Scottish politics thread

"Left" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there...

Which is why I asked very early on what they want the “Union” to look like, since this is all under the their Union.

Surely the issue is that giving more power to a Scottish government was supposed to make things better. Arguably it hasn’t so what would be the point of Independence? I think it’s easy to accept that the UK as it is has problems. The question is how do you solve it. It’s a bit like Brexit: The EU is far from perfect. Does leaving make things better?

Looks like the Greens have left the Scottish Government coalition

Best to say they walked out. They are trying to be Green after all.

what is it they do in Wales or England that we don’t do in Scotland to reduce drug deaths?

The emphasis of drug policy in Scotland is on harm reduction, the emphasis is Wales and England on the other hand is more focussed on rehabilitation and recovery.

It's wrong to say that the fault of increased death rate falls to Westminster, the divergence in policy in Scotland is a devolved matter. The system is Scotland has reduced the emphasis on the moral aspect of drug taking and relies on the drug taker's willingness to engage with support to give up on their own, critics of this essentially take the view that this approach does little to actually help addicts becasue it emphasises addiction is something to be managed rather than overcome.

Personally I can see what the SNP were trying to achieve, remove the stigma of drug taking and reducing the harm of illegal drugs and replacing them with safer (state administered) alternatives. The experience in Scotland has actually been that the harm of addiction is a more pressing need than harm reduction policies can achieve especially when routes to recovery and rehabilitation have been reduced or in some cases removed all together.

Edit: I'm not in any way suggesting that drug policies in England/Wales are some sort of shining beacon of success, they are not. E/W still has some of the highest rates of drug taking in western Europe, the record is nothing to crow about. I think that with some corrections, the Scottish system would probably yield better results as the experience of similar policies in other European countries has shown.

as has been explained.   The improvement in poverty rates will take a generation to take effect and drug policy is a reserved matter and steps the Scottish government wanted to take as a harm reduction approach were vetoed by the tories.  Several steps proven to reduce deaths

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your snp slagging 😜

You're just repeating the same thing you did before, and it still doesn't stand up to reason. You could argue that improvements aren't happening solely because the Scottish Government doesn't have the power to legislate on Misuse of Drugs Act, and that's the only thing left to do thay will have an effect.

But that is somewhat implausible because criminal drugs law is just one important factor among many, and it doesn't explain why the drug addiction and drug death rates are already so much worse in Scotland than in other parts of the UK that have exactly the same drugs laws (as @nickc pointed out) and worse levels of poverty (as you have alluded to).

The sources are all above...

Which is why I asked very early on what they want the “Union” to look like, since this is all under the their Union.

I don't see what drugs deaths and drug addiction rates in Scotland under the Scottish National Party have to do with the pluses or minuses of the Union. It would be an abject failure if a unionist party were in power in Scotland and responsible. Not everything is about the Union. Why are those high rates in comparison to similar populations elsewhere a topic that only unionists should care about? It's a weird suggestion.

I'm not really interested in the independence vs union discussion as it's perennial and stagnant, and I think it's odd and disingenuous that the SNP's most hardy want to explain every situation as a failure of the union. Salmond stitched up ferry procurement - that's the Union's fault. Huge drugs problems and inequity in health outcomes within Scotland - that's the Union's fault. Sturgeon's husband nicked again - that's the Union's fault. Mrs Miggins dropped her messages on the zebra crossing - it's perfidious Albion again!

PCA - you might be right and the difference is down to access to rehab and culture of dealing with addicts.  It is surprising that a fairly subtle distinction has such a stark contrast.  So I did a little digging on what constitutes a drug death in Scotland v England.  I need to do some actual paid work now - but if I have picked it up right - there are two categories:

- all deaths where any drug, including prescribed medications or over the counter pain killers contributed to the death

- deaths where drug misuse (ie illegal drugs) were a factor.

it appears that the first is consistently measured across the U.K. and Scotland is much worse than the rest.  The second is not directly comparable between constituent parts of the U.K.

now I’m not saying Scotland doesn’t have a drug problem - it absolutely does (and as someone says that’s not unique to Glasgow or even the big cities).  BUT before we bash the government on either side for drugs death inconsistencies are we sure that the anomaly is mainly dealing in street drugs rather than mental health related overdoses (and of course street drugs and MH are not entirely separate issues anyway).

so I come back to my earlier question- are we even measuring the same thing, and add a supplementary question - if we are, do we know what we are measuring?

https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-mission-drugs-annual-monitoring-report-2022-2023/pages/4/

It's all in section 4.3.1. This is the data to which the article in the OP and @somafunk 's post refers.

