Forum menu
Quite agree gordimhor.
Good point Chris - I think the hatred of the SNP would drive them that way. I do not think the maths will add up so that either labour or SNP can get even close to a majority and even lib dem MSPs well not be enough for labour to govern. I do not think labour would be able to get a finance bill thru without either SNP or Tory support and I believe they would choose tory
One of ther things I expect a labour administration to do is to align further with Westminster - so increased privitisation of the NHS, No more scottish child payment, no more free tertiary education, no more free personal care. because apparently these things are unaffordable in England. But maybe they will be sensible and produce a finance bill that the SNP could support but I doubt it
My guess is at the next holyrood election labour will be the biggest party but even with lib dem support too small to create a functioning government.
I think the hatred of the SNP would drive them that way.
Well, of course TJ, if Labour government didn't have a majority, it would only have trouble functioning if the SNP couldn't get over its tribal hatred of Labour to work together on issues thay they agree on.
There would be lots of opportunities for the SNP to vote with a Labour government considering you think there is nothing between them aside from constitutional issues. Apart from health. And education. And personal care.
I believe the SNP would work with them but labour will refuse. thats certainly fits in with the history of the last 20 years of Scots politics. What the SNP will not do is give unquestioning support - it will have to be discussion and tradeoffs - like mature PR democracies. the SNP have shown willingness to work with anyone. Scots labour will not work with the SNP or Greens - see their behaviour on Edinburgh council.
Its obvious that Scots labour would rather work with the tories than the SNP - thats the reality of what we see. Ian Murray was the founder of the labour / tory pact. That must have been done with consent from London
And you’d be happy with this for everything, even stuff you’re in favour of?
Yes, and FYI I've never been opposed to independence. I said before the referendum was even made certain it should be a 60% or similarly significant majority. Something so significant should never be allowed to pass thanks to a statistical blip, we've all seen where that leads.
Yes, and FYI I’ve never been opposed to independence. I said before the referendum was even made certain it should be a 60% or similarly significant majority. Something so significant should never be allowed to pass thanks to a statistical blip, we’ve all seen where that leads.
No Govt in my lifetime has had 50% of the vote, never mind 50% of the electorate - full on Catch-22.
What are you on about? I'm talking about a referendum, not an election.
What are you on about? I’m talking about a referendum, not an election.
Well, sure, but referenda have no particular constitutional status in this country, and if the requirement for approval was 50% or 60% of the electorate, then the status quo would never change.
Well no, but since we're talking hypotheticals what does that matter? :unsure:
Someone proposed another independence referendum with 50% of the electorate as a threshold. I agreed and when challenged gave the basis for that.
Nobody is talking about elections or where referenda sit constitutionally.
I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.
I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.
I don't. I think it should be part of the devolution settlement for all of the constituent nations. Much like I feel each devolution settlement should be the same for all.
I certainly think that a route to Scottish independence should be enshrined in Scottish law.
This is a total non-issue, a circlejerk that makes absolutely sod all difference to the actual lives of ordinary people. It's a grievance complex looking for a grievance. There is already a totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine. There is zero legal problem for nationalists. The problem has been a failure of support among the electorate when it comes to the crunch. Instead of spending blethering about an academic non-problem that would takes years of tedious discussion to "solve", nationalists should focus on making the idea more attractive.
Another referendum is a long ways away, the SNP and others were desperate for it after Brexit, as it would have been an easier win for them to get, but now, it's gone the other way unfortunately, governing has done the SNP no favours recently, world conflicts are making leaving the UK a concern, and the EU are moving right of centre and all focus is on Ukraine, it's not an easy route to providing assurance that independence will work out better in the long run with so much unknowns around.
Over the next 5 years Scotland needs to get as much out of this Labour government as it can, and eek out as much powers as it can get to strengthen areas that it could have positive management off.
There is already a totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine
Really? What is that? Ask for permission cap in hand to Westminster? NI has a legal and transparent route to reunification. Scotland does not have one to independence. Its in the gift of Westminster
the SNP and others were desperate for it after Brexit,
covid came along and Sturgeon made the judgement that it was not the right time ( much to the chagrin of many in the independence movement)- and anyway Westminster would not allow another referendum.
