Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 20, 2024, 12:30:10 PM
-
Were I Humza Yousaf I would be thinking of getting my retaliation in first.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cekl2v3124go
-
Were I Humza Yousaf I would be thinking of getting my retaliation in first.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cekl2v3124go
If the Greens left the Bute House agreement, that would make the government a minority government. Is that likely to be a serious problem?
-
If the Greens left the Bute House agreement, that would make the government a minority government. Is that likely to be a serious problem?
Most of the time the SNP have been in the Scottish govt it's been a minority. The main problem is getting the budget passed but they get that done by concessions to the Greens and the Lib Dems. There's not really enough common cause between the opposition parties to bring them down.
-
I see Harvie and Slater are seduced by their 'powerful' positions. If I were a Scorrish Green, I would be arguing that they use the missed emissions target, and their desire to continue medical experimentation on children to back away from the Bute House agreement because of the possible fall out from the Murrell embezzlement case though not saying that publicly, or indeed in that way.
As the article indicates, Yousaf has probably more problems pacifying the part of his own party opposed to the Bute Nouse Agreement. Moreso than previously, if the SNP were to form a minority govt, the people they might have to make concessions to to get budget through are in their own party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4n1458z6n8o
-
Alba submitting no confidence vote in Patrick Harvie.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/alba-submits-confidence-motion-in-harvie-following-cass-review-response/ar-AA1nuY4Q
-
Most of the time the SNP have been in the Scottish govt it's been a minority. The main problem is getting the budget passed but they get that done by concessions to the Greens and the Lib Dems. There's not really enough common cause between the opposition parties to bring them down.
That's what I thought.
-
Looks like the party's over (time to call it a day).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz5dy15grjnt
-
Looks like the party's over (time to call it a day).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz5dy15grjnt
And Yousaf looks surprised at events
-
The likely no confidence vote on Yousaf will be interesting. I suspect the Greens will abstain and so he will survive but even so it will look bad.
-
Humza could be in a bit of bother - this from The Guardian live blog.
Labour confirms it will back the vote of no confidence in Humza Yousaf.
- Liberal Democrats will back it.
- Greens meeting later to discuss.
- Ash Regan (Alba) says she’s writing to the FM and her support will depend on his answer to that.
Extraordinary day.
The SNP has 63 MSPs.
There are now already 57 MSPs lined up to vote against Yousaf: Conservatives (31), Labour (22) and Lib Dems (4).
The Greens have 7 MSPs and Alba just one (Ash Regan).
-
Humza could be in a bit of bother - this from The Guardian live blog.
I'll be interested in what Regan asks for. Even if the Greens were to vote against him, and I suspect abstention will be their choice, I don't think it has any actual effect, though I could be wrong.
-
I'll be interested in what Regan asks for. Even if the Greens were to vote against him, and I suspect abstention will be their choice, I don't think it has any actual effect, though I could be wrong.
Apparently is he loses he isn't required to resign because the non Confidence vote is directed a him personally: had it been No Confidence in the government and the SNP lost, then he would have to resign (and no doubt an election would follow).
-
Apparently is he loses he isn't required to resign because the non Confidence vote is directed a him personally: had it been No Confidence in the government and the SNP lost, then he would have to resign (and no doubt an election would follow).
Greens voting against him.
-
Greens voting against him.
All down to Ash Regan!!
-
All down to Ash Regan!!
Not sure what she can realistically ask for.
-
Not sure what she can realistically ask for.
Not sure that the issue is what she can get, but what she might lose depending on her decision. She' will be persona non grata with a whole raft of people whatever she does. I guess the point is who she wants to end up a pariah with.
-
Not sure that the issue is what she can get, but what she might lose depending on her decision. She' will be persona non grata with a whole raft of people whatever she does. I guess the point is who she wants to end up a pariah with.
Not much change then.
-
I can see why the Tories might not want an election but surely it makes sense for Labour to go for a vote of no confidence in the govt?
-
I'd have thought so too - they'd be pushing at an open door, and if it happened before the GE might well give them some momentum (which the Tories would hate).
-
Greens now saying they will support the No Confidence vote on M Humza - Ash Regan holds all the cards now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68901088
-
I'm left wondering whether the SNP is currently a leadable party. The splits on show at the leadership election have become deeper, so can a compromise happen on gender. That all of this continues while the police investigation continues feels like there are people waiting for that outcome before committing themselves to a fight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68901981
-
Hints now from the Greens that they could do a deal of offered the right concessions. Not sure that another Uturn by Yousaf could be sold as anything other than weakness.
