited to, muslims feel. That they are muslim, but also British (... or Scottish!!!), respect traditions and faith, but are also modern and liberal in outlook. And are ambitious and aspirational.
And I think there is also an important difference between Yousaf and Forbes, as indicated in the leadership election. Forbes said her faith comes first and her politics second. I don't believe Yousaf ever said that - I think he a politician who is also a practicing muslim, not a politician who is a practicing muslim first. Subtle but important difference.
I guess it depends on how different people define "practising Muslim first".
Some Muslims may feel that being a practising Muslim first means when you do your paid job you impose your religious views on non-Muslims, whereas other Muslims may think being a practising Muslim first is to do the job you are being paid to do.
There are some Muslims who refuse to work in a job that involves serving alcohol, and there are some Muslims who if they accept such a job, would see it as their Islamic duty (i.e. as a practising Muslim first) to do the job they are paid to do, rather than refuse to serve alcohol, e.g. if it was in the job responsibilities they were given before they took on the job. It may be that some employers value a particular Muslim member of the team for whatever add-value they bring to the firm, despite them refusing to carry out all their responsibilities of the role and might hire them anyway even if they stated at the interview that they do not want to personally serve alcohol.
In Yousaf's case, if he is being paid to represent people, the majority of whom are non-Muslims, then his job would presumably be to advocate for all the different people he represents. I haven't really been following Yousaf's career so I don't really know whether Yousaf interprets his faith in a way that is compatible with LGBTQ interests or if he is just doing the job he is being paid to do - as a politician. I know I certainly don't agree with his stance on self-ID for trans-identifying people.
-
I guess it depends on how different people define "practising Muslim first".
Some Muslims may feel that being a practising Muslim first means when you do your paid job you impose your religious views on non-Muslims, whereas other Muslims may think being a practising Muslim first is to do the job you are being paid to do.
There are some Muslims who refuse to work in a job that involves serving alcohol, and there are some Muslims who if they accept such a job, would see it as their Islamic duty (i.e. as a practising Muslim first) to do the job they are paid to do, rather than refuse to serve alcohol, e.g. if it was in the job responsibilities they were given before they took on the job. It may be that some employers value a particular Muslim member of the team for whatever add-value they bring to the firm, despite them refusing to carry out all their responsibilities of the role and might hire them anyway even if they stated at the interview that they do not want to personally serve alcohol.
In Yousaf's case, if he is being paid to represent people, the majority of whom are non-Muslims, then his job would presumably be to advocate for all the different people he represents. I haven't really been following Yousaf's career so I don't really know whether Yousaf interprets his faith in a way that is compatible with LGBTQ interests or if he is just doing the job he is being paid to do - as a politician. I know I certainly don't agree with his stance on self-ID for trans-identifying people.
I think being a top politician, someone who aspires to and attains the top job, is rather more than 'doing the job he is paid to do'.
-
I think being a top politician, someone who aspires to and attains the top job, is rather more than 'doing the job he is paid to do'.
I meant doing the job he is paid to do in terms of the LGBTQ policies. I haven't followed his career so I don't know if he got into politics because of LGBTQ issues or if he views those issues as fairly minor that just come with the territory, and he is mainly interested in other political issues.
-
Robison to Finance
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/shona-robison-become-next-snp-29576770
-
Robison to Finance
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/shona-robison-become-next-snp-29576770
Isn't she also Deputy.
-
Isn't she also Deputy.
Yep.
-
New cabinet
-
New cabinet
The only ones on that list I think I've heard of before are:
Shona Robison (just)
Angus Robertson (of course)
So I must be misogynistic as I cannot name-check Jenny, Mairi, Mairi, Shirley-Anne or Angela. Oh, nope that's not right as I've also cannot name-check Michael or Neil either.
But this has nothing to do with sex, entirely to do with national profile. And there is a reason why I'd image Angus Robertson is the only person on that list that most people in my part of the world will have definitely heard of. Can you think why that might be, Chip?
-
The only ones on that list I think I've heard of before are:
Shona Robison (just)
Angus Robertson (of course)
So I must be misogynistic as I cannot name-check Jenny, Mairi, Mairi, Shirley-Anne or Angela. Oh, nope that's not right as I've also cannot name-check Michael or Neil either.
But this has nothing to do with sex, entirely to do with national profile. And there is a reason why I'd image Angus Robertson is the only person on that list that most people in my part of the world will have definitely heard of. Can you think why that might be, Chip?
I have no problem here with your lack of knowledge about who has been pulled from the awesome puddle. I think Màiri McAllan is good but beyond that?
-
A lot of the titles seem vacuous to me but no cabinet minister for Transport? Or Housing? Or Local Govt?
-
I have no problem here with your lack of knowledge about who has been pulled from the awesome puddle.
Yet my lack of knowledge of internal Scottish politics previously led to me being accused of misogyny.
I await your apology for describing me as misogynist failing to remember Kezia Dugdale had briefly been Labour leader in Scotland along with the likes of Richard Leonard, whose tenure also passed me by. Rather hypocritical of you as seem also to have forgotten about Johann Lamont, and, while we are at it Wendy Alexander, plus acting roles for Cathy Jamieson and Jackie Baillie.
-
Yet my lack of knowledge of internal Scottish politics previously led to me being accused of misogyny.
I await your apology for describing me as misogynist failing to remember Kezia Dugdale had briefly been Labour leader in Scotland along with the likes of Richard Leonard, whose tenure also passed me by. Rather hypocritical of you as seem also to have forgotten about Johann Lamont, and, while we are at it Wendy Alexander, plus acting roles for Cathy Jamieson and Jackie Baillie.
It wasn't your lack of knowledge, it was your pontificating, wrongly.
-
It wasn't your lack of knowledge, it was your pontificating, wrongly.
Which you cannot let go, despite me being completely open that I got it wrong and explained why that might be.
It is almost as if you have something eating away at you on your left shoulder ... or is it you right.
Regardless - being wrong provides absolutely zero evidence for misogyny.
-
By-election likely soon in a seat the SNP held in 2019.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65123054
Should be an interesting test of Yousaf. Will he benefit from a honeymoon period bounce and retain the seat. Or is this Labour's for the taking?
-
One of those times when I can say honestly that some of my best friends went to Hutchesons Grammar but to see it on TV 8n Reporting Scotland being talked about and no mention of it being a fee paying school and somehow an example of how anyone can become FM...
-
One of those times when I can say honestly that some of my best friends went to Hutchesons Grammar but to see it on TV 8n Reporting Scotland being talked about and no mention of it being a fee paying school and somehow an example of how anyone can become FM...
I must admit that I hadn't noted Yousaf's upbringing, and interesting that both he and Sarwar (plus a bunch of other rather notable alumni) went to this school.
Building on the discussion about minority ethnic MPs - most of the those who are in the top positions (the five of seven) I mentioned went to private schools. So although part of a disadvantage minority in one respect, they are from an advantaged minority in another respect. The notable exception being Sadiq Khan.
-
Best one I saw today
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-planning-to-honour-nicola-sturgeon-with-statue-in-scottish-parliament-4087364
-
Best one I saw today
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-planning-to-honour-nicola-sturgeon-with-statue-in-scottish-parliament-4087364
I would suggest not letting an AI generate the actual statue on that showing. Also, I think it would be better to wait a few years before honouring Sturgeon in this way.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823
Hmmm!
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823
Hmmm!
Hmmm indeed. The arrest of Murrell has been being speculated on for a few weeks but it actually happening is still a shock.
-
Seems to be becoming standard practice that when you leave a position in office that either your party, parliament or the police will take action against you or your family. So we have:
Trump - arrested and criminal chanrges
Murrell - arrested
Johnson - facing parliamentary sanctions that could result in being booted out of parliament (plus also fined of course, but that was while in office)
Corbyn - kicked out of the party, not allowed to stand
Salmond - arrested and charged
Now perhaps this is all fine and due process, but I have to say I find this trend a little worrying. It used to be tin pot dictatorships or barely democracies where an ousted leader would be arrested almost as a matter of course. In the west we used the respect their time in office and elevate them to elder statesperson level.
The question is whether this reflects a shift in the nature of our leaders or a shift in the nature of our politics.
-
The Guardian live blog has a pic showing that police have erected a large tent outside their house - hard to imagine they'd do that just to keep the press at bay.
Since, as NS says, rumours of an arrest had been mentioned I wonder to what extent that forecast explains her fairly rapid resignation: had she still been FM she'd have had to go anyway.
-
The question is whether this reflects a shift in the nature of our leaders or a shift in the nature of our politics.
Surely it is not an either/or situation?
-
Surely it is not an either/or situation?
You are right - it might be both, but I feel there is a shift - we are seeing stuff routinely now that would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago.
I'm not sure whether part of this is a developing narrative that you don't just need to take over from your predecessor, their reputation needs to be completely destroyed.
-
The Guardian live blog has a pic showing that police have erected a large tent outside their house - hard to imagine they'd do that just to keep the press at bay.
Since, as NS says, rumours of an arrest had been mentioned I wonder to what extent that forecast explains her fairly rapid resignation: had she still been FM she'd have had to go anyway.
I don't think she would necessarily have to go (as long as she is not implicated), but it would have become an extremely difficult job to run the country while her husband and former CEO of her political party is on trial for fraud. I think her sudden resignation is linked to this.
-
Seems to be becoming standard practice that when you leave a position in office that either your party, parliament or the police will take action against you or your family. So we have:
Trump - arrested and criminal chanrges
Murrell - arrested
Johnson - facing parliamentary sanctions that could result in being booted out of parliament (plus also fined of course, but that was while in office)
Corbyn - kicked out of the party, not allowed to stand
Salmond - arrested and charged
Now perhaps this is all fine and due process, but I have to say I find this trend a little worrying. It used to be tin pot dictatorships or barely democracies where an ousted leader would be arrested almost as a matter of course. In the west we used the respect their time in office and elevate them to elder statesperson level.
The question is whether this reflects a shift in the nature of our leaders or a shift in the nature of our politics.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to imply here. Is it that politicians are becoming more corrupt or that people are going after politicians after they leave office as a sort of vengeance?
Maybe it's just a random cluster. Politicians have been in trouble before many many times.
-
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to imply here. Is it that politicians are becoming more corrupt or that people are going after politicians after they leave office as a sort of vengeance?
I'm not sure, but something feels to have changed. Remember I'm not talking about random politicians, but leaders of political parties and in some cases Presidents, PMs and FMs.
Maybe it's just a random cluster. Politicians have been in trouble before many many times.
See above - this isn't just common or garden politicians but leaders of political parties and in some cases Presidents, PMs and FMs. This doesn't feel like a random cluster, which would imply that there had been similar examples in the past, and now we are just seeing a (perhaps temporary) increase in their number. This feels like a step change - when in the past has any ex-President, ex-PM, ex-FM or ex-Leader of the opposition been arrested, faced criminal charges or been subject to processes that may well throw them out of parliament or the political party they used to lead. I just don't think this was happening until recently.
-
when in the past has any ex-President, ex-PM, ex-FM or ex-Leader of the opposition been arrested, faced criminal charges or been subject to processes that may well throw them out of parliament or the political party they used to lead. I just don't think this was happening until recently.
Nixon. Berlusconi. Ulysses S Grant was once arrested (for speeding).
-
Despite being now able to buy a fairly large island with the dividends from my investments in popcorn manufacturers in the US and UK, I'm fearful of what's going to happen in Scotland. There's 3 years for a govt to go which could just be engulfed in scandal for most of that time. Before this morning's announcement there was already talk this week of an increasing numbers of back bench SNP MSPs being 'in revolt' - after all 52 - 48 elections always seem to work out so well.
The Labour Party should be well placed to take advantage here - though again only this week Starmer stated he had effectively sacked previous Labour leader in Scotland, Richard Leonard, and Leonard made a wee video about how the only true Keir in Labour was Hardie.
There has been suggestion, and it was made a couple of weeks back that action against Murrell had been delayed till after the leadership election. Already Murdo Fraser of the Tories in Scotland has been suggesting that action taken a couple of weeks ago then Forbes would have been elected.
I'm getting bored of living in interesting times, even though the investments do so well.
-
Nixon.
Weird one that as in some respects it is entirely the opposite of the current situation.
Nixon resigned due to scandal (like many politicians do) but he wasn't arrested and did not face criminal charges - indeed he was specifically pardoned by his successor so that he couldn't face charged. So rather than try to destroy his predecessor, Ford actually acted to protect him.
-
Berlusconi
Sure but Italy is another world.
-
Despite being now able to buy a fairly large island with the dividends from my investments in popcorn manufacturers in the US and UK, I'm fearful of what's going to happen in Scotland. There's 3 years for a govt to go which could just be engulfed in scandal for most of that time. Before this morning's announcement there was already talk this week of an increasing numbers of back bench SNP MSPs being 'in revolt' - after all 52 - 48 elections always seem to work out so well.
The Labour Party should be well placed to take advantage here - though again only this week Starmer stated he had effectively sacked previous Labour leader in Scotland, Richard Leonard, and Leonard made a wee video about how the only true Keir in Labour was Hardie.
There has been suggestion, and it was made a couple of weeks back that action against Murrell had been delayed till after the leadership election. Already Murdo Fraser of the Tories in Scotland has been suggesting that action taken a couple of weeks ago then Forbes would have been elected.
I'm getting bored of living in interesting times, even though the investments do so well.
The SNP needs a really strong leader because it is a fairly loose coalition of people who only really share one policy in common i.e. Scottish independence. Were I a supporter of the SNP, I would certainly be fearful for the future of the party but I'm not fearful for the future of Scotland. Is it likely that the SNP will be pursuing policies in the next three years that would be destructive of Scotland? I don't see it.