What precisely is this "totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine" then?
What precisely is this “totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine” then?
The instant removal of all people who use the word 'lorne' to refer to square sausage.
What precisely is this “totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine” then?
The exact same one that happened in 2014. You don't have a legal problem. You have a "not enough people are convinced independence is a good idea" problem.
ETA: this is a classic example of how obtuse, abstruse (and dare I say caboose) grievance politics about legalistic constitutional toss sucks the air out of Scottish politics.
So nothing that the scots can do about it - its just go begging to Westminster cap in hand. If westminster refuses then nowt we can do about it. Transparent maybe. Fair certainly not. Why could we not have a clause like they do in NI?
Why could we not have a clause like they do in NI?
A clause in what? Think it through.
This is such a boring, oxygen-sucking conversation that is only of interest to constitutional law enthusiasts. It is of precisely zero practical use. I am going to do myself a favour and never discuss independence or this constitutional toss ever again. There are so many more interesting topics in Scottish politics beyond this stultifying search for marks of oppression and victimhood.
I guess that means pca can't provide us with an example of the "totally transparent pathway to independence" which according to pca we already have
I think we could see where PCA was coming from when he dropped the 'separatist' term, and followed it up with the vague allusion to the SNP being a right wing populist party.
Leaving that aside, I rather suspect the independence question is very much on the back burner for the next decade if Starmer can do enough to secure a second term - I did feel that 2014 would prove to be a 'use it or lose it' moment, largely because I worried that Cameron would cave to the the Eurosceptics, and we'd find ourselves out of the EU and saddled with another Tory government if we didn't seize the moment. Must admit I didn't think the Tories would ever sink as far as they did. Whatever happens with the independence journey long term, I'll be happy if Swinney and Starmer act on the conciliatory rhetoric of the weekend, and we see some tangible benefits to Scotland from having a Labour government in Westminster.
A clause in what? Think it through.
Added to the Scotland act like NI does for the GFA
and followed it up with the vague allusion to the SNP being a right wing populist party.
right wing? Increasing taxes on the richer and higher benefits for the poorer? Free tertiary education?
Populist? Pissed off a lot of folk with the GRA and with restrictions on fishing etc.
They are left wing and follow and ideology ( currently - they may move back to the right - there is a serious debate / split in the party)
The exact same one that happened in 2014. You don’t have a legal problem. You have a “not enough people are convinced independence is a good idea” problem.
How do you know? There's no proper mechanism to determine that answer.
ETA: this is a classic example of how obtuse, abstruse (and dare I say caboose) grievance politics about legalistic constitutional toss sucks the air out of Scottish politics.
What is it that worries you about providing a mechanism to ask that question? The only real reason to resist having a well defined mechanism is the possibility that someone might use it. Ironically that feeds the reaction you are trying to avoid.
This is a total non-issue, a circlejerk that makes absolutely sod all difference to the actual lives of ordinary people.
Actually think you are wrong. It matters to a lot of people that there should be a mechanism. Even many people who want to stay in the union would much rather that it was a willing partnership and we had a well defined set of rules if it is going to happen, Brexit has highlighted the division that can happen when 52% of votes say one thing but they only represent 1/3rd of the people. The also highlight the risk of vague questions and no ratification of the answer. Those are things that worry unionists or middle ground people far more than died in the wool nationalists. Nationalists believe, rightly or wrongly, that independence will mean better lives for the next generations of ordinary people.
There is already a totally transparent pathway to independence that has been tested and worked fine.
I'm not sure if you are being forgetful or beligerent. The "pathway" has been attempted twice since devolution. On the first occasion it "worked fine". On the second occasion it was refused by Borris. Thus there is no pathway. If there was a defacto pathway I'd agree with you - but Westminster has made very clear that reserved matters are not automatically going to be agreed to just because Holyrood has a majority to request it.
PCA - just to reiterate I do generally enjoy your contributions and you are ruddy good at pushing me and others to evidence our statements.
Well, sure, but referenda have no particular constitutional status in this country, and if the requirement for approval was 50% or 60% of the electorate, then the status quo would never change.
PCA - on the one hand you say referenda have no constitutional status and on the other you say there is a clear transparent route to Indy following the 2014 model... which is it?