-
Good laugh from the Scottish Tories. Why, if you are so keen on an election, wouldn't you table a motion that would be more likely to ensure one? Oh because you are lying through your teeth.
-
Scottish Labour goung for the full vote of no confidence in the Scottish govt, as I assumed they would. Given it looks like the timing of that vote is after the vote of no confidence in Yousaf, I think that works in Yousaf's favour. If he can get Regan's support or a Green abstention on the 'less imporarnt' vote, then Labour's motion will fail. And I think it's less likely that the Greens will say they support the second vote.
Anyway more popcorn!
-
Scottish Labour needs another 3 votes to hold their no confidence vote in the govt. I would have thought the Lib Dems should certainly be up for it.
-
And now those little teasers the Greens have said they will definitely vote against Yousaf in the personal no confidence vote.
-
Apparently Yousaf didn't mean to anger the Greens. He doesn't like them when they are angry.
-
I think Regan should abstain on the personal vote and vote against the one in the govt, and say she looks forward to working with the party in choosing an actively pro independence FM, who is not involved with the Murrells as being their preferred candidate.
-
Fairly grovelling apology from Ian Blackford to the Greens on Sunday with Laura Kuennsberg this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-68915741
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgyxq90325o
-
Greens convening to vote on whether they accept invite to meeting with ayousaf who is now considering resigning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72p91kznz8o
-
It's over for Humza Yousaf (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-68918348?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=662f4c982f3a131cc506a82a%26Yousaf%20is%20to%20resign%20as%20early%20as%20today%262024-04-29T07%3A30%3A33.423Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:4d8e718e-1f3d-4832-98e9-f8ffc0b13ede&pinned_post_asset_id=662f4c982f3a131cc506a82a&pinned_post_type=share)
-
And so what happens now?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/what-happens-after-humza-yousaf-stands-down/ar-AA1nQXXq
-
I imagine that they'll go for Swinney given his experience as an interim choice - but I could be wrong.
Labour may like to force a Holyrood election by not supporting a replacement but I doubt the Tories or Greens will, since the last thing the Tories want is a Holyrood election before the Westminster GE.
-
I imagine that they'll go for Swinney given his experience as an interim choice - but I could be wrong.
Labour may like to force a Holyrood election by not supporting a replacement but I doubt the Tories or Greens will, since the last thing the Tories want is a Holyrood election before the Westminster GE.
The Labour vote of no confidence remains in place, and the Tories will vote for it, and have to do so. They'll be hoping the Greens don't vote for it.
I do wish parties wouldn't pull out the unelected PM/FM line because it makes them look like the total hypocrites they are when things are reversed.
-
Bookies suspending betting on Swinney.
SNP can't deliver a bottle recycling plan but can recycle a leader.
-
And Greens not supporting the Labour no confidence vote. So the SNP, and Tories will breathe sigh of relief
-
I do wish parties wouldn't pull out the unelected PM/FM line because it makes them look like the total hypocrites they are when things are reversed.
No PM or FM is elected as such; only as an MP.
-
Fergus Ewing: How Kate Forbes can save the SNP
Hmm.... not so sure and perhaps it is time for a proper split.
https://archive.fo/tJFvX
-
When you are Deputy FM and the FM resigns and the Oddschecker site has you at 66/1, higher odds than Salmond who isn't in the parliament, and they misspell your name, it may be time to wonder if you are making an impact. Eh, Shona Robison?
-
If I were Kate Forbes, I wouldn't stand for leadership. If I were a John Swinney supporter, I would be begging her to stand.
-
SNP survive, no surprise.
-
The meeting between Swinney and Forbes if it has lead to no contest won't deal with the issues in the party.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c88zvgl9y9go
-
The meeting between Swinney and Forbes if it has lead to no contest won't deal with the issues in the party.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c88zvgl9y9go
Gather Forbes is making a statement later and Swinney has offered her a top job.
Realistically I think Forbes would be well advised not to run - if Yousuf found it difficult to pull together a governing coalition, surely Forbes would find it way more difficult as I doubt the Greens would touch her with a barge pole. Which would leave her to the vagaries of minority governing, which given her major policy differences with many of her own MSPs would surely leave her hostage to fortune for potential SNP rebels.