NB I was confident that the SNP would implode after Salmond stepped down. Nicola Sturgeon turned out to be a far better politician than I expected. Maybe I'm wrong again.
-
Sure but Italy is another world.
Ah, OK. A literal "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
-
Ulysses S Grant was once arrested (for speeding).
So you go back 150 years for an example which is equivalent to the FPNs that both our current and previous PMs have received.
-
Ah, OK. A literal "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
No - the Scots have had two rounds of it ;) - Sturgeon throwing Salmond under the bus and looking like Yousaf happy to throw Sturgeon under the bus.
-
Weird one that as in some respects it is entirely the opposite of the current situation.
Nixon resigned due to scandal (like many politicians do) but he wasn't arrested and did not face criminal charges - indeed he was specifically pardoned by his successor so that he couldn't face charged. So rather than try to destroy his predecessor, Ford actually acted to protect him.
Of the people you listed, none were destroyed by their successors except possibly Corbyn.
Edit: And maybe Salmond.
-
No - the Scots have had two rounds of it ;) - Sturgeon throwing Salmond under the bus and looking like Yousaf happy to throw Sturgeon under the bus.
In what sense is Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus?
-
Of the people you listed, none were destroyed by their successors except possibly Corbyn.
Edit: And maybe Salmond.
Trump supporters would likely beg to differ.
Perhaps destroyed their reputation is too strong in some cases, but there seems to be little attempt by a successor to shore-up or secure the reputation of a predecessor. And while I understand when there is a change in government it is in the interests of the incoming government to look to demolish the reputation of their predecessors (albeit in the UK this has historically not been personal in the manner we seem to be seeing now), but in many of these cases we are dealing with the same party - as far as I can see:
Sunak is perfectly happy for his predecessor to be thrown to the dogs and drummed out of parliament
Starmer seems to have a key objective to purge the party of Corbyn
Sturgeon seemed to have no qualms about initiating proceedings against Salmond
Yousaf - well a bit early to tell, but I suspect he isn't unhappy at all as it allows him to portray himself as the guy who cleans up the mess.
-
The SNP needs a really strong leader because it is a fairly loose coalition of people who only really share one policy in common i.e. Scottish independence. Were I a supporter of the SNP, I would certainly be fearful for the future of the party but I'm not fearful for the future of Scotland. Is it likely that the SNP will be pursuing policies in the next three years that would be destructive of Scotland? I don't see it.
NB I was confident that the SNP would implode after Salmond stepped down. Nicola Sturgeon turned out to be a far better politician than I expected. Maybe I'm wrong again.
My issue is if you have a party indulging in internecine strife for 3 years then the day job is forgotten about, some may say it already has. Add to that the ongoing investigations and ramifocations they might have and it's not exactly as if much will get done, though again there will be those that see that as a benefit.
-
In what sense is Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus?
See above - Yousaf needs to distance himself from the developing sh*tshow within the SNP in the manner that Sunak is distancing himself from the Johnson era administration, despite the fact that both were key members of those earlier administrations.
Yousaf cannot, himself, be seen to take the blame and therefore needs to pass the blame squarely onto Murrell, and of course, Sturgeon.
Any moment soon I suspect we'll see Yousaf coming out with the likes of - "blah, blah, blah, cannot comment on ongoing investigation, but we will cooperate fully, important for the law to run its course. My priority will be to fix these problems in the SNP, blah, blah, blah'
-
My issue is if you have a party indulging in internecine strife for 3 years then the day job is forgotten about, some may say it already has. Add to that the ongoing investigations and ramifocations they might have and it's not exactly as if much will get done, though again there will be those that see that as a benefit.
That's true and will be interesting to see how this pans out in the polling.
But I guess for a new SNP leader (would have been the same had it been Forbes) they will have been well aware that there was a shitshow that wasn't going away. The very fact that there was a leadership election was, I guess, testament to that - never really been satisfactorily explained why Sturgeon suddenly announced she was going.
So the best approach for a new leader to manage the issue is not to try to sweep in under the carpet (far too late for that), but to pin the blame as much as possible on the 'old regime', claim that those people are gone now (legitimately as Murrell and Sturgeon aren't in post now) and promise to ensure all legal processes proceed without any interference from the SNP and promise to fix the mess.
-
Trump supporters would likely beg to differ.
I'm unaware that Joe Biden has anything to do with what's happening to Trump at the moment and he doesn't really have a successor in the Republican Party and they don't seem to be enthusiastic about makeing him answer for his crimes, anyway.
Sunak is perfectly happy for his predecessor to be thrown to the dogs and drummed out of parliament
Starmer seems to have a key objective to purge the party of Corbyn
Sturgeon seemed to have no qualms about initiating proceedings against Salmond
Yousaf - well a bit early to tell, but I suspect he isn't unhappy at all as it allows him to portray himself as the guy who cleans up the mess.
But Sunak isn't the one doing it and, of course, Johnson is plainly guilty. In the case of Corbyn, he represented a threat to the future of the Labour Party, at least in terms of electoral success. Not sure about Salmond: perhaps Sturgeon did feel threatened by him. Perhaps she thought he was guilty.
Political leaders often throw their predecessors under the bus and have been doing since forever. Of course, in earlier times that was often posthumously.
-
See above - Yousaf needs to distance himself from the developing sh*tshow within the SNP in the manner that Sunak is distancing himself from the Johnson era administration, despite the fact that both were key members of those earlier administrations.
Yousaf cannot, himself, be seen to take the blame and therefore needs to pass the blame squarely onto Murrell, and of course, Sturgeon.
Any moment soon I suspect we'll see Yousaf coming out with the likes of - "blah, blah, blah, cannot comment on ongoing investigation, but we will cooperate fully, important for the law to run its course. My priority will be to fix these problems in the SNP, blah, blah, blah'
And what does any of that do to answer the qustion asked? Yousaf is, according to that, throwing Sturgeon under a bus by doing things he hasn't done?
And you think he should at any point say as FM that he won't cooperate with a police investigation?
-
My issue is if you have a party indulging in internecine strife for 3 years then the day job is forgotten about, some may say it already has. Add to that the ongoing investigations and ramifocations they might have and it's not exactly as if much will get done, though again there will be those that see that as a benefit.
I wish the Tories in Westminster would forget about the day job and get on with some internecine strife.
-
That's true and will be interesting to see how this pans out in the polling.
But I guess for a new SNP leader (would have been the same had it been Forbes) they will have been well aware that there was a shitshow that wasn't going away. The very fact that there was a leadership election was, I guess, testament to that - never really been satisfactorily explained why Sturgeon suddenly announced she was going.
So the best approach for a new leader to manage the issue is not to try to sweep in under the carpet (far too late for that), but to pin the blame as much as possible on the 'old regime', claim that those people are gone now (legitimately as Murrell and Sturgeon aren't in post now) and promise to ensure all legal processes proceed without any interference from the SNP and promise to fix the mess.
And yet that becomes much harder when you were the lingest in the SNP govt of the candidates, and by the support of more of those who had been in govt, and were seen as the continuity candidate, and fervently defended Murrell in the campaign.
Anyway the real story here is whether Sturgeon throws Murrell under the bus.
-
I wish the Tories in Westminster would forget about the day job and get on with some internecine strife.
LOL. I think though some of what they fo in the day job is fuelled by that. The concentration on immigration and asylum seekers seems part of that to me.
-
And yet that becomes much harder when you were the lingest in the SNP govt of the candidates, and by the support of more of those who had been in govt, and were seen as the continuity candidate, and fervently defended Murrell in the campaign.
All the more reason for Yousaf to distance himself as far as possible from the site of the car crash. I would be astonished if he defended Murrell now.
-
Anyway the real story here is whether Sturgeon throws Murrell under the bus.
Or whether Murrell pulls Sturgeon into the path of the bus.
-
All the more reason for Yousaf to distance himself as far as possible from the site of the car crash. I would be astonished if he defended Murrell now.
So would I since it is a live investigation
-
So would I since it is a live investigation
Would be very easy to say 'the investigation needs to progress to completion, but I have always had confidence in Murrell'. He won't though.
-
Or whether Murrell pulls Sturgeon into the path of the bus.
Yep, though given he was happy for Sturgeon she knew nothing about the £107k loan may mean that he dorsn't want to or can't.
-
Would be very easy to say 'the investigation needs to progress to completion, but I have always had confidence in Murrell'. He won't though.
Not in a live investigation. Could be seen as contempt.
-
Not in a live investigation. Could be seen as contempt.
I seriously doubt that the hypothetical quote I gave could be seen as contempt - people make much stronger claims in public - e.g. confidence that person x or person y will be acquitted.
-
I seriously doubt that the hypothetical quote I gave could be seen as contempt - people make much stronger claims in public - e.g. confidence that person x or person y will be acquitted.
They do. They are generally not the FM of Scotland and leader of the party of the person under a live investigation.
-
They do. They are generally not the FM of Scotland and leader of the party of the person under a live investigation.
I doubt the law on contempt would make a distinction as it applies to all equally.
I fully accept that politically (rather than legally) it is in Yousaf's interests to say nothing noting that saying nothing will both ensure he is well away from any legal line on contempt, but also noting that his 'silence' speaks volumes, just as Sturgeon's did when Salmond was the subject of a live investigation.
Point is that there is plenty that a politician can say during a live investigation that would infer a broad support for the individual (while of course not making any specific claims about the matter being investigated). A decline to support, couched around 'inappropriateness to comment' remains a decline to support.
-
I doubt the law on contempt would make a distinction as it applies to all equally.
I fully accept that politically (rather than legally) it is in Yousaf's interests to say nothing noting that saying nothing will both ensure he is well away from any legal line on contempt, but also noting that his 'silence' speaks volumes, just as Sturgeon's did when Salmond was the subject of a live investigation.
Point is that there is plenty that a politician can say during a live investigation that would infer a broad support for the individual (while of course not making any specific claims about the matter being investigated). A decline to support, couched around 'inappropriateness to comment' remains a decline to support.
It's the prominence of the remarks. Any Scottish Govt lawyer with a hint of sense will be saying not to say anything that could be read as support.
-
It's the prominence of the remarks. Any Scottish Govt lawyer with a hint of sense will be saying not to say anything that could be read as support.
Which Yousaf will be very happy to comply with, as it helps him to distance himself from Murrell/Sturgeon. But as I've pointed out there is plenty he could say and not get into legal hot water - but he isn't going to.
-
Which Yousaf will be very happy to comply with, as it helps him to distance himself from Murrell/Sturgeon. But as I've pointed out there is plenty he could say and not get into legal hot water - but he isn't going to.
Your expertise in contempt law in Scotland is noted.
-
Your expertise in contempt law in Scotland is noted.
Is it very different to contempt law in England and Wales. Evidence please.
-
Is it very different to contempt law in England and Wales. Evidence please.
Oh, sorry I didn't realise we were basing this on your deep knowledge of the contempt laws in England and Wales.
-
Oh, sorry I didn't realise we were basing this on your deep knowledge of the contempt laws in England and Wales.
Straw man - I asked whether there are differences in Scotland vs England and Wales.
And actually, on the letter of the law, I don't even think we are in Contempt territory yet, as as far as I'm aware this only kicks in when an individual has been charged. I don't think Murrell has been charged with anything yet, so legally I think Yousaf can say what he likes and not risk contempt. Politically and pragmatically I suspect he will take the view that silence is the best approach.
-
Straw man - I asked whether there are differences in Scotland vs England and Wales.
And actually, on the letter of the law, I don't even think we are in Contempt territory yet, as as far as I'm aware this only kicks in when an individual has been charged. I don't think Murrell has been charged with anything yet, so legally I think Yousaf can say what he likes and not risk contempt. Politically and pragmatically I suspect he will take the view that silence is the best approach.
May be I will take the judgement of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates on when it's activated. I suggest you should as well.
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1643537760521781253?t=iGbfng77E2Zv5acRl0AyeA&s=19
-
May be I will take the judgement of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates on when it's activated. I suggest you should as well.
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1643537760521781253?t=iGbfng77E2Zv5acRl0AyeA&s=19
Trade you this one:
https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/contempt-of-court
"Where court proceedings are active (in criminal cases, from the point of charge onwards) any publication that creates ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ will be regarded as a contempt of court, on a strict liability basis."
This is in the context of Scottish law from Contempt of Court lawyers, so perhaps there is some confusion.
Nonetheless - the threshold is ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ - there is plenty that a politician could say, legally, that would never reach that threshold. That they may not do so has as much to do with the politics of the matter (whether avoiding awkward questions or avoiding seeming to support a colleague) as the law.
-
Trade you this one:
https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/contempt-of-court
"Where court proceedings are active (in criminal cases, from the point of charge onwards) any publication that creates ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ will be regarded as a contempt of court, on a strict liability basis."
So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.
-
So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.
It isn't just any old website though is it - it is the website of specialist Contempt of Court lawyers.
-
It isn't just any old website though is it - it is the website of specialist Contempt of Court lawyers.
And is just general not specific guidance.
-
So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.
I note you've ignored my point about what could be said that would never come close to the threshold for contempt of court, specifically ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.
Politicians regularly hide behind this to avoid having to answer any awkward questions regardless of whether giving the answer would pose ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.
-
And is just general not specific guidance.
The point at which contempt kicks in will be specific - I am genuinely unclear (as I suspect are you) as we seem to have differences of opinion from the learned legal profession.
I do know that there was a move to change the law some while ago (driven by a particular case, can't quite remember which) on the basis that preventing reporting between arrest and potential charge was unhelpful. Memory suggests this was a case where releasing the name before charge might allow other victims to come forward.
I will see if I can dig out anything on this.
-
I note you've ignored my point about what could be said that would never come close to the threshold for contempt of court, specifically ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.
Politicians regularly hide behind this to avoid having to answer any awkward questions regardless of whether giving the answer would pose ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.
