MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Thanks TJ. If ever I decide to research the history of middle-class angst I shall make a point of seeking Mr Pooter's diary 🙂
I see we're going to stop protests before they become protests just in case the protest causes an inconvenience (slightly facetious comment).
I'm pretty sure this is the same comment he used when trying to shutdown the unions.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: "The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, but this is not absolute. A balance must be struck between the rights of individuals and the rights of the hard-working majority to go about their day-to-day business
hard-working majority
Yet another three letter slogan, Goebbels would be proud...
I’m pretty sure this is the same comment he used when trying to shutdown the unions.
Its just more of the same culture war nonsense
Little Rishi has decided that the way to go is macho posturing and take an openly confrontational approach to everyone the Daily Mail doesn't like.
It's literally all they've got. They're picking an awful lot of fights though. All of these new proposed laws will be opposed in the Lords, the courts etc, if they ever get further than Rishi announcing them, which I seriously doubt
I love the use of language.
"While we respect the right to protest ... WE'LL BE MAKING IT ILLEGAL"
"While we respect the right to strike ... WE'LL BE MAKING IT ILLEGAL"
You're not really respecting either then, are you?
The legislation they're proposing is so vague and broad-brush, in both instances, that the government will have free range to do whatever the hell they like really
The "hard-working majority" will show Sunak just what they think of his government, as soon as he finds the courage to go to the polls and ask them, or is forced to by the passing of time. Can't come soon enough.
There's already far too much on the statute book to prevent protest... no more is needed... bringing in anymore is just "virtue signalling" to make headlines and try and win back some voters... obviously needs to be paired with a whole lot of scare mongering about those who want to protest against the ongoing expansion of fossil fuel extraction and in favour of the energy saving measures than could make that less profitable for the fossil fuel industry (and increase quality of life for people, and decrease climate change causing pollution).
the effort you’re putting in to arguing about whether a GP is middle class or upper middle class
I think you overestimate the effort involved in writing a couple of sentences. 😀
They’re picking an awful lot of fights though.
And they'll lose. They're already buckling on the nurses strike, the same will happen with the PCS, rail workers etc.
As for eco-protestors, it's pretty funny the govt telling a bunch of activists that they'll be sent to prison if they disrupt people's lives when the whole strategy of those activists is to get sent to prison to highlight the issue they're protesting about. Also in many cases these acitivists are being found guilty by juries who sympathise and indentify with their cause.
'Hard working majority' is nicked from Obama's 'hard working people' but the 'majority' bit is to imply that strikers/demonstrators are a lazy, ****less minority who should happily accept a pay cut and de-regulation and know that they stand the chance of a good whacking if they organise against it.
From the Guardian article above and very true.
I have always thought it a no-brainer that a highly unpopular Tory government would never prevail in a tug-of-war for public sympathy with nurses. That’s a battle Mrs Thatcher never provoked.
The beauty of the word "majority" is that any group you want to degenerate... nurses, cleaners, protestors... they will always be the "minority"... so you can attack anyone and everyone with that kind of othering, while sounding "democratic" to people who don't fully understand what that means. Let's face it.. the "hard working majority" voted for parties other than Sunak's at the last election... so you could use that to attack him, his party, and those that put them in a power. It's the basest form of politics available (and it works... well has worked... Sunak's hole in support now looks too deep for him to climb out of on the backs of all the "minorities" he can identify and attack).
Thatcher was very sensitive with regards to the public's huge commitment in the NHS. She famously said "the NHS is safe in my hands" to reassure voters, and although I don't think anything was safe in her hands I reckon the NHS did survive her premiership relatively unscathed.
tjagain Full Member
£ 45000 a year fees?
To resurrect this point for a moment. I am sitting right now having my lunch in an Italian Deli surrounded by pupils from a local fee-paying school about a quarter of a mile away.
It made me wonder how the fees for that school compared to Winchester. It turns out almost identical - £43,629
https://www.whitgift.co.uk/admissions/fees
So it turns out that I am surrounded by kids, 12 I've counted, who are just as privileged as Rishi Sunak was when he was their age.