To be honest Forbes holds view so different to those that the current SNP administration was elected on she would need a genuine electoral mandate to be credible. Bit like Truss vs Boris.
-
Gather Forbes is making a statement later and Swinney has offered her a top job.
Realistically I think Forbes would be well advised not to run - if Yousuf found it difficult to pull together a governing coalition, surely Forbes would find it way more difficult as I doubt the Greens would touch her with a barge pole. Which would leave her to the vagaries of minority governing, which given her major policy differences with many of her own MSPs would surely leave her hostage to fortune for potential SNP rebels.
To be honest Forbes holds view so different to those that the current SNP administration was elected on she would need a genuine electoral mandate to be credible. Bit like Truss vs Boris.
As per earlier post, if I were Forbes I wouldn't run but I think 'coronations' have their own problems, and this one in particular since it leads to the charge that the Greens become FM makers, and by default the people choosing the leader of the SNP.
-
As per earlier post, if I were Forbes I wouldn't run but I think 'coronations' have their own problems, and this one in particular since it leads to the charge that the Greens become FM makers, and by default the people choosing the leader of the SNP.
I agree - I don't think there is an easy way out of this. However, I'm not sure that an election involving party members is the right approach to select a FM or PM, i.e. when a party is in power. Fine in opposition as the selected person has no power unless also selected by the overall electorate in a general election. I think it is better to have that person demonstrate they have the confidence of the parliament itself for the selection should be in the hands of the elected members, who have both an electoral mandate and also a level of accountability in a manner that someone who has spent ten bob on becoming a member of a political party doesn't.
Selection of a new PM or FM by party membership has a really bad track record - see Truss, Boris, Yousaf. And in opposition also has a pretty ropey track record (albeit largely irrelevant as the LotO has no direct power) - see Corbyn, Hague, IDS, Miliband (E rather than D).
-
And it's Swinney!!!
He now has to deal with promoting Forbes into the cabinet, and still getting the backing of the Greens on key votes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c88zvgl9y9go
-
Quite extraordinary piece from Kenny Farquharson on Kate Forbes, dripping with Christianophobia. Apparently Scotland should be proud to have the first Muslim leader, avowedly devout, in the West but Forbes shouldn't be leader.
https://archive.fo/0JnaX
-
Quite extraordinary piece from Kenny Farquharson on Kate Forbes, dripping with Christianophobia. Apparently Scotland should be proud to have the first Muslim leader, avowedly devout, in the West but Forbes shouldn't be leader.
https://archive.fo/0JnaX
Disagree - being against the extreme views of some fundamentalist christians isn't being christianophobic any more than being against the Westboro baptist church's views is. He is clear that his objection is to Forbes views not christian beliefs in general. If you cannot object to extreme views of some religious people (that are not shared by many others of that religion) without having accusations of (inset relevant religion)-ophobia then we are in a really dark place.
In fact I think we allow people to get away with extreme views when justified 'cos of my religious beliefs' too much as if being religious provides a get out of jail free card on 'owning' your views. I don't care in what way a person justifies their views, they are a choice that that person, and that person alone makes, and that person 'owns' them.
-
Disagree - being against the extreme views of some fundamentalist christians isn't being christianophobic any more than being against the Westboro baptist church's views is. He is clear that his objection is to Forbes views not christian beliefs in general. If you cannot object to extreme views of some religious people (that are not shared by many others of that religion) without having accusations of (inset relevant religion)-ophobia then we are in a really dark place.
In fact I think we allow people to get away with extreme views when justified 'cos of my religious beliefs' too much as if being religious provides a get out of jail free card on 'owning' your views. I don't care in what way a person justifies their views, they are a choice that that person, and that person alone makes, and that person 'owns' them.
And yet he celebrates a devout Muslim being elected. One who avoided a vote on gay marriage. So Islam as an entirety is OK, Christianity isn't. Double standards.
I wouldn't vote for Forbes but if you think she is unfit to be FM you think Yousaf is.
And I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things, it doesn't mean that I think they aren't fit for office. And I don't think any particular justification does make it better so we can ignore that.
-
And yet he celebrates a devout Muslim being elected. One who avoided a vote on gay marriage. So Islam as an entirety is OK, Christianity isn't. Double standards.