No, I'd covered that in pointing out that any advice will be to avoid any implication as it's open to interpretation. 'Oh no, FM I don"t think there would be any problem making a statement like that. There's this bloke on a messageboard, and he thinks you would be fine.'
-
No, I'd covered that in pointing out that any advice will be to avoid any implication as it's open to interpretation. 'Oh no, FM I don"t think there would be any problem making a statement like that. There's this bloke on a messageboard, and he thinks you would be fine.'
Whether contempt starts at arrest, charge or any other point won't be open to interpretation - it will undoubtedly be specified precisely in law.
-
The point at which contempt kicks in will be specific - I am genuinely unclear (as I suspect are you) as we seem to have differences of opinion from the learned legal profession.
I do know that there was a move to change the law some while ago (driven by a particular case, can't quite remember which) on the basis that preventing reporting between arrest and potential charge was unhelpful. Memory suggests this was a case where releasing the name before charge might allow other victims to come forward.
I will see if I can dig out anything on this.
That's why I was saying this a specific comment on this case by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I've asked Roddy Dunlop for his opinion of the webpage.
-
Whether contempt starts at arrest, charge or any other point won't be open to interpretation - it will undoubtedly be specified precisely in law.
You seem confused, that post was in reply to you asking me about whether the comment would amount to contempt.
-
That's why I was saying this a specific comment on this case by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I've asked Roddy Dunlop for his opinion of the webpage.
Good - well let's hope we can get to the bottom of this one, as neither you nor I are specialists, yet I'd imagine both Roddy Dunlop and the firm of Livingstone Brown are, and for reasons I don't understand they don't seem to agree with each other.
-
You seem confused, that post was in reply to you asking me about whether the comment would amount to contempt.
OK, understood.
Surely you'd agree that one of the most frustrating responses from a politician is when the decline to answer a question related to something that is clearly only (at best) tangentially related to some legal action, on the basis that they 'cannot comment'. This has nothing to do with potential legal ramifications and everything to do with obfuscation and smoke screen.
-
Good - well let's hope we can get to the bottom of this one, as neither you nor I are specialists, yet I'd imagine both Roddy Dunlop and the firm of Livingstone Brown are, and for reasons I don't understand they don't seem to agree with each other.
Agreed, though I will point out that if there is this type of possible confusion a good lawyer, even if not a specialist, would give the advice to say nothing on this from now on that could be interpreted in any way as contempt. It is not a game of chicken.
-
OK, understood.
Surely you'd agree that one of the most frustrating responses from a politician is when the decline to answer a question related to something that is clearly only (at best) tangentially related to some legal action, on the basis that they 'cannot comment'. This has nothing to do with potential legal ramifications and everything to do with obfuscation and smoke screen.
It can be abused undoubtedly but I don't think that any comment good or bad on Murrell can be seen as tangential.
-
On the subject of avoiding comment this is the sole tweet from Ian Blackford, humble crofter, today
-
It can be abused undoubtedly but I don't think that any comment good or bad on Murrell can be seen as tangential.
So here is an example - on the very matter:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-refuses-discuss-ongoing-29225122
So Sturgeon refused to answer a direct question on the basis that "I’m not going to discuss an on-going police investigation" and then gets an SNP spokesperson to answer the bit that she wants (i.e. she hadn't spoken to the Police).
Point is that there is no way that answering whether she had or had not spoken to the Police, nor whether or not she expected to be interviewed, by Police Scotland isn't going to come close to meeting the threshold on contempt of court. The reason being that by the time anything is actually being decided whether or not she had spoken to the police would simply be a matter of fact.
Classic using 'cannot comment' as a mechanism to 'manage comment'.
-
It can be abused undoubtedly but I don't think that any comment good or bad on Murrell can be seen as tangential.
What even something as anodyne as 'yes, I always had a good working relationship with Murrell'.
People make these kind of comments all the time - you know the classic 'well he was always friendly and polite' or 'he was always a bit of a loner - kept himself to himself' as a neighbour is asked about a person who have just been charged with murder on BBC news.
-
So here is an example - on the very matter:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-refuses-discuss-ongoing-29225122
So Sturgeon refused to answer a direct question on the basis that "I’m not going to discuss an on-going police investigation" and then gets an SNP spokesperson to answer the bit that she wants (i.e. she hadn't spoken to the Police).
Point is that there is no way that answering whether she had or had not spoken to the Police, nor whether or not she expected to be interviewed, by Police Scotland isn't going to come close to meeting the threshold on contempt of court. The reason being that by the time anything is actually being decided whether or not she had spoken to the police would simply be a matter of fact.
Classic using 'cannot comment' as a mechanism to 'manage comment'.
Agree. Which is why I wrote 'It can be abused undoubtedly'
-
What even something as anodyne as 'yes, I always had a good working relationship with Murrell'.
People make these kind of comments all the time - you know the classic 'well he was always friendly and polite' or 'he was always a bit of a loner - kept himself to himself' as a neighbour is asked about a person who have just been charged with murder on BBC news.
I think you might get away with I liked his Paso Doble, actually scrub that. The case is about Murrell at work.
-
I think you might get away with I liked his Paso Doble, actually scrub that. The case is about Murrell at work.
Are you really claiming that saying 'yes, I always had a good working relationship with Murrell', would actually come close to a threshold of "a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced"? I mean really :o
-
Are you really claiming that saying 'yes, I always had a good working relationship with Murrell', would actually come close to a threshold of "a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced"? I mean really :o
I'm saying I would advise the FM of Scotland not to make any comments that could on anyway be interpreted as approval or disapproval because the aim is not to avoid actually losing any contempt of court case but not to play chicken with the law.
-
What can you say?
-
Perhaps they are searching for the recently deceased corpse of Scottish Independence.
-
Murrell released pending further investigation
-
Notable how much more the Scottish Tory and Labour leaders, and to an even greater extent, the papers this morning feel they could comfortably say about the situation, compared to Yousaf.
No doubt the other party leaders and the papers also have access to legal opinion to ensure their comments don't fall foul of the contempt of court threshold.
Almost as if Yousaf's 'can't comment on an active investigation' is political based on not wanting to make any comment, rather than not being legally able to. The papers are raising points about how much Sturgeon knew, whether this was the reason she resigned and whether the timing of the police action was delayed so it wasn't during the actual SNP election. They clearly feel raising these points is fine legally.
If and when Yousaf gets asked the same questions do you think he will give his opinion (which would clearly be fine legally) or make no comment on the (spurious) basis that he cannot comment during an active investigation.
-
Interesting from Iain McWhirter
https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/scotland-is-in-a-very-dark-place
There was a split in the country, or at least, that part that is interested in politics, between the popcorn eaters and mothing to see groups, but also those of us who are saddened by it. One friend yesterday put up a post on twitter, halfway through the morning, to announce that they had just made a reasonable size donation to the SNP because they trusted the party. Predictably, they were replied to with many offers of bridges.
I think in some ways this relates to Prof D's hypothesis that there has been a change in political culture, and I would suggest that it combines with my overuse of the popcorn trope. Politics has become much more of a spectacle. The images of the police outside the house of Murrell and Sturgeon yesterday instantly created memes. And even those of us who might despair about what is going on will have found many funny.
24/7 news and social media are the barkers for the circus, and part of me will feel cheated if there are no carnival arrests today. After all, it's a long weekend coming up so that will mean just speculation but little show.
-
This is farcical
https://twitter.com/danwnews/status/1643890843433025538?t=0yG3cClULw5TMbNS6_IFEg&s=19
-
Or whether Murrell pulls Sturgeon into the path of the bus.
Arguably he already has, if you define the bus as "end of political career".
-
Trade you this one:
https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/contempt-of-court
"Where court proceedings are active (in criminal cases, from the point of charge onwards) any publication that creates ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ will be regarded as a contempt of court, on a strict liability basis."
This is in the context of Scottish law from Contempt of Court lawyers, so perhaps there is some confusion.
Nonetheless - the threshold is ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ - there is plenty that a politician could say, legally, that would never reach that threshold. That they may not do so has as much to do with the politics of the matter (whether avoiding awkward questions or avoiding seeming to support a colleague) as the law.
Are we not technically still in the investigation stage. I'm not aware that anybody is on trial yet.
Edit: Murrell was released without charge, so we are not even at the beginning of the court stage yet.
That said, it would be very wise of the current FM not to say anything about this. Even "I have full confidence in Peter Murrell" might be unwise because a) it might be seen as trying to influence the investigation and b) Murrell might be guilty and then Humza Yousaf would look a bit stupid.
-
This is farcical
https://twitter.com/danwnews/status/1643890843433025538?t=0yG3cClULw5TMbNS6_IFEg&s=19
In what way?
-
That said, it would be very wise of the current FM not to say anything about this. Even "I have full confidence in Peter Murrell" might be unwise because a) it might be seen as trying to influence the investigation and b) Murrell might be guilty and then Humza Yousaf would look a bit stupid.
Indeed, but these are political rather than legal judgement I think.
I suspect Yousaf will be asked the following questions in the coming days (as the newspapers are already posing them):
1. When and how much did your predecessor know about the situation?
2. Was your predecessor's decision to resign linked to these issues?
3. Did the SNP accelerate the leadership contest timeline because they were concerned about these issues?
4. Did the police delay yesterday's actions to avoid acting during the election campaign?
Clearly the newspapers (and others) don't think posing these questions falls foul of contempt as they are all over today's papers.
Now truthfully Yousaf's answer might be 'I don't know', but I suspect his response will use the smokescreen of contempt - something like 'I cannot comment on anything related to the active investigation'.
Yousaf's priority will be to detach himself as far as possible from the investigation and hiding behind contempt allowing him 'no comment' answers is the best approach. But this will largely be driven by the politics, not the legality.
-
In what way?
Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.
-
Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.
But she's a hugely high profile person - so some of the officers will be there to manage the throngs of press, photographers etc outside her home and to allow her neighbours to go about their business without being harassed by the press.
-
But she's a hugely high profile person - so some of the officers will be there to manage the throngs of press, photographers etc outside her home and to allow her neighbours to go about their business.
You mean he's married to a high profile person. The SNP offices were searched yesterday. They are relatively large as opposed to this house.
-
Indeed, but these are political rather than legal judgement I think.
Of course. But not all hot water is legal hot water.
I suspect Yousaf will be asked the following questions in the coming days (as the newspapers are already posing them):
1. When and how much did your predecessor know about the situation?
2. Was your predecessor's decision to resign linked to these issues?
3. Did the SNP accelerate the leadership contest timeline because they were concerned about these issues?
4. Did the police delay yesterday's actions to avoid acting during the election campaign?
Clearly the newspapers (and others) don't think posing these questions falls foul of contempt as they are all over today's papers.
Now truthfully Yousaf's answer might be 'I don't know', but I suspect his response will use the smokescreen of contempt - something like 'I cannot comment on anything related to the active investigation'.
Yousaf's priority will be to detach himself as far as possible from the investigation and hiding behind contempt allowing him 'no comment' answers is the best approach. But this will largely be driven by the politics, not the legality.
I don't think I'd rely on the newspapers to only ask questions that would keep me out of legal trouble. It seems to me that they have a vested interest in seeing politicians break the law because it helps them fill their pages.
I don't think Yousaf will use the word "contempt". He'll say something like "I don't wish to prejudice the investigation". Even you have managed to demonstrate that it wouldn't be contempt because Murrell has not yet been charged. However prejudicing the investigation is more woolly.
-
Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.
I assume they know what they are doing.
-
...Even PD has managed to demonstrate that it wouldn't be contempt because Murrell has not yet been charged. However prejudicing the investigation is more woolly.
Do you mean 'Even if'?
-
Do you mean 'Even if'?
No. I thought I was replying to you and not PD. I have corrected it now.
-
Of course. But not all hot water is legal hot water.
True - but politicians are very good at using the (spurious) excuse of legal hot water to avoid answering questions that are politically inconvenient.
-
I assume they know what they are doing.
Because the actions of the police are such that as a citizen you have no grounds to question that assumption?
-
You mean he's married to a high profile person. The SNP offices were searched yesterday. They are relatively large as opposed to this house.
It's her home just as much as his that is being searched.
And the little clip you linked to suggests (at the very least) three photographers capturing everything that is going on. I suspect there are rather more than that and therefore additional police presence is needed to manage the press outside than would be required if they were searching the home of a person who wasn't of interest to the media.
-
No. I thought I was replying to you and not PD. I have corrected it now.
I would still suggest you have missed out an if following the 'Even".
-
It's her home just as much as his that is being searched.
And the little clip you linked to suggests (at the very least) three photographers capturing everything that is going on. I suspect there are rather more than that and therefore additional police presence is needed to manage the press outside than would be required if they were searching the home of a person who wasn't of interest to the media.
It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.
-
It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.
Crawling with press and media outside.
-
It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.
Well I guess every document, and every electronic device, they take needs to be carefully recorded to determine exactly where it was when they found it. And given that, should this go to court, it is likely that Murrell would be able to call upon a top legal team (as Salmond did) then the police will want to be absolutely certain that the search is completely watertight or the legal team will rip them to shreds.
Given that this is going to be hugely politically controversial (it already is - see your own comments) then making sure everything is done painstakingly and carefully makes sense.
-
Crawling with press and media outside.
Does that change the size of the house? Or what a possible fraud case involves in terms of a search?
-
Well I guess every document they take needs to be carefully recorded to determine exactly where it was when they found it. And given that, should this go to court, it is likely that Murrell would be able to call upon a top legal team (as Salmond did) then the police will want to be absolutely certain that the search is completely watertight or the legal team will rip them to shreds.
Given that this is going to be hugely politically controversial (it already is - see your own comments) then making sure everything is done painstakingly and carefully makes sense.
Oh look a guess
ETA - and see earlier comment about the search of the SNP offices.