Do they inhabit a different world to me? Undoubtedly. But but I wouldn't exaggerate it - we at least share the same Italian Deli, in fact today due to lack of space I am even sharing the same table as a couple.
They are actually nice kids - always polite and no trouble.
Furthermore two of my very good riding buddies are former Whitgift School boys, although I don't think either of them post on here despite one being a very keen gravel bike rider - he is an accountant and dislikes both the royal family and the Tories. I can't quite remember what the other one does but I am fairly sure that he doesn't inhabit the world of the super rich. I know that his wife is a midwife as I see even more of her on bike rides than him.
Of course both of them might have won scholarships so their parents need not have had to have the equivalent of £43k in today's money, I would have to ask them.
To spend £43k anyone on PAYE would need to gross £90k to pay for it.
Having sent our kids to private school I do understand the cost differential between an 'average' private school and somewhere like Eton/Winchester etc. My OH and I would've been earning probably the same if not more than Sunak's folks and no way was somewhere like Winchester accessible to us, especially for three kids - do we know where the other two went?
do we know where the other two went?
I have no idea but surely every Asian mother knows that you take of your eldest son?
Or have I watched too much of 'Goodness Gracious Me'?
do we know where the other two went?
To the comp on the local sink estate. One is in prison for shoplifting and the other is still at Goldman Sachs
One is in prison for shoplifting and the other is still at Goldman Sachs
Made me laugh. But also made me look. Both have pretty interesting jobs... he's a Clinical Neuropsychologist and she's working at the UN... I'd rather have either of their careers than Rishi's anyway. The UN job came after getting some high profile work for the government that their brother happened to be a part of... nice career stepping stone not available to all of us... but, snide comment aside, looks like a rewarding career.
I’d rather have their careers than Rishi’s anyway.
Why?
It is almost certainly the best paid and the one which needs the least qualifications.
I reckon Rishi has landed on his feet.
I'd hate to be PM. Wouldn't you?
I'd love to be PM. I'd sort you lot right out. 🙂
I’d hate to be PM. Wouldn’t you?
Yup. Doesn't really fit with my 10-4 typical working day with a leisurely lunch. 😀
I'd have hated to have taken the Goldman Sachs and offshore hedgefunds route as well. Loads of money perhaps, but soul destroying. Depends on what you value I suppose. His siblings look to have far more interesting careers to me.
I’d love to be PM.
I'd rather have a retired nurse, even you*, as PM than someone who made their money in a California based hedgefund betting against the prospects of the UK.
[ *please take that in the lighthearted manner it is intended 😉 ]
I would be like Rufus T Firefly if I was Prime Minister.
"who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"
C. Marx
Doesn’t really fit with my 10-4 typical working day with a leisurely lunch.
Worked for Johnson.
Just depends on how much you care about doing a good job.
*adds Kelvin to "the list"*
If I was PM I'd end up making Boris look like an exemplar of honesty, modesty and restraint
Its also quite possible you may all die by my hand
If I was PM I’d end up making Boris look like an exemplar of honesty, modesty and restraint
I'd do a polonium job on Nigel Farage and Sophie Corcoran. A long, painful, lingering death where they can contemplate their demise for a couple of days, livestreamed on www.gov.uk.
Just make them an irrelevance, way better than going to hassle of murderising.
Looks like that, not content with starting wars with the unions and protest groups, Rishi has just instigated a completely pointless power struggle with the Scottish government
In a short space of time, he’s making himself a lot of enemies.
I don't think it's about the policy, which is mostly very widely supported, despite what the BBC lies say. It has to be about arrogance and a sense of entitled control.
"How dare you wee Scottish upstarts do something more positive than we can manage..?"
He doesn't pick the best things to fight over, does he..?
It would look a bit weird if instead of being chauffeur-driven in a bullet proof Range Rover the Prime Minister drove himself around in a Lamborghini surrounded by police outriders and followed by armed police in support vehicles.
Meh,I was thinking of his previous life not the current one he stole from Saj.
“How dare you wee Scottish upstarts do something more positive than we can manage..?”
He doesn’t pick the best things to fight over, does he..?