Don't be stupid NS - Yousaf and for that matter Sunak, Khan (as other non christian senior politicians) haven't said they think people choosing to have sex are sinners because they aren't married, nor stated they are against gay marriage etc - had they done so then I'm sure Farquharson would be just as critical. Similarly I doubt he'd have any issue with other christian politicians whose opinions are more mainstream and not just in general terms but amongst christians (Forbes views are extreme across the spectrum of views of UK christians).
And you are also completely missing the point regarding role models - he praises "a Hindu in Downing Street, a black first minister in Cardiff, a Muslim mayor in London and a Scots Asian in Bute House" not because they are inherently more worthy than christians, but because they are trailblazers - we'd never before had leading non-christian or ethnic minority leaders. The point is that they allow people of non white ethnicity or non christian religions to aspire to be political leaders. There is no such need for christianity as we've had 'role models' of christians as PMs etc as long as we've had PMs.
Bur of course none of those individuals (the Hindu in Downing Street, a black first minister in Cardiff, a Muslim mayor in London and a Scots Asian in Bute House) hold such extreme views as Forbes, although there will be other Hindus, Muslims etc that do) - it is the extreme views of Forbes that is his focus, not her christianity.
-
Don't be stupid Vlad - Yousaf and for that matter Sunak, Khan (as other non christian senior politicians) haven't said they think people choosing to have sex are sinners because they aren't married, nor stated they are against gay marriage etc - then I'm sure Farquharson would be just as critical. Similarly I doubt he'd have any issue with other christian politicians whose opinions are more mainstream and not just in general terms but amongst christians (Forbes views are extreme across the spectrum of views of UK christians).
And you are also completely missing the point regarding role models - he praises "a Hindu in Downing Street, a black first minister in Cardiff, a Muslim mayor in London and a Scots Asian in Bute House" not because they are inherently more worthy than christians, but because they are trailblazers - we'd never before had leading non-christian or ethnic minority leaders. The point is that they allow people of non white ethnicity or non christian religions to aspire to be political leaders. There is no such need for christianity as we've had 'role models' of christians as PMs etc as long as we've had PMs.
Bur of course none of those individuals (the Hindu in Downing Street, a black first minister in Cardiff, a Muslim mayor in London and a Scots Asian in Bute House) hold such extreme views as Forbes, although there will be other Hindus, Muslims etc that do) - it is the extreme views of Forbes that is his focus, not her christianity.
He says Scotland should be proud of being the first Western country to have a Muslim leader. He doesn't question what views Yousaf has. They are fine because they ate Muslim according to that statement.
And you seem happy with Yousaf missing the vote on gay marriage to avoid the problems of his avowed devoutness.
-
He says Scotland should be proud of being the first Western country to have a Muslim leader. He doesn't question what views Yousaf has. They are fine because they ate Muslim according to that statement.
Err you seem to have missed the key word - first. That's the point. Don't forget that there were all sorts of people who opposed Thatcher's views but still felt it was really significant that there had now been a first female PM - the norm that you couldn't be PM unless you were a man had been broken. That despite her views it sent a message to all women that they could aspire to be PM.
And you seem happy with Yousaf missing the vote on gay marriage to avoid the problems of his avowed devoutness.
Stop lying - where am I saying this.
Your shrill cry of 'christianophobia' when the criticism is about Forbes views is the equivalent of those who cry 'antisemitism' at anyone who criticises the views of Netanyahu. It is non-sense in both cases.
-
Err you seem to have missed the key word - first. That's the point. Don't forget that there were all sorts of people who opposed Thatcher's views but still felt it was really significant that there had now been a first female PM - the norm that you couldn't be PM unless you were a man had been broken. That despite her views it sent a message to all women that they could aspire to be PM.
Stop lying - where am I saying this.
Your shrill cry of 'christianophobia' when the criticism is about Forbes views is the equivalent of those who cry 'antisemitism' at anyone who criticises the views of Netanyahu. I tis non-sense in both cases.
Why does 'first' make a difference to the views of the person? You think a set of views make a person unfit for office but if they happen to be the first person elected with those views, you should be proud?
Where am I lying? Have you dealt with Yousaf avoiding the vote on gay marriage? Where?
-
Why does 'first' make a difference to the views of the person?
I sometimes think that you don't even bother to read what I post.
I made the point (using Thatcher as an example) that the notion of being a trailblazer is significant even if you may not agree with the views of that trailblazer (as was the case for me with Thatcher).