-
Oh look a guess
Nope - a perfectly reasonable point.
And do you know the usual amount of time police may spend searching a house in a forensic fraud investigation? This may be perfectly normal.
-
Nope - a perfectly reasonable point.
And do you know the usual amount of time police may spend searching a house in a forensic fraud investigation? This may be perfectly normal.
You said 'I guess' - which is what I pointed out. The offices of the SNP were searched quicker despite ot being a considerably larger premises.
-
You said 'I guess' - which is what I pointed out. The offices of the SNP were searched quicker despite ot being a considerably larger premises.
A turn of phrase Chip.
Regarding the SNP offices it is reasonable to conclude that most material there will relate to the SNP, that there is a clear filing process and therefore any seize and sift process may well be a lot more straightforward. In a private household it is much more likely the SNP-related material will be buried within non-SNP material, either in hard copy or electronically.
I gather in these cases for everything that might be removed Police have to record what has been seized, grounds for seizure and how the original owner can apply for return. It is actually expected that where reasonably practicable copies should be take of all material to be seized and only the copies removed.
I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?
-
A turn of phrase Chip.
Regarding the SNP offices it is reasonable to conclude that most material there will relate to the SNP, that there is a clear filing process and therefore any seize and sift process may well be a lot more straightforward. In a private household it is much more likely the SNP-related material will be buried within non-SNP material, either in hard copy or electronically.
I gather in these cases for everything that might be removed Police have to record what has been seized, grounds for seizure and how the original owner can apply for return. It is actually expected that where reasonably practicable copies should be take of all material to be seized and only the copies removed.
I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?
A turn of phrase that the rest of your post shows was true. You guessed.
-
A turn of phrase that the rest of your post shows was true. You guessed.
Nope - no guess. Completely based on police procedures and set out in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants
-
Nope - no guess. Completely based on police procedures and set out in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants
As your experience in police searches tells you.
-
As your experience in police searches tells you.
You do understand that you can get valuable information from that inter-web thingy.
This is the process - it looks pretty complex and laborious to me. Particularly where you are needing to separate relevant material from non-relevant stuff, which will of course be much more likely in a private house than in the office of the relevant organisation.
But I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?
You seem pretty much of the opinion that this is taking longer than normal but have failed to provide one iota of evidence to support this - zip, zilch, nada.
-
You do understand that you can get valuable information from that inter-web thingy.
This is the process - it looks pretty complex and laborious to me. Particularly where you are needing to separate relevant material from non-relevant stuff, which will of course be much more likely in a private house than in the office of the relevant organisation.
But I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?
You seem pretty much of the opinion that this is taking longer than normal but have failed to provide one iota of evidence to support this - zip, zilch, nada.
Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.
-
Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.
Weird comment from the guy who routinely posts comments which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.
-
Weird comment from the guy who routinely posts comments which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.
Could you offer a couple of examples of what you mean?
-
Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.
Actually the web is a marvellous source of information to allow someone with little direct experience of a topic to understand more.
Provided, of course, that you use a reputable source of information and not rely on someone's twitter speculation.
And in this case I would have thought that an article on Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing and its link to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, is about as reputable a source as you can get. Providing of course, that we were discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution. Oh, yes - that's exactly what we were discussing.
But hey ho, Chip's voiced his opinion and linked to a tweet of a brief video clip and deemed it 'farcical'.
You do understand what the term non-equivalence means, don't you.
-
Could you offer a couple of examples of what you mean?
Err check out your list of recent posts:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=0
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=25
Numbers 3, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 36
all fit perfectly with my comment - all being posts which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.
-
Err check out your list of recent posts:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=0
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=25
Numbers 3, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 36
all fit perfectly with my comment - all being posts which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.
So the examples are are things I don't state in an objective statement from. I think you have made a category mistake on. I did think about saying that in my last reply but I wanted to get confirmation of your confusion. Thank you for your asdiduous work in doing so.
-
Actually the web is a marvellous source of information to allow someone with little direct experience of a topic to understand more.
Provided, of course, that you use a reputable source of information and not rely on someone's twitter speculation.
And in this case I would have thought that an article on Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing and its link to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, is about as reputable a source as you can get. Providing of course, that we were discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution. Oh, yes - that's exactly what we were discussing.
But hey ho, Chip's voiced his opinion and linked to a tweet of a brief video clip and deemed it 'farcical'.
You do understand what the term non-equivalence means, don't you.
Yes, I know you've tried a lazy ad hom to help your guessing
-
To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/
-
Yes, I know you've tried a lazy ad hom to help your guessing
Oh dear - nice try at a diversionary tactic. But won't work.
Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.
-
Oh dear - nice try at a diversionary tactic. But won't work.
Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.
I didn't introduce the ad hom.
-
To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/
Which rather proves two of the points I've been making.
First that Yousaf will distance himself as far as he can from Sturgeon/Murrell - I think saying the following:
'he was "very, very clear that the governance of the party was not as it should be" and said the party would not be recruiting his wife - Nadia El-Nakla - an SNP councillor in Dundee - as the party's new chief executive.'
Meets my criteria of throwing Murrell under the bus. The second part is a hardly veiled attack on Sturgeon, so she's been pushed to the edge of the curb, kind of teetering on the edge with a little push placing her in front of the bus.
My second point is about the legal vs political and that when it suits him politically to do the 'no comment' thing he's happy to do so. But when it suits him politically to make a highly pointed comment about Murrell's stewardship of the party, which arguably could be seen to prejudice a trial, the whole legal thing goes out of the window. His comments and/or lack of them are driven by the politics not the legality as he's well aware that you have to go a very long way before comments enter the territory of contempt.
-
I didn't introduce the ad hom.
Yawn.
Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.
-
Because the actions of the police are such that as a citizen you have no grounds to question that assumption?
I do not, at this time, have any grounds to question my assumption. If you have some evidence that is more substantial than general cynicism about the police and politicians, please do tell.
-
I would still suggest you have missed out an if following the 'Even".
I suppose that it is possible that the legal web site he quoted was wrong, but, as long as it was accurate, PD has demonstrated that contempt does not yet apply, because Murrell has not yet been charged with a crime.
-
To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/
My wife is not going to be applying for the role of chief executive
Yep. Here's that bus.
-
I do not, at this time, have any grounds to question my assumption. If you have some evidence that is more substantial than general cynicism about the police and politicians, please do tell.
Indeed - NS claims that the number of police and time taken for the search is 'farcical', yet is completely unable to back up this assertion.
He's refused to address my question about how long searches usually take - I suspect he has absolutely no idea because, of course, most searches aren't conducted in front of 24-hour rolling news cameras.
And on that point he doesn't appear to have acknowledged that an additional complexity in this instance will be dealing with the press, media, photographers, drones out side the property. This will necessarily require additional police time and resource.
And, despite asking several times, he has failed to answer why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.
I wonder why that might be - perhaps because it demonstrates that under the law a search of this nature is required to be conducted in a painfully painstaking manner, certainly every document clearly recorded, likely every document sifted to identify relevant and non relevant material and probably copied before removal. Under the legal rules it is hardly surprising that a search of this nature will be lengthy.
Yet NS accuses me of 'guessing' when I have actually informed myself from gold-standard reputable sources - including the actual primary legislation on the matter. Rather NS posits hyperbole like 'farcical' from a position of complete ignorance of the actual processes and the law. And worse seems to refuse to accept highly reputable sources of information, when provided on a plate to him (just one or two clicks away), presumably because they undermine his hyperbolic prejudged and ignorant view.
Hey ho, was ever thus.
-
Indeed - NS claims that the number of police and time taken for the search is 'farcical', yet is completely unable to back up this assertion.
He's refused to address my question about how long searches usually take - I suspect he has absolutely no idea because, of course, most searches aren't conducted in front of 24-hour rolling news cameras.
And on that point he doesn't appear to have acknowledged that an additional complexity in this instance will be dealing with the press, media, photographers, drones out side the property. This will necessarily require additional police time and resource.
And, despite asking several times, he has failed to answer why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.
I wonder why that might be - perhaps because it demonstrates that under the law a search of this nature is required to be conducted in a painfully painstaking manner, certainly every document clearly recorded, likely every document sifted to identify relevant and non relevant material and probably copied before removal. Under the legal rules it is hardly surprising that a search of this nature will be lengthy.
Yet NS accuses me of 'guessing' when I have actually informed myself from gold-standard reputable sources - including the actual primary legislation on the matter. Rather NS posits hyperbole like 'farcical' from a position of complete ignorance of the actual processes and the law. And worse seems to refuse to accept highly reputable sources of information, when provided on a plate to him (just one or two clicks away), presumably because they undermine his hyperbolic prejudged and ignorant view.
Hey ho, was ever thus.
This room in your head is very comfy.
-
This room in your head is very comfy.
and he accuses me of ad hominem attacks.🙄
Hey, ho - was ever thus.
-
Good - well let's hope we can get to the bottom of this one, as neither you nor I are specialists, yet I'd imagine both Roddy Dunlop and the firm of Livingstone Brown are, and for reasons I don't understand they don't seem to agree with each other.
Roddy Dunlop's tweet wasn't speculation - he said contempt of court protections are triggered on arrest and he seems to have backed that up with an image of the relevant legislation, which seems pretty clear that arrest is a trigger for when contempt of court applies. The legislation he posted was the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 2 which says:
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.
(4) Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.
If we look at Schedule 1:
SCHEDULE 1 U.K.
Times when Proceedings are Active for Purposes of Section 2
3 U.K. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step
specified in paragraph 4 [F32or 4A] until concluded as described in paragraph 5.
4 U.K. The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—
(a)arrest without warrant;
(b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;
5 U.K. Criminal proceedings are concluded—
(a)by acquittal or, as the case may be, by sentence;
(b)by any other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings;
(c)by discontinuance or by operation of law;
7 U.K. Proceedings are discontinued within the meaning of paragraph 5(c)—
(b)in Scotland, if the proceedings are expressly abandoned by the prosecutor or are deserted simpliciter;[/i]
-
Roddy Dunlop's tweet wasn't speculation - he said contempt of court protections are triggered on arrest and he seems to have backed that up with an image of the relevant legislation, which seems pretty clear that arrest is a trigger for when contempt of court applies. The legislation he posted was the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 2 which says:
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.
(4) Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.
If we look at Schedule 1:
SCHEDULE 1 U.K.
Times when Proceedings are Active for Purposes of Section 2
3 U.K. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step
specified in paragraph 4 [F32or 4A] until concluded as described in paragraph 5.
4 U.K. The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—
(a)arrest without warrant;
(b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;
5 U.K. Criminal proceedings are concluded—
(a)by acquittal or, as the case may be, by sentence;
(b)by any other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings;
(c)by discontinuance or by operation of law;
7 U.K. Proceedings are discontinued within the meaning of paragraph 5(c)—
(b)in Scotland, if the proceedings are expressly abandoned by the prosecutor or are deserted simpliciter;[/i]
I don't think i ever said that Dunlop's comments were speculation - he's a highly respected lawyer. My initial understanding was based on the link from another legal source, which implied that contempt kicking in at the point of charge, but this may be wrong. It does seem a bit strange that two distinct and reputable legal sources are implying something different.
So your links to the actual act are helpful - suggests perhaps kicks in at arrest rather than charge. As does this:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
This states:
'"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.'
However it goes on to say (my emphasis):
"Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.'
So given that Murrell has been released without charge and I don't think he was released on bail, this might imply that the case was 'active' in contempt terms for a couple of days from the point of arrest until Murrell was released without charge, but in now not active, until a further stage occurs.
There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:
'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'
Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.
-
Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.
Interesting they decided to go for a 2 day spectacle. In 2015, up to 20 police only took only one day (08:00 until 19:00) to search Lord Bramell's 4 bed, 2 bathroom, 3 reception room £1m + detached house in Crondall Farnham Surrey, in relation to Operation Midland's high-profile child sex abuse allegation, which turned out to be complete fantasy.
-
I don't think i ever said that Dunlop's comments were speculation - he's a highly respected lawyer. My initial understanding was based on the link from another legal source, which implied that contempt kicking in at the point of charge, but this may be wrong. It does seem a bit strange that two distinct and reputable legal sources are implying something different.
So your links to the actual act are helpful - suggests perhaps kicks in at arrest rather than charge. As does this:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
This states:
'"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.'
However it goes on to say (my emphasis):
"Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.'
So given that Murrell has been released without charge and I don't think he was released on bail, this might imply that the case was 'active' in contempt terms for a couple of days from the point of arrest until Murrell was released without charge, but in now not active, until a further stage occurs.
There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:
'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'
Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.
NS in his reply #618 linked to a statement from the police in Scotland that Murrell has been released without charge but that Contempt of Court Act still applies.
On Wednesday, a Police Scotland spokesperson said: “A 58-year-old man who was arrested as a suspect earlier today in connection with the ongoing investigation into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party, has been released without charge pending further investigation.
“The man was questioned by Police Scotland detectives after he was arrested at 7.45am. He was released from custody at 6.57pm.
“Officers also carried out searches today at a number of addresses as part of the investigation.
“A report will be sent to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
“The matter remains active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the public are therefore advised to exercise caution if discussing it on social media.
“As the investigation is ongoing we are unable to comment further.”
-
There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:
'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'
Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.
The National https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436112.contempt-court-cant-media-report-peter-murrells-arrest/
states: Also to be remembered is that while the 1981 Act is UK-wide, contempt of court is taken much more seriously in Scotland than south of the Border.
It quotes what Dunlop has to say regarding the risk:
Dunlop had written previously: “Again: a reminder of the requirements of contempt of court. Your tweet will, unless deleted, be available forever. What might seem ok today might not be tomorrow. And it will be visible anywhere, and so even if sent from Scotland might be a contempt of English cases (or v/versa).