Is drug usage higher here than in England or Wales or just that deaths are higher? I'd strongly suspect drug usage is much higher. I can't find the article but there was a report a while ago that Glasgow had the highest rate of people combining drugs, mainly cocaine and ecstasy. They love a sesh up here. I've long suspected a lot of it is driven by the grey miserableness for a good chunk of the year.

A bit old but clear I think

https://theferret.scot/ffs-explains-scottish-drug-deaths-compare-uk-eu/

What the hell is going on here? I was at a government environment conference last year and one of the top civil servants presenting effectively held his head in his hands and pled with his audience and said "our government has said we're in a climate crisis, but no one is acting like we're in a crisis".

12 months later and we've now scrapped the climate targets (achievable or otherwise at this point, should have tried harder earlier) and booted out the one party that cares from government, a few weeks after introducing an agricultural payment policy that's worse for the environment than England's (it disregards it entirely!). The SNP risk losing a lot of their left wing voters here. This is significantly more important than drug deaths.

Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all apparently supporting a no-confidence vote in Yousef Humza

The SNP risk losing a lot of their left wing voters here.

To who though - Scottish Greens? They're not going to form a majority government and none of the other parties have "greener" policies than the SNP.

VNC could come down to Ash Regan, which would be ironic.

The Scottish Greens statement is a real zinger: https://greens.scot/news/statement-snp-have-sold-out-future-generations

Apparently they're not a bunch of softly-spoken Birkenstock wearers...

"This is significantly more important than drug deaths"
To the economy yes, to the world as a whole yes.
Up to this point I don't think too many of the Scottish electorate have actually seen first hand the effects of climate change, you could argue that many of them have seen the effects of drug addiction.

From the SGP statement;

If they can’t stand up to members of their own party...

In my mind the party leadership is there to carry out the wishes of the members, not to dictate to them.

"In my mind the party leadership is there to carry out the wishes of the members, not to dictate to them."

FFS that'll never catch on

In my mind the party leadership is there to carry out the wishes of the members, not to dictate to them.

And if they don't mind losing the votes of people who are in favour of what the Greens represent then that's fine.

Can't speak for anyone else but personally I'll be voting Green regardless of electoral maths after today.  Before I was thinking about voting for the most likely pro-independence candidate but now it's more important I register my opinion on environmental and social issues.

If that results in a Labour MP then so be it.

I have the impression is that independence is the only thing all SNP voters agree on. When it comes to other policies it seems to be a very broad church. If the SNP leadership is bowing to pressure from the party's right wing then there's probably a decent number of left wingers and possibly centrists in the part who will feel aggrieved - just like how the party's right wing has felt ignored at other points in the past few years. In which case the leadership has to pick a direction that isn't purely coming up from the membership, or they'd never have a policy on anything except independence.

And it's not like there seems to be a strong consensus in the party about how to achieve independence either.

Surely the issue is that giving more power to a Scottish government was supposed to make things better. Arguably it hasn’t so what would be the point of Independence?

You do realise that independence & devolution are two totally different things don't you?

Devolution is a Unionist construct and it's the UK which is deciding which bits of policy it's going to let Scotland manage, and even then it'll take control when it doesn't like their approach.

What we have is what YOU want, control of Scotland by Westminster.

I wonder if the recent report sounding a note of caution around the NHS treatment of transgender young people has played a part in this - the report’s recommendations seem to be at odds with the Scottish Greens’ policy aims, and probably add some weight to those voices within the SNP of broadly the same perspective.