How hard is it for you to understand that if there has never been an ethnic minority PM that for people from ethnic minorities to think that being PM is something they can never aspire to as regardless of their views. Effectively that their non majority ethnicity will be a deal-breaker preventing them from being elected. The first ethnic minority PM (or woman PM, or muslim PM etc, etc) breaks that glass ceiling. It demonstrates that being from an ethnic minority (or being a woman, or muslim) is no fundamental barrier ... but your views may be if they are not attractive enough to the electorate.
That's exactly what the article does - it detaches the notion of identity (black, muslim, female etc, etc) which is no longer a block to being PM etc from views, which may well still be a block unless they are sufficiently attractive to the electorate.
Are you really arguing that the election of Thatcher was not significant for the ability of women in the UK to consider that they could become PM, or that the election of election of Obama was not significant for the ability of black people in the US to consider that they could become President, regardless of whether or not you agreed with the views of Thatcher or Obama.
-
Where am I lying? Have you dealt with Yousaf avoiding the vote on gay marriage? Where?
That's the point - I have made no comment on that matter, as it isn't relevant.
Your lie is claiming that I'm happy about something that I've never proffered an opinion on.
-
Cowardly John?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/cowardly-john-swinney-first-minister-in-waiting-cant-keep-dodging-this-simple-question-what-is-a-woman-susan-dalgety-4615152
-
Graeme McCormick steps aside
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0lgnm3037o
-
Kate Forbes to be Deputy First Minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68976320
-
Kate Forbes to be Deputy First Minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68976320
Is deputy First Minister a non-job in the same way that Deputy PM and US Vice President are also non-jobs?
-
Is deputy First Minister a non-job in the same way that Deputy PM and US Vice President are also non-jobs?
Pretty much, but it is symbolic, and will be seen as such by the Greens. She'll also get a cabinet post but those seem to be being announced tomorrow.
-
Pretty much, but it is symbolic, and will be seen as such by the Greens. She'll also get a cabinet post but those seem to be being announced tomorrow.
So given that she was previously the Scottish equivalent of the chancellor of the exchequer then anything other than that will be effectively a demotion from where she was a couple of years ago.
-
Pretty much, but it is symbolic, and will be seen as such by the Greens. She'll also get a cabinet post but those seem to be being announced tomorrow.
Why is it symbolic - it was obvious that Swinney and Forbes struck a deal whereby she got a cabinet position and in return agreed not to run for the leadership. That was clear days ago, and would have been clear to the Greens too.
The question is whether Swinney will be able to operate as a minority government for any length of time.
-
So given that she was previously the Scottish equivalent of the chancellor of the exchequer then anything other than that will be effectively a demotion from where she was a couple of years ago.
I can see her asking for the Islands and Rural Affairs role, which while it might normally be seen as a demotion, would allow her to be in some ways more powerful in terms of influence within the party.
-
Why is it symbolic - it was obvious that Swinney and Forbes struck a deal whereby she got a cabinet position and in return agreed not to run for the leadership. That was clear days ago, and would have been clear to the Greens too.
The question is whether Swinney will be able to operate as a minority government for any length of time.
Well, I was saying the DFM role is symbolic generally but it's in addition to whatever cabinet role she gets.
-
I can see her asking for the Islands and Rural Affairs role, which while it might normally be seen as a demotion, would allow her to be in some ways more powerful in terms of influence within the party.
In other words ... err ... a demotion.
-
In other words ... err ... a demotion.
No. In other words, if she asks for it, it will make her position in the party stronger since there is seem to be a split between the urban and rural. Things aren't always black and white.
-
Well, I was saying the DFM role is symbolic generally but it's in addition to whatever cabinet role she gets.
So it sounds to me like DFM is like Deputy PM - where you put someone who you have to pay lip service to, but want outside the inner circle of key decision makers. Throw in a junior ministerial post and job done.
Unless she gets her old job back (and there was plenty of speculation around the time of the deal that she would) then this will be seen as Forbes having been rather successfully played by Swinney.
-
So it sounds to me like DFM is like Deputy PM - where you put someone who you have to pay lip service to, but want outside the inner circle of key decision makers. Throw in a junior ministerial post and job done.
Unless she gets her old job back (and there was plenty of speculation around the time of the deal that she would) then this will be seen as Forbes having been rather successfully played by Swinney.
Sturgeon was DFM as a very clear anointing. So, no.
If I were Swinney, I'd want her in Finance. In terms of the party that means getting a lot of flak for decisions that others disagree with. If I were Forbes, as covered I'd go for the Islands, as it allows a more independent look.