“Accordingly, commenting on ongoing criminal proceedings requires extreme caution and, to be frank, is best avoided – not only to avoid contempt but also because you do not want to risk imperilling the trial.”
The UK Government provides a useful checklist of things which you should avoid if you do not want to fall foul of the law once a person has been arrested and a case made "active".
The list of actions to be avoided includes:
- saying whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
So I think it makes sense for the FM to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as speculation that Murrell is innocent.
Given that Alex Salmond availed himself of his right to judicial review against the Scottish government for its handling of a non-criminal investigation, presumably the Scottish Government won't want to be seen to get it wrong in relation to an actual criminal investigation.
-
and he accuses me of ad hominem attacks.🙄
Hey, ho - was ever thus.
And chips for free as well.
-
He's not the Messiah...
I love the smell of outrage in the National
https://archive.vn/ZAGvD
-
He's not the Messiah...
I love the smell of outrage in the National
https://archive.vn/ZAGvD
Too soon?
-
Too soon?
In what way?
-
In what way?
It was a joke. When people start making jokes about some tragedy and it falls flat, "too soon" is often the way the situation is diffused. It's often used ironically, if the original tragedy happened a long time ago e.g. two millennia.
-
It was a joke. When people start making jokes about some tragedy and it falls flat, "too soon" is often the way the situation is diffused. It's often used ironically, if the original tragedy happened a long time ago e.g. two millennia.
D'oh
-
It's an interesting take to say there needs to be a rerun of the leadership election but only one result is acceptable.
https://archive.is/KtYL3
-
It's an interesting take to say there needs to be a rerun of the leadership election but only one result is acceptable.
https://archive.is/KtYL3
I don't see where it says only one result would be acceptable. It does seem to say Yousaf is tainted by the scandal and it implies the election was rigged to get him in.
-
I don't see where it says only one result would be acceptable. It does seem to say Yousaf is tainted by the scandal and it implies the election was rigged to get him in.
Last line is 'Only Kate Forbes as leader and Ash Regan as her deputy can begin to restore that trust.'
-
Last line is 'Only Kate Forbes as leader and Ash Regan as her deputy can begin to restore that trust.'
Apologies. Missed that.
-
Here's a probably impossible question to answer:
What is the current sentiment in Scotland wrt the SNP?
From down here in Bristol, it looks like the people responsible for the shenanigans are mostly gone and the SNP is still the only credible party that wants independence. I don't see their vote collapsing completely.
Can they just tough it out?
-
Here's a probably impossible question to answer:
What is the current sentiment in Scotland wrt the SNP?
From down here in Bristol, it looks like the people responsible for the shenanigans are mostly gone and the SNP is still the only credible party that wants independence. I don't see their vote collapsing completely.
Can they just tough it out?
The vote won't collapse but... It doesn't have to for there to be issues. The next big vote will be the UK General.Election. I think it likely they will lose substantial number of seats to Labour. An ongoing scandal will affect that. If there is some tactical voting they could be the second biggest party in seat terms.
We don't have a scheduled Scottish Parliament election till 2026 - way too far away to even think of. The issue in the Scottish Parliament is the SNP's internal battles. Will be very interested in what happens with the Deposit Recovery Scheme - not significant in itself but a proxy battle as regards Green involvement in govt. Also of course what happens on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill - if that goes to court and the SNP Govt lose - could be a bloodbath.
-
Not sure the SNP can spell trasnparecny
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-auditors-quit-october-public-29681685
-
Not sure the SNP can spell trasnparecny
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-auditors-quit-october-public-29681685
And the resignation of the auditors was kept from the NEC
https://archive.vn/jMAuB
-
Interesting article from John Curtice on the possible move of independence supporters to Labour.
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2023/04/a-broken-link-support-for-independence-and-the-snp/
-
And the resignation of the auditors was kept from the NEC
https://archive.vn/jMAuB
And they are only just now looking to appoint new auditors.
-
And they are only just now looking to appoint new auditors.
Don't think that's clear. Yousaf has said it's now a priority but the worry is that they have being trying unsuccessfully for 6 months.
-
And more on the exciting world of auditing
https://archive.is/2023.04.12-052726/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23449248.snp-finance-woes-deepen-auditors-leave-partys-westminster-group/
-
And more on the exciting world of auditing
https://archive.is/2023.04.12-052726/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23449248.snp-finance-woes-deepen-auditors-leave-partys-westminster-group/
And of course the motorhome. We are in a beige scandal.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-motorhome-seized-police-holyrood-29686185
-
Caesar's 'fixer's wife
https://archive.ph/2023.04.12-125004/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23450487.humza-yousaf-hands-plum-snp-job-wife-independence-minister/
-
Caesar's 'fixer's wife
https://archive.ph/2023.04.12-125004/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23450487.humza-yousaf-hands-plum-snp-job-wife-independence-minister/
Oh dear. That doesn't look good, especially after Yousaf's comments about his own wife not applying to be CEO.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65264713
It seems there is a lot about the SNP that its new leader didn't find out about until after he had won. I wonder if he's having second thoughts.
-
Kevin McKenna putting the boot in
https://archive.is/2023.04.17-065016/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/23458842.kevin-mckenna-snp-took-scotland-ride/
-
''Yoons'' ha ha ha ha
-
SNP Treasurer arrested
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65309791
-
Humza Yousaf: I don't believe the SNP is operating criminally
Hmmm.....
https://archive.vn/ehb4z
-
Humza Yousaf: I don't believe the SNP is operating criminally
Hmmm.....
https://archive.vn/ehb4z
Hmm - and there was me thinking he couldn't comment on an active investigation, certainly not opining that someone is guilty or not guilty.
-
Hmm - and there was me thinking he couldn't comment on an active investigation, certainly not opining that someone is guilty or not guilty.
I think you mean 'shouldn't' not 'couldn't'
-
I think you mean 'shouldn't' not 'couldn't'
Nope:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-nicola-sturgeon-urged-29635548
"Both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Yousaf have so far claimed that could not comment on an active investigation"
So is this Schrodinger's active investigation - one in which Yousaf both cannot comment on and at the same time can comment on. Or perhaps good old fashioned politics - will comment when it suits him politically, will claim he cannot comment when any comment would undermine him politically.
-
Nope:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-nicola-sturgeon-urged-29635548
"Both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Yousaf have so far claimed that could not comment on an active investigation"
So is this Schrodinger's active investigation - one in which Yousaf both cannot comment on and at the same time can comment on. Or perhaps good old fashioned politics - will comment when it suits him politically, will claim he cannot comment when any comment would undermine him politically.
Then he shouldn't have said that as it does indeed undermine him politically. I don't take the Express as a style guide.
-
I don't take the Express as a style guide.
Nor do I, but we aren't dealing with Express opinion but factual information as to what he said.
And if you don't like the Express, how about the National:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436464.humza-yousaf-speaks-following-peter-murrells-arrest/
'The First Minister told journalist Alan Smith: “As you’ll understand I can’t comment on a live police investigation but what I can say and what reassurance I absolutely can give is that the SNP have been fully co-operating in that police investigation and will continue to do so.'
And you can actually see him say those very words at the beginning of the video clip in the link.
So he cannot comment on a live police investigation, until ... err ... he can and does comment on a live police investigation. Point being (and I've been making this point till I'm blue in the face) there is plenty scope to comment on a live police investigation without coming close to the contempt threshold. And I suspect Yousaf and his legal advisors know this - so there is plenty he can say legally but his political advisors will advise him not to. Not because he cannot comment but because it is politically advantageous to duck challenging questions by claiming he cannot comment, when he actually can but is choosing not to.
-
Nor do I, but we aren't dealing with Express opinion but factual information as to what he said.
And if you don't like the Express, how about the National:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436464.humza-yousaf-speaks-following-peter-murrells-arrest/
'The First Minister told journalist Alan Smith: “As you’ll understand I can’t comment on a live police investigation but what I can say and what reassurance I absolutely can give is that the SNP have been fully co-operating in that police investigation and will continue to do so.'
And you can actually see him say those very words at the beginning of the video clip in the link.
So he cannot comment on a live police investigation, until ... err ... he can and does comment on a live police investigation. Point being (and I've been making this point till I'm blue in the face) there is plenty scope to comment on a live police investigation without coming close to the contempt threshold. And I suspect Yousaf and his legal advisors know this - so there is plenty he can say legally but his political advisors will advise him not to. Not because he cannot comment but because it is politically advantageous to duck challenging questions by claiming he cannot comment, when he actually can but is choosing not to.
Are you suggesting that he was advised to say this?
-
Profile of Colin Beattie - the arrested treasurer.
https://news.stv.tv/politics/colin-beattie-profile-the-discreet-snp-treasurer-arrested-by-police-scotland-in-finance-probe
-
Are you suggesting that he was advised to say this?
Advised to say what?
-
Advised to say what?
See replies 697 and 698
-
See replies 697 and 698
I doubt he was advised to say this - however I imagine his legal team would have advised him that making a statement of that nature would not contravene the legal threshold for contempt.
However at other times he's closed down difficult questions with the "cannot comment" line, when I suspect his legal team would have advised that he could comment, but it was expedient of him not to and to use this as the reason.
-
I doubt he was advised to say this - however I imagine his legal team would have advised him that making a statement of that nature would not contravene the legal threshold for contempt.
However at other times he's closed down difficult questions with the "cannot comment" line, when I suspect his legal team would have advised that he could comment, but it was expedient of him not to and to use this as the reason.
I imagine you're wrong, and I take it you are suggesting that he decided here to overrule his political advisors who you've already imagined telling him not to say anything.
It's a politically idiotic statement. It's a legally stupid one.
-
I imagine you're wrong, and I take it you are suggesting that he decided here to overrule his political advisors who you've already imagined telling him not to say anything.
His legal advisors will advise him on what he can say within the legal rules. I suspect they will have advised him that his comment would be within the legal rules if he chose to make that comment.
His political advisors would advise him not to comment where commenting would not be to his political advantage and to comment where it is to his political advantage. They will also (of course) say that any comment must be OK legally, but that would be for the legal team, not them to comment on.
It's a politically idiotic statement.
Not really - now that he is leader of the SNP, he needs to protect the SNP as far as he can. And he needs to protect his position as leader of the SNP as far as he can. That is what is in his political interest.
He was asked whether the SNP was operating criminally now, since he became leader. It is clearly in his political interests to say that now, since he became leader that he believes that the SNP isn't operating criminally. It is politically in his interests as to suggest otherwise, or even not to comment, would be bonkers. It also helps (and boy does he need help) to create a narrative that he is cleaning up the mess - that things weren't right in the past, but they are now OK.
It's a legally stupid one.
Really? He was asked, and commented on, the situation now. The criminal investigation is about past events. Why is it legally stupid to comment on the current position, which as far as I am aware isn't the subject of police investigations.
-
His legal advisors will advise him on what he can say within the legal rules. I suspect they will have advised him that his comment would be within the legal rules if he chose to make that comment.
His political advisors would advise him not to comment where commenting would not be to his political advantage and to comment where it is to his political advantage. They will also (of course) say that any comment must be OK legally, but that would be for the legal team, not them to comment on.
Not really - now that he is leader of the SNP, he needs to protect the SNP as far as he can. And he needs to protect his position as leader of the SNP as far as he can. That is what is in his political interest.
He was asked whether the SNP was operating criminally now, since he became leader. It is clearly in his political interests to say that now, since he became leader that he believes that the SNP isn't operating criminally. It is politically in his interests as to suggest otherwise, or even not to comment, would be bonkers. It also helps (and boy does he need help) to create a narrative that he is cleaning up the mess - that things weren't right in the past, but they are now OK.
Really? He was asked, and commented on, the situation now. The criminal investigation is about past events. Why is it legally stupid to comment on the current position, which as far as I am aware isn't the subject of police investigations.
I find it a tad bizarre that you are so convinced of Yousaf's grasp of the fairly complex areas of law, politics and English usage that you are cheerleading for him being a 7th level Dan on all of them.
-
I find it a tad bizarre that you are so convinced of Yousaf's grasp of the fairly complex areas of law, politics and English usage that you are cheerleading for him being a 7th level Dan on all of them.
I'm not - I don't think you need to be much more than a novice to recognise that legally it is perfectly safe to comment on a current situation when the police investigation is not about the current situation, but a previous situation.
I also think you don't have to be much more than a novice to recognise that politically if you are asked whether the party you lead is currently operating criminally that you would answer that you do not believe that it is.
-
I'm not - I don't think you need to be much more than a novice to recognise that legally it is perfectly safe to comment on a current situation when the police investigation is not about the current situation, but a previous situation.
I also think you don't have to be much more than a novice to recognise that politically if you are asked whether the party you lead is currently operating criminally that you would answer that you do not believe that it is.
What you think about legally being a novice means is just you imagining again.
Politically if you think saying that you don't think your party is criminal is not a stupid thing to say, then I would suggest that describing you as a novice would be hyperbole
-
What you think about legally being a novice means is just you imagining again.
Politically if you think saying that you don't think your party is criminal is not a stupid thing to say, then I would suggest that describing you as a novice would be hyperbole
Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.
What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.
Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.
-
Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.
What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.
Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.
So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?
You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.
-
So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?
You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.
He can’t say nothing because that is the same as no comment.
-
Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.
What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.
Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.
Absolutely spot on.
Remember this question was asked by a journalist as Yousaf walked by so this was an off the cuff comment.
But even on that basis I cannot see how he could have answered in any different manner - either on the basis of legal or political intent.
Remember also that the question was about whether the SNP was currently acting criminally since Yousaf became leader.
He could hardly answer 'yes' could he, either legally as he cannot know for certain, and this would, of course, be deadly politically. To refuse to answer or claim 'no comment due to ongoing investigation' would certainly lead to people thinking there is something dodgy going on right now, noting that there is no criminal investigation into the current situation, only into previous issues so no comment is not a reasonable legal response.