I think his decisions are based purely on tomorrow’s Daily Mail headlines.
Seems like classic ‘small man’ syndrome to me. Thinks he’ll take everyone on to show how hard he is. I think we’re going to be seeing quite a bit of backtracking, very soon, when reality asserts itself over his ridiculous macho posturing.
Seems like classic ‘small man’ syndrome to me.
That rings bells, someone else seems to be suffering the same thing and starting loads of fights, tip of my tongue, can't quite put my finger on their name. Going well for them as well I hear.
I think its all part of his culture wars - that and a total lack of understanding of Scots law. the reason they went to 16 is because everything under Scots law has you an adult at 16. the only things you have to be older for are things that are under UK law. You cn vote and you can marry without parental consent at 16
the whole thing is a farce. Sturgeon expended loads of political capital on that but in the end got as close to consensus as possible. the GRA was backed by most SNP. Most labour, Lib dems and some tories. Huge majority in Holyrood. what right does he have to override that?
Starmer is going to back him as well.
its just a gift to the SNP thats a few % on the independence vote right there
I was "meh" about the GRA but I am outraged by this. Sunak has no mandate in Scotland.
Sunak is just picking fights to keep the frothing loons in his party at bay. I'm sure if he'd have his own way he'd be hiding in any fridges he could find without BJ already in there.
Feels like the tension within the Tories is bubbling just under the surface. He'll be fine until the local elections. The day after? Well, we'll see.
I don't think Rishi Sunak is quite as short as he appears to be.
I think part of the problem is that his impressively large ears give the wrong perspective to the rest of him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-height-how-tall-b2212471.html
And btw it is impolite to speak critically of someone's height. Besides, Warwick Davis is my favourite game show host. Even if does have to sit on a box.
Sunak also thinks ( I believe) that this veto will be a vote winner in Scotland. Using trans rights as a political football
if anything showed the democratic deficit this does
It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on
He’s just detonated a massive constitutional stand off, and for what?
It’s difficult to see what he stands to gain from any of this even if he nominally ‘wins’
I think he believes it will win him votes in Scotland. tories down to 18% in Scotland last time I looked.
it will also play well i the daily Heil.
Starmer is going to back him as well. he does not like the age of maturity being 16 in Scotland. ( or doesn't understand this)
It’s difficult to see what he stands to gain from any of this even if he nominally ‘wins’
I suspect he hopes by throwing a bone to the antiwoke warriors they might leave him alone for a bit and not agitate to bring back the king over the water to rule again.
Its either that or he looked at the constitutional crisis in Northern Ireland and decided kicking off in Scotland would confuse things especially that the former is down to brexit.
Sunak also thinks ( I believe) that this veto will be a vote winner in Scotland.
More likely he thinks it's a vote-winner in England. Scotland is lost to the Conservatives.
On a different tangent - did we spot this rather left wing thinking from the tories in the news yesterday?...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64278651
On a different tangent – did we spot this rather left wing thinking from the tories in the news yesterday?…
I spotted that. To be fair, sounds like it's a "left wing Tory" think tank. And the minimum income might only be £3.84 a week.
It will also play well i the daily Heil.
Starmer is going to back him as well
I am not sure that Starmer actually supports the Westminster veto of the Scottish proposed legislation but he does apparently have very serious concerns about it.
As does the Equality and Human Rights Commission. And also the Guardian newspaper (I have no idea about the "Daily Heil")
It would make things much simpler of course if it was just a case of "woke v anti-woke" but it doesn't appear to be.
I fully expect Starmer to back Sunak. He has made it clear he thinks the GRA is wrong based on his lack of understanding of scots law
Sunak and Starmer have the same objectives with regards to Scotland. they want the SNP to fail and they do not want a left wing socially liberal exemplar north of the border. The Guardian is also staunchly unionist and opposes the SNP at all times.