FWIW (as the proposer of the 50% rule on this thread!) I'm in Squirellking's camp - I support Indy, but I don't want to see Indy in a country that's massively divided.
50% of the electorate is a ridiculously high barrier when a 70% turnout is high. Thats just saying you can never have it. Dictatorship of the minority.
When Sweden and Norway split in 1905 it was 99% of an 85% turnout = 84% of the electorate.
Good Friday Agreement - NI 81% turnout - 71% for = 57% of the electorate.
Good Friday Agreement - ROI 56% turnout - 94% for = 53% of the electorate.
Estonia from USSR (1991) - 83% turnout - 78% for = 65% of the electorate.
Latvia from USSR (1991) - 87% turnout - 75% for = 65% of the electorate.
Lithuania from USSR (1991) - 85% turnout - 93% for = 79% of the electorate.
Ukraine from USSR (1991) - 84% turnout - 92% for = 77% of the electorate.
When it really matters people will turnout and vote; the challenge for political leaders is to make it compelling for them to do so. If you only manage to mobilise 70% of the electorate you really need to get 71.5% of them to vote for to get 50% of the electorate "for" something. Turnout in the 50's was 80% you'd need 62.5% support then... If that seems really difficult you've not told your story well enough.
Looks like the SNP in Westminster will be down ~£1m in short money as a result of their electoral collapse - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl4y82em7e6o . Combined with their £800k loss last year and no reportable donations in 2024 things must be looking pretty bleak for Swinney and Co.
Well, they have a camper van to sell. With hindsight, you need to ask, what on earth was Sturgeon thinking when she said she wanted a £100k+ camper van? Even at that time their finances were not particularly healthy. That they had to borrow £107k from her husband, which, surprisingly, is around the reported cost of the camper van shows the folly of spending so much on an unneeded item.
50% of the electorate is a ridiculously high barrier when a 70% turnout is high. Thats just saying you can never have it. Dictatorship of the minority.
Even higher with a 60% turnout, based on this 'barrier' it seems to me that Westminster doesn't have a mandate in Scotland.
Even higher with a 60% turnout, based on this ‘barrier’ it seems to me that Westminster doesn’t have a mandate in Scotland.
I suppose if we're going to entertain the argument that turnout below 60% indicates a lack of a mandate, then the real story here is that the Strasbourg didn't have a mandate in Scotland. Turnout in the 2014 Euro elections (the last proper election for a full parliamentary term) was only 33.5% in Scotland. Even the pointless 2019 Euro elections (when EU membership had been the top talking point for a year) didn't crack 40%. The implication of this argument is that the Scottish electorate did not legitimise European parliamentary democracy.
But it's a silly argument and it should be ignored completely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_(European_Parliament_constituency)
@alanl: how dare you suggest that Ms Sturgeon was in any way involved in the camper van affair or the loan to the SNP? That was 100% the dealings (if they even happened) of her husband, who is a completely separate person, and the very idea that she might have known of it (because he might have mentioned it over the cornflakes or she would have spotted the big shiny object on her elderly mother-in-law's driveway) is reprehensible.
It's much like the Justice Clarence Thomas position in the US, where it's his wife that got all the gifts from political donors, and he just happened to have accompanied his spouse as a +1.
https://people.com/ginni-thomas-accepted-payments-judicial-activist-report-7489373
110 votes from an "electorate" of 223 was enough to take Scotland into the Union. I'd say that hardly constitutes any sort of majority ?
You're going back 316 years to find a grievance to complain about now? I knew Scottish Nationalists were keen on European-style politics but I assumed they meant the civic nationalism of the Nordics, not Balkan grudges and mangled history. What's the Gaelic for "pet stotina godina pod Turcima"?
“how dare you suggest that Ms Sturgeon was in any way involved in the camper van affair or the loan to the SNP? “
Haha, Yes, you are right, she knew nothing about anything in the Party, I should believe her when she says that. And the election defeat was nothing to do with her too, of course it wasnt. I didnt know her and the husband spoke over cornflakes, I thought she was somewhere else all the time, so no chance to ask why £100k+ had gone out of the account, and why that van was parked up at the relatives - who wants to visit the M-i-L when you have a Country to run?
What’s the Gaelic for “pet stotina godina pod Turcima”?