And he didn't say he could guarantee there is no criminal activity (again he cannot be 100% sure) he said he did not believe there was.
So given that he was somewhat 'ambushed' by the question (but obviously would expect questioning of this type) his answer was pretty pitch perfect in both legal and political terms. He is in an awful situation, but he response was about as good as he could have come out with.
-
So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?
You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.
I was addressing the last part of your post where you said you thought it was a stupid thing for Yousaf to say he didn't think the party was operating criminally. So it wasn't going off on a straw man.
However, my last paragraph was addressing an earlier post #697 which implied that you think the treasurer getting arrested means the SNP may well be operating in a criminal way. I should have made that clear, sorry.
-
However, my last paragraph was addressing an earlier post #697 which implied that you think the treasurer getting arrested means the SNP may well be operating in a criminal way. I should have made that clear, sorry.
And even if someone within the SNP was acting criminally in the past (not that that has been proven yet), that doesn't mean there is still criminal activity going on now. And that was the question - not whether there had been criminal activity at some point, but whether Yousaf could guarantee that there isn't criminal activity occurring now, and since he became leader. Answering that he didn't believe there was is surely the only sensible answer.
-
And David Frost offers succour to the SNP by attacking devolution
https://archive.vn/osWVd
-
And David Frost offers succour to the SNP by attacking devolution
https://archive.vn/osWVd
This is a good one:
I say “let us hope” because nothing is predetermined. The SNP’s failings have been widely known for years. The party’s dreadful record on Scottish health and education, the shambolic ferry procurement, its appalling efforts to constrain free speech, its endless nannying and hectoring, its inept pursuit of its own main goal of a second independence referendum
One or two changes and:
I say “let us hope” because nothing is predetermined. The Conservative Party's failings have been widely known for years. The party’s dreadful record on health and education, the shambolic ferry procurement*, its appalling efforts to constrain free speech, its endless nannying and hectoring, its inept pursuit of its own main goal of Brexit
*remember that company they contracted that had no actual ships?
-
This is a good one:
One or two changes and:
*remember that company they contracted that had no actual ships?
Not sure what your point is? Tories and SNP equally shite?
-
And as so often now, ooft
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/scottish-politics-snp-nicola-sturgeon-colin-beattie-police-investigation-b1075484.html
-
Not sure what your point is? Tories and SNP equally shite?
Bingo
-
Now some weird cross between The Wire and Sale of the Century
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-fraud-investigations-looks-items-29783779
-
And Mandy Rhodes on Yousaf's start
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,who-would-have-believed-how-toxic-nicola-sturgeons-legacy-could-become
-
The exciting world of auditing's latest installment
https://archive.vn/lgruT
-
Shauny Boy's latest.
https://youtu.be/nhbz9hYbLFE
-
What mobilehome?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65385825
-
Everything's going fine
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65389829.amp
-
Everything's going fine
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65389829.amp
Hmmm. If they haven’t started the audit yet, providing audited accounts by the end of May is going to be somewhat tricky.
-
“I didn't pass that information on because that wouldn't be my responsibility to do so. There is a leadership team and they have dedicated responsibility. Your question is insulting quite frankly. How dare you. How dare you." - Blackford
Just wow!
https://archive.ph/2023.04.26-051813/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23480703.snp-not-tell-commons-finance-team-auditorss-exit-months/
-
“I didn't pass that information on because that wouldn't be my responsibility to do so. There is a leadership team and they have dedicated responsibility. Your question is insulting quite frankly. How dare you. How dare you." - Blackford
Just wow!
https://archive.ph/2023.04.26-051813/https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23480703.snp-not-tell-commons-finance-team-auditorss-exit-months/
I'm not really sure what to think about that. I'd be inclined to believe Blackford were it not for the fact that he launched that astonishing attack on the journalist for asking the question.
-
I'm not really sure what to think about that. I'd be inclined to believe Blackford were it not for the fact that he launched that astonishing attack on the journalist for asking the question.
I think that's the point here. I could argue whose responsibility it is but it's at least a point for discussion. Blackford comes across as deranged.
-
I think that's the point here. I could argue whose responsibility it is but it's at least a point for discussion. Blackford comes across as deranged.
Whether it was his responsibility or not he could have, and should have, reported it to the parliamentary authorities and passed the information on to Flynn.
-
Whether it was his responsibility or not he could have, and should have, reported it to the parliamentary authorities and passed the information on to Flynn.
Take that up with jeremyp who is 'inclined to believe Blackford'
-
Take that up with jeremyp who is 'inclined to believe Blackford'
I actually said I’m not inclined to believe him. But hey ho, let’s twist my words.
-
Whether it was his responsibility or not he could have, and should have, reported it to the parliamentary authorities and passed the information on to Flynn.
I disagree on the last part. Flynn was informed soon after he was elected. Before he was elected, there was no reason to tell him. Well, there was no legal duty to tell him. I think better transparency would have meant he and all the other SNP MPs should have been informed.
-
I actually said I’m not inclined to believe him. But hey ho, let’s twist my words.
Yeah, apologies, in seeking to point Udayana in your direction, I overemphasised the initial part of your post and created the wrong impression.
-
Bingo
No Jeremy, The Tories are shiter than shite.
-
No Jeremy, The Tories are shiter than shite.
It makes no difference to me if I'm in a pool of shite that is 10 metres deep or 100 metres deep. I can't touch the bottom either way.
-
Yeah, apologies, in seeking to point Udayana in your direction, I overemphasised the initial part of your post and created the wrong impression.
Thanks.
Anyway, let me clarify. If Ian Blackford had simply said he had no obligation to tell the HoC finance people about the lack of auditors and no obligation to tell his successor that the SNP had no auditors, Id have taken his word for it. However, the way he attacked the journalist for even asking the question makes me think that he is not telling the whole truth. He thinks he was wrong to keep it secret. He obviously couldn't tell just his successor before his successor was elected, but he could have told the whole Westminster party.
-
Thanks.
Anyway, let me clarify. If Ian Blackford had simply said he had no obligation to tell the HoC finance people about the lack of auditors and no obligation to tell his successor that the SNP had no auditors, Id have taken his word for it. However, the way he attacked the journalist for even asking the question makes me think that he is not telling the whole truth. He thinks he was wrong to keep it secret. He obviously couldn't tell just his successor before his successor was elected, but he could have told the whole Westminster party.
My reaction to the attack on the journalist is not so much that it makes me less likely to believe him but that it makes no difference if he is telling the truth or not. It's ridiculous behaviour and he should be censured imo.
-
The latest from Shauny Boy
https://youtu.be/pUxMkhRo_tc
-
More questions about Yousaf and the vote on gay marriage
https://archive.vn/mCKh6
-
Nothing particularly new here but still a reasonable summation of where we are. Labour in Scotland shouldn't be feeling complacent.
https://archive.vn/zuQxw
-
I think that for as long as Labour/Starmer avoid acknowledging that Brexit was a disaster, because they don't want to upset previous Labour 'red wall' voters who were pro-Brexit and so voted Tory last time, then they'll face an uphill struggle here in Scotland.
Perhaps Labour/Starmer will yet find the nerve to say that Brexit was bollocks since, from some stuff I've read, some 'Leave' voters are beginning to realise that they were sold a lie.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/30/on-brexit-will-no-one-in-the-major-parties-admit-that-britain-has-blundered
-
I think that for as long as Labour/Starmer avoid acknowledging that Brexit was a disaster, because they don't want to upset previous Labour 'red wall' voters who were pro-Brexit and so voted Tory last time, then they'll face an uphill struggle here in Scotland.
Perhaps Labour/Starmer will yet find the nerve to say that Brexit was bollocks since, from some stuff I've read, some 'Leave' voters are beginning to realise that they were sold a lie.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/30/on-brexit-will-no-one-in-the-major-parties-admit-that-britain-has-blundered
My feeling is that the whole intent is to follow the 1997 election playbook, and try just not to be the Tories, yet not say anything that really differentiates. Doing that in Scotland is harder as they have to also not be the SNP. I think to overtake the SNP they need to be something, as well as not something.
Dear dog, Scottish politics is now Sartrean.
-
The auditors have arrived
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65467591
-
I think that for as long as Labour/Starmer avoid acknowledging that Brexit was a disaster, because they don't want to upset previous Labour 'red wall' voters who were pro-Brexit and so voted Tory last time, then they'll face an uphill struggle here in Scotland.
Perhaps Labour/Starmer will yet find the nerve to say that Brexit was bollocks since, from some stuff I've read, some 'Leave' voters are beginning to realise that they were sold a lie.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/30/on-brexit-will-no-one-in-the-major-parties-admit-that-britain-has-blundered
Not sure what Scotland did to avert Brexit though given that Blackford and Swinson let Johnson have his election.
-
Not sure what Scotland did to avert Brexit though given that Blackford and Swinson let Johnson have his election.
Vote against it?
-
Shauny Boy
https://youtu.be/9mdpLVR48jI
-
Hmmm... Police Scotland arrest s 52 year old woman...
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/june/investigation-into-scottish-national-party-funding-and-finances-woman-arrested/
-
And it is indeed Sturgeon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857
-
Jack McConnell, who left office in 2007, is the last former First Minister of Scotland NOT to have been subsequently arrested by the police. :o
-
Alex Massie on the arrest
https://archive.vn/6WyjT
-
Sturgeon released without charge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65873423
-
I'm not even going to post a picture of Anne McLaughlin's (MP) tweet about Sturgeon today because I might get done for contempt for doing that but fuck me...
-
Hmmm... This is just farcical from the ex treasurer. Surely better to have gone with the dog ate the computer?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-snp-treasurer-claims-late-30206188
-
I'm not even going to post a picture of Anne McLaughlin's (MP) tweet about Sturgeon today because I might get done for contempt for doing that but fuck me...
Wait, what? It’s not contempt for a member of the public to express an opinion about Sturgeon’s guilt or innocence is it?
-
Wait, what? It’s not contempt for a member of the public to express an opinion about Sturgeon’s guilt or innocence is it?
She's an MP, which is why I put MP, and former justice spokesperson for the SNP at Westminster, so not just a member of the public. She goes a fair bit bit beyond just expressing a belief. Members of the public can be done for retweeting such stuff, and I am not taking chances.
-
She's an MP, which is why I put MP, and former justice spokesperson for the SNP at Westminster, so not just a member of the public. She goes a fair bit bit beyond just expressing a belief. Members of the public can be done for retweeting such stuff, and I am not taking chances.
We had the discussion about the scope of contempt previously. My view being that politicians tend to hide behind it when they don't want to answer difficult questions with the stock phrase 'cannot comment on a live case'. That the bar is deliberately set rather high and politicians often deliberately lower it.
So let's see what happens shall we - surely if it is the case that individuals, including prominent ones such as MPs, cannot comment on live cases surely this particular person will feel the force of the law for clearly stating that Sturgeon is innocent.
Let's see what happens.
-
We had the discussion about the scope of contempt previously. My view being that politicians tend to hide behind it when they don't want to answer difficult questions with the stock phrase 'cannot comment on a live case'. That the bar is deliberately set rather high and politicians often deliberately lower it.
So let's see what happens shall we - surely if it is the case that individuals, including prominent ones such as MPs, cannot comment on live cases surely this particular person will feel the force of the law for clearly stating that Sturgeon is innocent.
Let's see what happens.
(A) she doesn't just express a belief in innocence, and (B) you seem to be saying of someone isn't prosecutrd for something successfully, that means they haven't acted unlawfully?
-
(A) she doesn't just express a belief in innocence,
In which case surely we will see action against her. Surely this should be a good test at to where the threshold lies.
She also writes it in CAPITALS.
and (B) you seem to be saying of someone isn't prosecutrd for something successfully, that means they haven't acted unlawfully?
If someone isn't prosecuted then you have a point. But if someone is prosecuted but that prosecution fails then surely under our legal system we would consider that they hadn't been found to have acted unlawfully.
-
In which case surely we will see action against her. Surely this should be a good test at to where the threshold lies.
She also writes it in CAPITALS.
If someone isn't prosecuted then you have a point. But if someone is prosecuted but that prosecution fails then surely under our legal system we would consider that they hadn't been found to have acted unlawfully.
Except where you wrote 'surely if it is the case that individuals, including prominent ones such as MPs, cannot comment on live cases surely this particular person will feel the force of the law for clearly stating that Sturgeon is innocent' that would include someone not being prosecuted.
And indeed "In which case surely we will see action against her. Surely this should be a good test at to where the threshold lies' you reiterate that.
-
Hmmm.. the power of cherry picking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65880079
-
Except where you wrote 'surely if it is the case that individuals, including prominent ones such as MPs, cannot comment on live cases surely this particular person will feel the force of the law for clearly stating that Sturgeon is innocent' that would include someone not being prosecuted.
And indeed "In which case surely we will see action against her. Surely this should be a good test at to where the threshold lies' you reiterate that.
I'm struggling to understand your point!?!
-
She's an MP, which is why I put MP, and former justice spokesperson for the SNP at Westminster, so not just a member of the public. She goes a fair bit bit beyond just expressing a belief. Members of the public can be done for retweeting such stuff, and I am not taking chances.
You are not going to get done for contempt for linking to a Tweet that she made or quoting it. Shew is the one who has proclaimed Sturgeon's innocence, not you.
-
You are not going to get done for contempt for linking to a Tweet that she made or quoting it. Shew is the one who has proclaimed Sturgeon's innocence, not you.
And your expertise on this subject is?
-
I'm struggling to understand your point!?!