The GRA has been carefully drafted and amended to not conflict with equalities law as much as possible. Trans rights is a very difficult issue however to ensure no one is disadvantaged
Starmer may crack under pressure from Scots labour who back the GRA but usually he just ignores them
It will be interesting to see how the Scots press plays this. We have 3 quality(ish) papers. The national which is staunchly pro independence but not necessarily pro SNP. the herald which is fairly neutral on independence perhaps slightly tipping towards and the Staunchly tory unionist Scotsman. Ill have a look at them
It would make things much simpler of course if it was just a case of “woke v anti-woke” but it doesn’t appear to be.
No, it's pretty much a young people vs old people issue.
Anyway, judging from my Mum's reaction, who left the SNP because of this issue, she doesn't like the GRR but she is absolutely enraged that Westminster has done this.
I suspect Sunak thought this would somehow strengthen the Union. I think it's going to backfire badly.
The papers are all partly behind paywalls so hard to see the full position
Ian Murray the only Scots labour MP is backing Sunaks view - thats a firm clue to how Starmer will react. The scots labour MSPs are in general appalled at the veto. tories are being quiet. Nowt from DRoss
The national only has a brief editorial Very much opposed to the veto unsuprisingly calling it " the end of devolution"
herald seems to be very much against the Veto and points out that Starmer has shown utter contempt for the scots labour MSPs which appears to be a quote from a scots labour MSP. also gives space to a Scots tory attacking labour for " being divided"
Scotsman is fairly neutral which is a suprise and claims the westminster tories are divided over the veto
From that quick glance and its also early days the scots media are going to come out overall in favour of holyrood and devolution and against Sunaks actions
his lack of understanding of scots law
You do realise TJ that you are suggesting that you have a better understanding of scots law than a trained barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, don't you?
And instead of assuming that Starmer and the Guardian are ganging up to be mean to the SNP because they don't want Scottish independence, have you considered the possibility that they may actually have serious concerns about the GRA?
Why can you not see how the GRA might cause serious concerns?
Anyway, judging from my Mum’s reaction, who left the SNP because of this issue, she doesn’t like the GRR but she is absolutely enraged that Westminster has done this.
I think thats going to be a reasonably common viewpoint that its antidemocratic and kills devolution dead. I don't believe its the sort of issue that .a section 35 order was intended for. I'm not totally happy with the GRA but i think its a reasonable compromise and it was backed by all parties ( with a few holdouts) bar the tories and even some tories backed it. the main issue that seems to be a sticking point with both Sunak and Starmer is that it applies from 16. that just shows a basic lack of understanding of scots law
You do realise TJ that you are suggesting that you have a better understanding of scots law than a trained barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, don’t you?
Why would that mean he understands scots law? he will not have been trained in it, he will never have worked with it, he will never have been in a scots court. As DPP he has no jurisdition in Scotland. the two legal systems are separate.
The guardian is a unionist paper and opposes anything the SNP government does. Starmer is a unionist and opposes everything the scots government does. Indeed automatic opposition to anything the SNP does is a long standing policy of labour. the Bain principle
the main objection i and many others have is alleviated by the 3 month waiting period. I am totally in favour of the provisions acting at 16 indeed I have never seen folk in Scotland object to that. In Scotland that would be seen as obvious. any gender reform / recognition would apply from 16.
Politicians doing controversial stuff to cause arguments, that’s all I’ve seen with this issue, most parties agree with most of it, but the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time, it’s also the only part that appears to have a voter rating below half.
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicised it.
Why would that mean he understands scots law?
I was actually more interested in why you think you know Scots law better than Starmer.
he will not have been trained in it, he will never have worked with it, he will never have been in a scots court.
But you have?
Since Starmer is publicly commenting on the issue, and because he is a trained lawyer, I suspect that he has made fairly sure that he understands the legal issue which he is commenting on.
I certainly have no reason to believe that you are better informed.🧐
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicised it.
Sounds like a very believable comment to me.
But you have?
funnily enough yes. I have had some basic training in aspects of scots law at honours degree level especially around competence and consent where the age of 16 is discussed and absorbed a bit more over the years from Mrs TJ
but the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time,
Errmm - legal maturity at 16 goes way way back in Scots law and way precedes the setting up of the Scots parliament by centuries hence the marriage at 16 at gretna green because it could be done without parental consent.