-
And after all that she has the Economy, and Gaelic
-
Sturgeon was DFM as a very clear anointing. So, no.
But Sturgeon was very clearly Salmond's heir apparent. Are you somehow suggesting that Swinney sees Forbes as his heir apparent :o
-
But Sturgeon was very clearly Salmond's heir apparent. Are you somehow suggesting that Swinney sees Forbes as his heir apparent :o
No, I was saying that your characterisation of DFM wasn't correct, as Sturgeon's role didn't fit within it.
-
And after all that she has the Economy, and Gaelic
So a demotion, albeit a different one.
There was no bar to Swinney giving Forbes back her old job alongside being DFM - the current Scottish chancellor of the exchequer (so to speak) was also DFM until today.
Realistic given Forbes views there were rather fewer available cabinet post than might have been the case for others. No-one is going to let her near Health or Education.
In fact it would appear that Swinney has had to create a new job (is this another non-job to go with DFM - who knows) to fit her in, as he's increased the cabinet from 10 to 11
-
No, I was saying that your characterisation of DFM wasn't correct, as Sturgeon's role didn't fit within it.
But it was you who described the role as generally symbolic:
' ... I was saying the DFM role is symbolic generally ...'
-
But it was you who described the role as generally symbolic:
' ... I was saying the DFM role is symbolic generally ...'
And? It doesn't mean that I agreed with your characterisation which was, as the case of Sturgeon shows, wrong. The symbolism when Sturgeon was chosen was obviously an anointing. The symbolism here is Forbes being welcomed back. Politics, like Paris is a moveable feast.
-
So a demotion, albeit a different one.
There was no bar to Swinney giving Forbes back her old job alongside being DFM - the current Scottish chancellor of the exchequer (so to speak) was also DFM until today.
Realistic given Forbes views there were rather fewer available cabinet post than might have been the case for others. No-one is going to let her near Health or Education.
In fact it would appear that Swinney has had to create a new job (is this another non-job to go with DFM - who knows) to fit her in, as he's increased the cabinet from 10 to 11
Again, you seem not to have any real understanding of why Forbes might not want to take on the most unpopular role in an SNP cabinet again.
-
The symbolism here is Forbes being welcomed back. Politics, like Paris is a moveable feast.
Into a non-job (which was previously held by someone alongside Forbes old, more senior, job - which she didn't get back) and another created job. Meanwhile Swinney has kept exactly the same team that Yousaf had. Isn't rocket science to recognise who will be the odd one out around the cabinet table. Wonder if they'll even invest in an extra chair.
-
Into a non-job (which was previously held by someone alongside Forbes old, more senior, job - which she didn't get back) and another created job. Meanwhile Swinney has kept exactly the same team that Yousaf had. Isn't rocket science to recognise who will be the odd one out around the cabinet table. Wonder if they'll even invest in an extra chair.
Not sure that continuity would be what I would aim for currently. Open goal for the opposition parties.
-
Greens seem to have forgotten what Forbes did as Finance Minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd8lljj545o
-
Greens seem to have forgotten what Forbes did as Finance Minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd8lljj545o
And what exactly did Forbes do as finance minister that the Greens seem to have forgotten, given that their criticism seems to be due to her views on LGBT rights, gay marriage and abortion (which they describes as "repressive values of the 1950s". Last time I looked LGBT rights, gay marriage and abortion are not within the remit of the finance minister.
-
And what exactly did Forbes do as finance minister that the Greens seem to have forgotten, given that their criticism seems to be due to her views on LGBT rights, gay marriage and abortion (which they describes as "repressive values of the 1950s". Last time I looked LGBT rights, gay marriage and abortion are not within the remit of the finance minister.
The progressive taxation bit.
-
The progressive taxation bit.
'He went on to demand that Mr Swinney continued with “progressive” taxation and did not “give in to the right wing of his party”.'
Are you suggesting that the right wing of the SNP is represented by Forbes and by Forbes alone?
-
'He went on to demand that Mr Swinney continued with “progressive” taxation and did not “give in to the right wing of his party”.'
Are you suggesting that the right wing of the SNP is represented by Forbes and by Forbes alone?
I'm suggesting that Harvie ignored what Forbes did to taxation when he was in govt with her, and took her as representative of the right wing.
-
Shauny Boy's take
https://youtu.be/L7PI0W0p5CI?si=NkqIWN7F9Rc5obNn