That both those quotes are saying that if she isn't charged and prosecuted some how shows that she is not in contempt, despite your statement 'If someone isn't prosecuted then you have a point'
-
That both those quotes are saying that if she isn't charged and prosecuted some how shows that she is not in contempt, despite your statement 'If someone isn't prosecuted then you have a point'
Still struggling to understand your point. Perhaps I can explain using a different example.
If I am accused of speeding and for whatever reason I am not prosecuted (e.g. no speed camera etc) then that does not mean I have not acted unlawfully. However if I am prosecuted but I am acquitted then legally we would consider that I would not have been found to have been acting unlawfully.
But there is a broader point, which was what I was making earlier.
Given that McLaughlin has very clearly tweeted that she thinks Sturgeon is innocent (in CAPITALS no less) and she is not just an ordinary member of the public but an MP in the public eye then this sets up an interesting test case to assess the threshold for comments in the media sufficient for contempt. Also, unlike my speeding example there cannot really be an issue of evidence - we have the tweet. So there are a few possible outcomes here.
First she may be prosecuted for contempt and found guilty - this would providing an indication of where the threshold bar sits - clearly as a public figure, stating that someone is innocent would be contempt.
Secondly she may be prosecuted and not found guilty - in which case we would conclude that the bar is a heck of a lot higher than politicians who use the stock phrase 'cannot comment on a live case' effectively to avoid answering difficult questions.
Thirdly she might not be prosecuted at all - now that would tell us that either there isn't sufficient evidence to secure a conviction (which again would tell us something about where that threshold bar lies), or that persecution would not be considered to be in the public interest. But even in the latter case, with such a clear statement of innocence from a public figure, surely this again would clarify the threshold to secure a conviction or for a prosecution to be in the public interest.
I've long suspected that politicians suggest the bar is way lower than it actually is. Unless McLaughlin is actually prosecuted and convicted this would suggest my suspicions are correct.
-
And your expertise on this subject is?
I did some reading about the law of sub judice.
-
Still struggling to understand your point. Perhaps I can explain using a different example.
If I am accused of speeding and for whatever reason I am not prosecuted (e.g. no speed camera etc) then that does not mean I have not acted unlawfully. However if I am prosecuted but I am acquitted then legally we would consider that I would not have been found to have been acting unlawfully.
But there is a broader point, which was what I was making earlier.
Given that McLaughlin has very clearly tweeted that she thinks Sturgeon is innocent (in CAPITALS no less) and she is not just an ordinary member of the public but an MP in the public eye then this sets up an interesting test case to assess the threshold for comments in the media sufficient for contempt. So there are a few possible outcomes here.
First she may be prosecuted for contempt and found guilty - this would providing an indication of where the threshold bar sits - clearly as a public figure, stating that someone is innocent would be contempt.
Secondly she may be prosecuted and not found guilty - in which case we would conclude that the bar is a heck of a lot higher than politicians who use the stock phrase 'cannot comment on a live case' effectively to avoid answering difficult questions.
Thirdly she might not be prosecuted at all - now that would tell us that either there isn't sufficient evidence to secure a conviction (which again would tell us something about where that threshold bar lies), or that persecution would not be considered to be in the public interest. But even in the latter case, with such a clear statement of innocence from a public figure, surely this again would clarify the threshold to secure a conviction or for a prosecution to be in the public interest.
I've long suspected that politicians suggest the bar is way lower than it actually is. Unless McLaughlin is actually prosecuted and convicted this would suggest my suspicions are correct.
it's your third point that is the issue. If someone is not prosecuted, then that may just be because it is missed. Even if it isn't, and it's decided not to be in the public interest, possibly because of costs, then it does not indicate it isn't contempt, nor that at different times it would not be pursued. None of that indicates that it makes any sense fotlt a politician to test that on the basis of a random poster on the internet like you. You have spent sometime rightly pointing out to Sriram the limitations of Noble's expertise on evolution but are incapable of applying that to yourself.
-
I did some reading about the law of sub judice.
That's nice. Sriram's done some reading on evolution.
-
If someone is not prosecuted, then that may just be because it is missed.
But that doesn't seem relevant here (unlike my speeding example) as the potential contempt would be the tweet itself, and we can all see that. I guess the only thing that could have been missed is where she, herself, actually wrote it or whether he account had been hacked etc.
Even if it isn't, and it's decided not to be in the public interest, possibly because of costs, then it does not indicate it isn't contempt, nor that at different times it would not be pursued.
But it would clearly set the bar for threshold in a test case manner. Effectively if she is either not prosecuted or is prosecuted and found not guilty it would give a pretty clear steer on what a public figure can and cannot say and stay on the right side of the threshold for contempt.
None of that indicates that it makes any sense fotlt a politician to test that on the basis of a random poster on the internet like you.
Where have I ever said it would - I haven't - what I have said is that the decision whether or not to prosecute and if the former whether the verdict is guilty or not would be the test, not my opinion.
You have spent sometime rightly pointing out to Sriram the limitations of Noble's expertise on evolution but are incapable of applying that to yourself.
No I'm not as I'm not suggesting it would be me running the test case - it would be expert prosecutors who would decide whether or not to prosecute based on the likelihood of a conviction and/or public interest, and if there is a prosecution then the courts. The expertise would come from the legal profession and the legal process. This is nothing like Sriram.
-
That's nice. Sriram's done some reading on evolution.
What did you do to make yourself an expert?
Here is a government web page on the subject
https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
- say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
- refer to someone’s previous convictions
- name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
- name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
- name sex crime victims
- share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
Clearly the only one that would apply to Ms Mclaughlin would be the first point. However, it might be a bit tricky to pin even that on her because Sturgeon hasn't been accused of anything yet. What is it she is innocent of? However, by only reporting what McLaughlin said, we are not in the frame at all.
-
What did you do to make yourself an expert?
Here is a government web page on the subject
https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court
Clearly the only one that would apply to Ms Mclaughlin would be the first point. However, it might be a bit tricky to pin even that on her because Sturgeon hasn't been accused of anything yet. What is it she is innocent of? However, by only reporting what McLaughlin said, we are not in the frame at all.
I think we previously discussed when a case becomes 'active' for the purposes of contempt and while there was some lack of consistency there was one view that it would be from when there was an arrest or even before that, when an arrest warrant was issued.
If this is the case, then the case is active and therefore McLaughlin's comments would be 'in play' in terms of contempt. Now I understand that we don't know what charges there might be - there may of course be none. But if there are charges when presumably if the case is active a clear statement from someone that the person was innocent, would also be in play for contempt.
-
I think we previously discussed when a case becomes 'active' for the purposes of contempt and while there was some lack of consistency there was one view that it would be from when there was an arrest or even before that, when an arrest warrant was issued.
If this is the case, then the case it active and therefore McLaughlin's comments would be 'in play' in terms of contempt. Now I understand that we don't know what charges there might be - there may of course be none. But if there are charges when presumably if the case is active a clear statement from someone that the person was innocent, would also be in play for contempt.
Yes, but it's still a stretch. At this time, nobody except the police and prosecutors know what charges Sturgeon will face, if any.
I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.
-
I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.
Agree entirely on the latter - not quite so convinced on the former.
-
Flowers for Nicola
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23586691.snp-msps-agree-send-nicola-sturgeon-flowers-arrest/
-
JfC!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/peter-murrell-nicola-sturgeon-police-scotland-humza-yousaf-times-b1087870.html
-
And from your own 'side'...
https://robinmcalpine.org/as-the-laughter-grows-and-grows-can-anyone-end-the-joke/
-
Yes, but it's still a stretch. At this time, nobody except the police and prosecutors know what charges Sturgeon will face, if any.
I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.
Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19
-
Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19
Yeah you did.
-
Yeah you did.
Roddy Dunlop didn't.
-
Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19
Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).
But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.
We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.
For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.
-
Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).
But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.
We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.
For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.
This chap - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. You - a random person.
-
Yousaf canonises Sturgeon
https://archive.vn/1Yipl
-
This chap - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. You - a random person.
And what exactly did this Dean tell you when you reached out to him previously?
-
And what exactly did this Dean tell you when you reached out to him previously?
The Dean - not 'this Dean'.
-
Roddy Dunlop didn't.
Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?
-
The Dean - not 'this Dean'.
Nope NS - this Dean - there are many Deans. Indeed I used to be a Faculty Dean myself and I was one of a number just in my own university. I've since moved on to a more senior role in the university.
But nice distraction technique. Back to the matter at hand - what did Dunlop tell you when you reached out to him previously?
-
Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).
But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.
We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.
For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.
A case becomes active when an arrest has been made. In this case, the case would be against Nicola Sturgeon. Sturgeon has, however, been released without charge, so I don’t see how there can be an active case against her.
Nobody is getting done for contempt over this.
-
Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?
To give him his due - he isn't just a random lawyer but a rather senior one - indeed a Faculty Dean. But actually it is then kind of becomes his professional job to warn people to be careful in what they post. Fair enough but we what we are talking about his isn't the bluntness of the law - in other word what might, in theory, result in a contempt prosecution, but the precision of the law - in other words what comments would be sufficient to vault the threshold of likelihood to result in a serious interference with the administration of justice and that a prosecution would be in the public interest - noting that it is in the public interest to allow free speech.
As I've said previously the McLaughlin situation seems certain to clarify where the law sits in practice - on the basis of whether there is a decision to prosecute and also if that is the case whether that prosecution is successful.
-
Nope NS - this Dean - there are many Deans. Indeed I used to be a Faculty Dean myself and I was one of a number just in my own university. I've since moved on to a more senior role in the university.
But nice distraction technique. Back to the matter at hand - what did Dunlop tell you when you reached out to him previously?
Just to note it's not a university faculty.
-
Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?
You think the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is just a random lawyer? And you reading a page which is generic on law, and isn't based on Scottish law, makes you equivalent in expertise?
-
A case becomes active when an arrest has been made. In this case, the case would be against Nicola Sturgeon. Sturgeon has, however, been released without charge, so I don’t see how there can be an active case against her.
Nobody is getting done for contempt over this.
She's been released pending further investigation
The case is still active.
-
Just to note it's not a university faculty.
So what - the point is that there are many Deans - and actually the Faculty of Advocates is a subdivision of a College - which is the same basic structure as would be used within a university.
Roddy is a faculty Dean, I used to be a faculty Dean - each 'Faculty' sits within the structure of a University or College.
-
Just to help out Prof D who serned to think that the Faculty of Advocates was a university faculty
https://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates
-
So what - the point is that there are many Deans - and actually the Faculty of Advocates is a subdivision of a College - which is the same basic structure as would be used within a university.
Roddy is a faculty Dean, I used to be a faculty Dean - each 'Faculty' sits within the structure of a University or College.
No
https://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates
-
No
https://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates
Wrong (as so often):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Advocates
[/i]'The Faculty of Advocates is a constituent part of the College of Justice and is based in Edinburgh.'[/i]
-
Wrong (as so often):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Advocates
[/i]'The Faculty of Advocates is a constituent part of the College of Justice and is based in Edinburgh.'[/i]
Which isn't a university. Please stop digging. Your obvious ignorance, and rather desperate attempts to equate you as a university dean and Roddy Dunlop being the Dean of the Fsculty of Advocates, and thereby having some form of equivalent expertise is unhinged.
-
And again to help out Prof D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Justice
-
You think the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is just a random lawyer?
Yes.
And you reading a page which is generic on law, and isn't based on Scottish law, makes you equivalent in expertise?
How do you know contempt in Scotland is different to contempt in England?
-
She's been released pending further investigation
The case is still active.
What are the charges against her?
-
What are the charges against her?
There are none - that doesn't stop it being an active case. The arrest started it. The investigation is ongoing.
-
Which isn't a university.
Actually nor are a number of our most prestigious Universities that are, or certainly were until recently, actually Colleges rather than Universities per se - good examples being UCL and Kings.
The point being that the reason why there is a 'Faculty' and a 'Faculty' Dean is because there is a 'College' or a 'University' - the structures and the use/conferment of title is effectively identical.
Also interesting to note how many structural overlaps there are between the College of Justice and my own institution - each is presided over by President, each has a Senate as a governance structure. Each may be sub-divided into Faculties and if so those Faculties may appoint Faculty Dean(s).
It's almost as if historically these structures arose from very similar origins.
-
There are none - that doesn't stop it being an active case. The arrest started it. The investigation is ongoing.
So when does a case cease to be active if there are no charges. Where there are charges there is a clear natural conclusion to the case being active - either acquittal or conviction. But less clear if there are no charges.
-
So back to the matter in hand, NS. What did Roddy Dunlop KC - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates tell you when you reached out to him previously?
-
Yes.
How do you know contempt in Scotland is different to contempt in England?
Well, I could cite Mr Dunlop here but he's just some random dean of some random faculty of advocates which is randomly based in Scotland because it's based around the fact that Scottish law is different...
The whole issue that contempt applies with arrest is part of the difference. In England the police could have questioned Sturgeon without arrest. In Scotland, the thought was that in certain circumstances that could be abused because the police might actually be using it to question a suspect but in doing so the person does not have right to legal representation. So it's an attempt to make the intentions of the police more transparent, and to avoid legal claims.
Add to that, the case law in Scotland shows a stricter interpretation than England subsequent to the concurrent legislation, but related to the specific implementation of the legislation, as allowed under both the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, but already recognised as part of the separate legal systems.
-
Actually nor are a number of our most prestigious Universities that are, or certainly were until recently, actually Colleges rather than Universities per se - good examples being UCL and Kings.
The point being that the reason why there is a 'Faculty' and a 'Faculty' Dean is because there is a 'College' or a 'University' - the structures and the use/conferment of title is effectively identical.
Also interesting to note how many structural overlaps there are between the College of Justice and my own institution - each is presided over by President, each has a Senate as a governance structure. Each may be sub-divided into Faculties and if so those Faculties may appoint Faculty Dean(s).
It's almost as if historically these structures arose from very similar origins.