Some variety points.
Bit my cynicism (which is realism really based on experience) is this is a tactical move to
(a) distract from the awful mess they have got the NHS in
(b) millions can't have both heating and eating
(c) the clusterfluck in Northern Ireland
(d) the economy is STILL fhoookted
(e) education is in a mess, with droves of teachers leaving (I'm married to such an example)
(f) multiple major strikes inc all those key workers who have been shafted for 12 years in nursing, ambulance, fire, teaching, and soon to be junior doctors too, all where the Gov fundamentally give a toss about them as ministers don't have to use those services
(g) ALL of the above and more.
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicized it.
all the politicising has been done by Sunak. the GRA was supported by both nationalist and unionist parties with even some tories supporting it. It passed holyrood with a large majority
it was as close to cross party consensus as I have seen for a while
Yes Sunak has handed a good oportunity to Sturgeon but thats his stupidity, Its not been politisised by holyrood given that support for it cam from the right and the left and from unionist and nationalist alike
I have had some basic training in aspects of scots law
Yeah that sounds pretty impressive but not quite enough for me to accept that you know more than the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service.
the main objection i and many others have is.....
Why is just about your objections? Why can't Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Why do assume that any concerns they may have can't possibly be legitimate and must therefore only be motivated by a hatred of the SNP?
it was as close to cross party consensus as I have seen for a while
Interestingly, the debates in Holyrood moved opinion among MEPs and the public in Scotland. Pretty much back to where they where before the debate in the media and social media became so toxic.
the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time, it’s also the only part that appears to have a voter rating below half
There was a lot of compromise here though... 16 and 17 year olds will still have to jump through extra hoops that 18+ people won't. It's likely that the number of under 18s getting though the process will be very small... it's almost designed to make them wait. A watering down aimed at those considering the "drop" to be an issue. A shame really, but goes to show that the Scots government aren't intransigent on this.
Starmers only objection seems to be about the age at 16.
Why do assume that any concerns they may have can’t possibly be legitimate and must therefore only be motivated by a hatred of the SNP?
Because that has been their MO for 12 years. A wellorganised and often repeated position. automatically oppose anything the SNP does
What has the equalities commission had to say - I haven't seen owt from them. LInk?
I don't know why you think Starmer is an expert on Scots law given he will never have worked with scots law, never been trained in it and as DPP had no jurisdiction- indeed by his comments about the age 16 it shows he has missed a basic point.
some woolly words from a political appointee who on appointment was criticized for politicising the position and with a record of being against trans rights
Nowt concrete there indeed from my understanding much of that has been addressed
But thanks for the link
Starmers only objection seems to be about the age at 16.
Did he say that? He acknowledged people have concerns... but does he? Is he objecting? Not really clear at all.
Anyway... anyone want to talk about Sunak...? It's clear what his government are up to... and it's not just about Scotland, it's also about New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and other countries that have move towards self-declaration since 2011.
I don’t know why you think Starmer is an expert on Scots law
No I don't think Starmer is an expert on scots law. It is more a case that I don't think you are, despite apparently some basic training.
So when you claim that Starmer has a "lack of understanding of scots law" I am not entirely convinced.
Pretty clear to me. I cant see the quote now. I did put it in the starmer thread but it broke the forum!
Whatever your views on the GRA this is a complete attack on scottish democracy. The GRA was passed by holyrood with support from all sides of the house by a large majority after 6 years of debate and amendment. Its a topic within the competence of holyrood. Veto from london is profoundly undemocratic.
thats the key here
It doesn't really matter who has 'legitimate' concerns, it's as close to a cross party consensus as has been seen in any area of UK politics in years.
Even the Scottish tories supported GRR under Ruth Davidson.
It's not really a question of whether TJ or SKS has a better understanding of Scots law. It's a question of whether the entirety of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a better understanding of Scots law than SKS.
Do you think SKS knows Scots law better than the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, ernie?
"I have concerns about the provision in Scotland, in particular the age reduction to 16 and, in particular, the rejection of our amendment in relation to the Equalities Act."Pressed on whether you are old enough at 16 to decide to change gender, he replied: "No, I don't think you are."