Since you ask it's
Còig ceud bliadhna fon na Turcaich
Blink of an eye really
alanl
Free MemberWell, they have a camper van to sell. With hindsight, you need to ask, what on earth was Sturgeon thinking when she said she wanted a £100k+ camper van?
TBF I reckon the explanation is basically true tbh, it could have worked out really effective to have a vehicle like that, if covid restrictions had carried on further. I've not seen any actual evidence of misuse ie that it was bought for personal use not for genuine party use, just nudge nudge wink wink- that all seems to be just about where it was parked, and since it had to be parked <somewhere> why not there, where it was free. But £100k was ridiculous in any case, clearly they could have got a vehicle to do the same job for much less. And I'm not talking about building their own conversion in a smiley transit.
And in the event, it turned out to be no use at all, and admitting to that would have been embarassing especially considering what an excessive spend it was, so they hoped to just park it up for a while and then sell it quietly at a loss and try to avoid looking like idiots. And instead, they made it even worse, and made it from "glaring mistake that plays perfectly into doubts about competence and fiscal management" into "glaring mistake that also now can look like deliberate misuse of funds for personal gain". And that's double stupid, it just never had to happen.
There's no version of events where they come out of it looking good but with zero evidence of actual wrongdoing despite all the digging so far I think the likely explanation is the stupid one not the crooked one.
"TBF I reckon the explanation is basically true tbh, it could have worked out really effective to have a vehicle like that, if covid restrictions had carried on further."
Seriously? Nicola Sturgeon whose official residence is Bute House and who stays in top class hotel would camp out in a van going round the country. Apart from anything else the security issues are horrendous.
For a campaigning vehicle? Not big enough and no need to own it. They just do as every party does and hire a big coach for 6 weeks.
If it was for use outside election campaigns why was it parked the whole time at the MILs as far as we know?
As for whether buying it was crooked? No matter what they planned it was crooked if it was bought with part of the missing £600k.
" zero evidence of actual wrongdoing despite all the digging so far" Apart from the evidence which was enough to charge Mr Sturgeon and report him to the COPF?
But £100k was ridiculous in any case
The only thing ridiculous about £100k campers is that it's no longer ridiculous
I reckon the explanation is basically true tbh, it could have worked out really effective to have a vehicle like that, if covid restrictions had carried on further.
You don't seriously believe the suggestion from anonymous sources in the SNP that "the campervan was about trying to have an ability to campaign while complying with the rules. It would have acted as a mobile campaign room. It would mean not having a need for hotels and minimise mixing.”
I’ve not seen any actual evidence of misuse
Have you seen any actual evidence of genuine use or even an intent to use it in a genuine way? It was parked on private property, was not used in 2+ years, was not marked with any SNP signwriting, is patently and unsuitable for the supposed purpose, was not sold after the pandemic despite the SNP's dire financial position...
Well the fact is wasn't used surely suggests a lack of misuse? If they were pissing off every other weekend then sure, bang to rights but if you're going to embezzle for personal gain you don't buy a whacking huge white camper, park it in a close relatives drive then never bloody use it. You can get seasonal pitches for that.
And yes, her official residence might be Bute House but she still grew up in Dreghorn.
if you’re going to embezzle for personal gain you don’t buy a whacking huge white camper, park it in a close relatives drive then never bloody use it.
You yourself just said they (Murrell and Sturgeon...?) were "double stupid". But not stupid enough to do that? I suppose we may find out when it comes to trial.
Just to be clear: do you genuinely believe that there was an intention for Sturgeon to drive around Scotland using the campervan as a "mobile campaign room" and not stay in hotels during election campaigns?
There’s no version of events where they come out of it looking good but with zero evidence of actual wrongdoing despite all the digging so far I think the likely explanation is the stupid one not the crooked one.
this
” zero evidence of actual wrongdoing despite all the digging so far” Apart from the evidence which was enough to charge Mr Sturgeon and report him to the COPF?
As far as has been made public thats nowt to do with the camper
Just as well Murrell has been charged or the SNP apologists would still say there is no evidence of criminality despite £600k of donations disappearing into a black hole.
Want to take a bet on any criminal sanctions ever appearing? Pastry based of course 🙂