Amazingly, I agree. They did. Doesn't mean that your deanship is equivalent.
-
So back to the matter in hand, NS. What did Roddy Dunlop KC - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates tell you when you reached out to him previously?
He didn't reply. As I've only met him once in passing, not overly surprised. Do you think that is helpful to your position?
-
There are none - that doesn't stop it being an active case. The arrest started it. The investigation is ongoing.
So how can you infer that somebody is predicting the result of a court case if you don't know what the court case is going to be or even ifs there is going to be one?
Nobody is going to be charged with contempt on the basis of that Tweet.
-
So how can you infer that somebody is predicting the result of a court case if you don't know what the court case is going to be or even ifs there is going to be one?
Nobody is going to be charged with contempt on the basis of that Tweet.
and yet that's the law.
I agree with you in the sense of it being unlikely that she, mcLaughlin, will be charged on the tweet. But it's clear that she could be. And if she was, then I could see retweeting it, or of copying it might mean the possibility of being charged too.
The law may well be an ass, doesn't mean that it can't give you a good kicking
-
He didn't reply. As I've only met him once in passing, not overly surprised. Do you think that is helpful to your position?
Blimey - why on earth was it so hard to get a simple answer from you, but thanks for finally confirming that he blanked you.
-
Blimey - why on earth was it so hard to get a simple answer from you, but thanks for finally confirming that he blanked you.
Why is it important to you?
-
Amazingly, I agree. They did. Doesn't mean that your deanship is equivalent.
I means that the requirement to justify the position of Dean and for conferment of that title on an individual are similar. It doesn't mean that the roles are equivalent - in the case in point Dunlop's Deanship has a narrower focus, aspects of the law, while mine was broader in covering research across a wide range of academic disciplines. However it would appear that his role has a greater executive function - which would be more akin to the so-called Executive Dean role rather than mine which was so-calle cross-cutting.
But none of this is relevant to my original point - you claimed he was the Dean - implying there is one one Dean - that is incorrect as there are many Deans, including many faculties Deans - so he is this Dean or a Dean as there are plenty of others.
-
Why is it important to you?
Because I wanted to know what he said to you directly as this might have been very helpful in the discussion of where the threshold lies in contempt.
Why were you so unwilling to admit that he didn't respond to you.
-
I means that the requirement to justify the position of Dean and for conferment of that title on an individual are similar. It doesn't mean that the roles are equivalent - in the case in point Dunlop's Deanship has a narrower focus, aspects of the law, while mine was broader in covering research across a wide range of academic disciplines. However it would appear that his role has a greater executive function - which would be more akin to the so-called Executive Dean role rather than mine which was so-calle cross-cutting.
But none of this is relevant to my original point - you claimed he was the Dean - implying there is one one Dean - that is incorrect as there are many Deans, including many faculties Deans - so he is this Dean or a Dean as there are plenty of others.
Being the a Dean is an administrative position isn't it?
-
Because I wanted to know what he said to you directly as this might have been very helpful in the discussion of where the threshold lies in contempt.
Why were you so unwilling to admit that he didn't respond to you.
I wasn't. I just didn't see the relevance to the current discussion about the fact that your deanship in an irrelevant discipline in a university is in no sense equivalent in the context of Roddy Dunlop being Dean of the Faculty of Sdvocates.
-
Being the a Dean is an administrative position isn't it?
Yes, pretty well.
The difference is that an Executive Dean has, err, executive functions, so typically will be ultimately responsible for faculty budget and would be the ultimate line manager for members of that faculty.
The alternative is the so-called cross cutting Dean - this person will oversee a particular type of activity - in may case that was research - in a faculty and won't necessarily be a major budget holder or line manager, but is expected to achieve goals via influence and strategy rather than using the levels of executive authority.
-
Yes, pretty well.
The difference is that an Executive Dean has, err, executive functions, so typically will be ultimately responsible for faculty budget and would be the ultimate line manager for members of that faculty.
The alternative is the so-called cross cutting Dean - this person will oversee a particular type of activity - in may case that was research - in a faculty and won't necessarily be a major budget holder or line manager, but is expected to achieve goals via influence and strategy rather than using the levels of executive authority.
So the appeal to authority doesn't gain any weight by virtue of the fact that this man is a dean.
-
So the appeal to authority doesn't gain any weight by virtue of the fact that this man is a dean.
Surely the appeal to authority is about expertise? So when Prof D, rightly, challenges Sriram's citation of Noble in terms of evolution, that's because Noble is not an expert there.
And yet Prof D, who is confused about the difference between having been a dean in an irrelevant university discipline like Noble, and being the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, somehow touts it as equivalent.
-
Surely the appeal to authority is about expertise? So when Prof D, rightly, challenges Sriram's citation of Noble in terms of evolution, that's because Noble is not an expert there.
And yet Prof D, who is confused about the difference between having been a dean in an irrelevant university discipline like Noble, and being the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, somehow touts it as equivalent.
Except I don't - so stop misrepresenting me NS.
Of course Dunlop has far great expertise than I do in legal matters. That isn't my point - my challenge was your implication that he is the Dean - suggesting that there are no other Deans. That is flat out wrong - there are many other Deans. But it is also wrong to imply that Dunlop is the Dean, in terms of legal expertise. Again there are many Deans who will have equivalent legal expertise as they will themselves be Dean of a faculty of law.
Examples might include:
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/john-armour-appointed-dean-faculty-law#:~:text=The%20Faculty%20of%20Law%20is,effect%20from%20Michaelmas%20Term%202023.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/dan-hunter
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/news/2022/sep/professor-eloise-scotford-appointed-dean-ucl-faculty-laws
Just three examples. The point being that your appeal to exceptionalism - he's the Dean - isn't justified and you can't dismiss other Deans on the basis that their expertise is in an irrelevant university discipline as there are plenty of other Faculty Deans of Law.
-
Except I don't - so stop misrepresenting me NS.
Of course Dunlop has far great expertise than I do in legal matters. That isn't my point - my challenge was your implication that he is the Dean - suggesting that there are no other Deans. That is flat out wrong - there are many other Deans. But it is also wrong to imply that Dunlop is the Dean, in terms of legal expertise. Again there are many Deans who will have equivalent legal expertise as they will themselves be Dean of a faculty of law.
Examples might include:
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/john-armour-appointed-dean-faculty-law#:~:text=The%20Faculty%20of%20Law%20is,effect%20from%20Michaelmas%20Term%202023.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/dan-hunter
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/news/2022/sep/professor-eloise-scotford-appointed-dean-ucl-faculty-laws
Just three examples. The point being that your appeal to exceptionalism - he's the Dean - isn't justified and you can't dismiss other Deans on the basis that their expertise is in an irrelevant university discipline as there are plenty of other Faculty Deans of Law.
So now, with being a Dean in an irrelevant disciplind, are the same as Deans of Law in Scotland, which are the same as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates?
Stop barking at the moon
-
So now, with being a Dean in an irrelevant disciplind, are the same as Deans of Law in Scotland, which are the same as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates?
Frankly your posts are so convoluted it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make.
To my mind (and I suspect at least one other) your appeal to the Dean, was one of exceptionalism and expertise. As I have pointed out there are many faculty Deans, in all sorts of disciplines, so there is no exceptionalism. But even in the broad discipline of law there are plenty of faculty Deans.
And let's not forget that Law is very broad - is Dunlop a specialist expert on the law of contempt - I've no idea, his LinkedIn profile doesn't suggest this. Are any of the other Deans of Law - again I don't know. But presuming that Dunlop is a particular expert on contempt just because he a Dean within a faculty with a law specialism is akin to Sriram implying that Noble (who as a physiologist would happily sit in a Life Sciences or Biology Faculty) is an expert evolutionary biologist despite the fact that evolutionary biologists could easily sit in that same faculty.
And from what I've seen Dunlop doesn't practice what he preaches - specifically care when using social media - as I gather his twitter use has led to accusations that he is bringing the Faculty of Advocates and his role as Dean into disrepute.
-
Frankly your posts are so convoluted it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make.
To my mind (and I suspect at least one other) your appeal to the Dean, was one of exceptionalism and expertise. As I have pointed out there are many faculty Deans, in all sorts of disciplines, so there is no exceptionalism. But even in the broad discipline of law there are plenty of faculty Deans.
And let's not forget that Law is very broad - is Dunlop a specialist expert on the law of contempt - I've no idea, his LinkedIn profile doesn't suggest this. Are any of the other Deans of Law - again I don't know. But presuming that Dunlop is a particular expert on contempt just because he a Dean within a faculty with a law specialism is akin to Sriram implying that Noble (who as a physiologist would happily sit in a Life Sciences or Biology Faculty) is an expert evolutionary biologist despite the fact that evolutionary biologists could easily sit in that same faculty.
And from what I've seen Dunlop doesn't practice what he preaches - specifically care when using social media - as I gather his twitter use has led to accusations that he is bringing the Faculty of Advocates and his role as Dean into disrepute.
Oh look an ex dean of an irrrelevant university discipline fulminating against the Dean of the Faculty of Advocate, having misinderstood it as being a 'university faculy'...
-
Oh look an ex dean of an irrrelevant university discipline fulminating against the Dean of the Faculty of Advocate, having misinderstood it as being a 'university faculy'...
Where did I ever say that the Faculty of Advocates was part of a university - oh, I never did.
I did however point out that it was part of a College. But then I understand how a faculty is defined and therefore how the role of a faculty Dean may arise.
-
Where did I ever say that the Faculty of Advocates was part of a university - oh, I never did.
I did however point out that it was part of a College. But then I understand how a faculty is defined and therefore how the role of a faculty Dean may arise.
How far are you in your digging?
-
How far are you in your digging?
Do you actually understand the definition of a faculty, or of a Dean in relation to a faculty? I suspect you don't.
-
Do you actually understand the definition of a faculty, or of a Dean in relation to a faculty? I suspect you don't.
I suspect I do. I suspect you have made an idiot of yourself in trying to equate your deanship of an irrelevant discipline at a university with Roddy Dunlop being Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
-
I suspect I do.
Nope - I don't think you do as you seem a bit bemused by the hierarchy within the faculty of advocates (specifically that it is part of a College) necessary to justify the position of a Dean, and indeed to justify the terminology of a faculty. Faculties and Deans within this context operate within Universities and Colleges (and in some rare circumstances Schools). The religious use has evolved in a slightly different manner but actually the origins of both are the same.
I suspect you have made an idiot of yourself in trying to equate your deanship of an irrelevant discipline at a university with Roddy Dunlop being Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
I never claimed an equivalence - I challenged you on your claim of exceptionalism (THE Dean) whereas Dunlop is one of many people across the country who are faculty Deans. Now of course most of those won't be experts in Law, but quite a number will be as there are many Deans of Faculties of Law. It may be the case that some of those law faculty Deans are actually specific experts in the law around contempt - from what I can see Dunlop claims no specific expertise in this area and I'm certainly not aware of any learned articles that he might have written on the topic.
-
Labour in Scotland neck and neck with the SNP
https://archive.vn/8Xgrr
-
Alex Massie on Yousaf 'lashing himself to Sturgeon'
https://archive.vn/9Rbj7
-
And Mandy Rhodes, including this paragraph.
'At last week’s meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee – a group that doesn’t usually generate much mirth – members could not contain themselves on discovering that the Scottish Government has a working group exploring “the unique challenges created by motorhome and campervan users in Scotland”. This led to an extraordinarily comedic exchange, ending with Labour’s Foysol Choudhury saying he had never been in a campervan, only to have the SNP’s Fergus Ewing retort with the punchline, “that’s what they all say.”'
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,poor-humza-yousaf-has-been-dealt-a-calamitous-hand
-
So when does a case cease to be active if there are no charges. Where there are charges there is a clear natural conclusion to the case being active - either acquittal or conviction. But less clear if there are no charges.
Didn't we cover exactly this issue a few pages ago and I linked to the relevant legislation that tells you when a case stops being active. See replies #667, #670 and #671 on page 27 of this thread
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19500.650
-
Wrong (as so often):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Advocates
[/i]'The Faculty of Advocates is a constituent part of the College of Justice and is based in Edinburgh.'[/i]
The word "college" has a few meanings so you can't assume it means it is the same as an educational establishment similar to one of hundreds of colleges or universities in the UK.
Created in 1532, the role of the College of Justice was to be a permanent body to administer justice in Scotland. It may be said to consist of the Supreme Courts judges (senators), Faculty of Advocates, writers to the signet (a society of solicitors), solicitors to the Supreme Courts, macers (the court officer who carried a mace before the judges) and Supreme Courts staff.
These bodies serve a different purpose from universities - the College of Justice deals with deciding on and administering important legal matters that affect how the country is run and which therefore potentially impacts the lives of a few million people.
The Faculty of Advocates as part of the College of Justice, is the single professional body that regulates and disciplines Advocates (the Scottish equivalent of barristers) which puts it in a different category from one of hundreds of colleges and universities for students and academics. You need to be a member of the Faculty of Advocates to practise professionally as an Advocate in Scotland.
So I don't see how the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates can be equated with a dean in one of many universities or colleges. The Dean, as head of the professional body, presumably knows what he is talking about when it comes to disciplinary and potentially criminal offences such as Contempt of Court, especially since he linked to the legislation - Contempt of Court Act 1981 (again see my reply #667 on this thread).
The word "college" in this case is derived from the ancient Roman collegium - a "body, guild, corporation united in colleagueship; of magistrates, praetors, tribunes, priests, augurs; a political club or trade guild".[5] Thus a college was a form of corporation or corporate body, an artificial legal person (body/corpus) with its own legal personality, with the capacity to enter into legal contracts, to sue and be sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College
-
Agree with this fron Euan McColm on Labour in Holyrood versus WM election
https://archive.vn/uVn5L