Thats pretty clear. Unfortunately thats wrong in law. Both on Gillick competence ( which applies in england) but wouldn't necessarily cover all at 16 and in Scots law ( and I think English) where its clear you can take decisions over your own medical treatment and do not need to consult parents or guardians once you are over 16.
Bit my cynicism (which is realism really based on experience) is this is a tactical move to
(a) distract from the awful mess they have got the NHS in
(b) millions can’t have both heating and eating
(c) the clusterfluck in Northern Ireland
(d) the economy is STILL fhoookted
(e) education is in a mess, with droves of teachers leaving (I’m married to such an example)
(f) multiple major strikes inc all those key workers who have been shafted for 12 years in nursing, ambulance, fire, teaching, and soon to be junior doctors too, all where the Gov fundamentally give a toss about them as ministers don’t have to use those services
(g) ALL of the above and more.
All Sunak has left is puffing the same shitty little culture war the Republicans are currently pursuing. He's prepared to strengthen the pro-independence argument even further in Scotland to do it.
some woolly words from a political appointee
So from now on will you be dismissing all comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as of no concern? Or only the comments which you don't agree with?
Btw your suggestion that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is politically motivated has the ring of a Daily Mail column writer about it.
So from now on will you be dismissing all comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as of no concern, or only the comments which you don’t agree with?
So can you please list exactly what the EHRC is concerned about, ernie?
I read the link you posted and it's not clear.
“I have concerns about the provision in Scotland, in particular the age reduction to 16 and, in particular, the rejection of our amendment in relation to the Equalities Act.” Pressed on whether you are old enough at 16 to decide to change gender, he replied: “No, I don’t think you are.”
Thats pretty clear.
Thanks TJ, that looks pretty clear to me.
But you can consider 16/17 too young to decide, without saying that the law shouldn't allow it via blanket exclusion. But I'm splitting hairs there. He is voicing concern about the age reduction.
its clear you can take decisions over your own medical treatment and do not need to consult parents or guardians once you are over 16
That doesn't change with this act. 16 and 17 year olds still need parental consent I think, an odd compromise. That's the thing, this is actually a very timid move... the opposition to it is all a bit odd. And depressing. That even such a small change to help Trans people be recognised comes up against such a backlash does not bode well. And it does seem worse South of the border, and not just in politics.
More of the LBGTQ+ lobby. the criticisms are based on her comments - linked to and come from the previous head and staff within the organisation. she caused a lot of strife by her position within the organisation on appointment an with later pronouncements
the mail would be more than happy with her I think as she is anti trans rights as a political position
Ernie - remember the labour party in Scotland support the GRA. they started off opposing it IIRC but as the bill was amended and refined over 6 years they came to support it. Scots labour MPs are aghast at Starmers position. Scots labour support for the bill means a lot given their previous record of automatically opposing anything the SNP or Greens propose
16 and 17 year olds still need parental consent I think,
not in Scotland. this is the bit that Starmer has either misunderstood or ignored. Its a long standing position
Once a child reaches 16, he or she has full adult legal rights to decide whether to consent to treatment or not.Child Health in Scotland operates within the framework of Scots law, which differs from the law in England and Wales
Scots Law treats the 16 year old as a full adult. He or she has the right to consent or refuse to consent to all medical, dental or surgical treatments or procedures.
Thats pretty clear. Unfortunately thats wrong in law.
No it is not clear that Starmer is giving a legal opinion. He was asked if he thought 16 was old enough to decide these things, he answered no - that is obviously his opinion. It is not a comment on Scot law.
Scots law says they are. That trumps an english politicians opinion.
So where is your evidence that Starmer will back a veto?
I said that I am not sure Starmer actually supports the Westminster veto of the Scottish proposed legislation.
You said "I fully expect Starmer to back Sunak". You claim that he will because according to you he hates the SNP so much. Is that all you've got or have you some actual evidence that he will back a veto? He has suggested that he won't.
Is that all you’ve got or have you some actual evidence that he will back a veto. He has suggested that he won’t.
You should definitely let Scottish Labour know that.