More generally, I’m not sure where the recent travails of the SNP leave me politically - I’m still broadly in favour of independence, as the current devolved arrangement leaves Scottish policymaking vulnerable to Westminster politicking aimed at subverting Scottish Government aspirations (whether SNP or Labour), particularly under a Tory administration. For most of my voting life, I was a solid Labour voter (and party member), but there’s nothing about the prospect of Anas Sarwar as Keir Starmer’s glove puppet that appeals to me politically (other than the absence of the current Tory government).

You do realise that independence & devolution are two totally different things don’t you?

No. Really?

 but there’s nothing about the prospect of Anas Sarwar as Keir Starmer’s glove puppet that appeals to me politically (other than the absence of the current Tory government

do we think that may well be enough to see plenty of SNP voters ticking Labour when they get into the ballot box?

but there’s nothing about the prospect of Anas Sarwar as Keir Starmer’s glove puppet that appeals to me politically (other than the absence of the current Tory government

do we think that may well be enough to see plenty of SNP voters ticking Labour when they get into the ballot box?

The number of Labour MPs returned by Scottish voters does not affect the odds of a Labour or Tory government at Westminster.

I'm not sure what policies folk would be voting for if they switched to Labour, given that Anas Sarwar simply says whatever SKS tells him to, and the latter changes his mind day by day.

It's likely that a number of SNP non-voters might now rethink their position and vote SNP again next time round - especially if Yousaf decides to fall on his sword.

Oh - massive kudos to @politecameraaction for having the presience to start this thread 😂

I’m not sure where the recent travails of the SNP leave me politically...I'm still broadly in favour of independence

...which is fair enough, because the SNP is not independence, and not all of its failures and successes are a story about independence vs the union. The SNP being terrible or fantastic in a devolved government doesn't really change whether independence is a good or bad idea.

The SNP being terrible or fantastic in a devolved government doesn’t really change whether independence is a good or bad idea.

I'm not sure about that, could look at it two ways, the SNP have hardly been a party of excellence over the last decade and it's going downhill fast at the moment with everything that's coming out now combined with the current leadership. Now that could be because Westminster blocks the SNP from doing a fantastic job for Scotland (for those who believe in sunlit uplands) or Westminster is curbing the worst of the  SNP and providing a solid funding base for Scotland.

At the moment though neither Westminster or Holyrood are performing particularly well. It's the same argument about Brexit, accept that despite it's issues the EU gave the UK some stability, same applies to Scotland without Westminster. I'm not sure I'd be happy with the SNP at the reins post independence.

I think the current state of the SNP does reflect badly on the idea of independence as well, independence and the SNP are intrinsically linked.

I don't understand what happens if Humza loses a vote of no confidence. The other parties don't want to form a coalition government and any minority government would be too weak to achieve anything the SNP didn't want. So does that mean elections?

I think the current state of the SNP does reflect badly on the idea of independence as well, independence and the SNP are intrinsically linked.

Again, Scotland won't become a single party state post indy.

Is this a variation of the Johann Lamont argument that Scots are genetically incapable of governing themselves?

And really, we're trying to argue that the problems with the EU are equivalent to the problems with Westminster?

Is it like Westminster where it’s nominally a person who forms the government? So the SNP a could theoretically form a government under a different leader?

They can form a govt if they can cobble together a coalition that commands a majority, under any leader, could be Yousaf or another.

As for the mechanism by which an election is held if this cannot be achieved, I have no idea.

129 MSPs.

63 of which are SNP.

The Preciding Officer doesn't get a vote.

If it's 64 Vs 64 then Yousaf stays.

Ash Regan could be the decider. If she votes NC then I think Yousaf would have to make way for someone else. I'm not sure what happens if that person also fails to get 64 votes, but there's no way any other party is going to get 64 votes either.

Going "to the country" would likely be the next move? We've seen other countries manage to carry on for months/years without a functioning government.

So far as I understand since the motion is vote of no confidence in him he doesnt have to resign, whereas if there was a vote of no confidence in his government he and all his ministers would have to resign within 28 days.
If I am correct about that I think this option will just lead to "death by a thousand cùrsa"

I bet Kate Forbes is clearing her diary 😂

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24278590.will-humza-yousaf-resign-loses-no-confidence-vote/#:~:text=What%20happens%20if%20Humza%20Yousaf,to%20resign%20as%20First%20Minister.

Ash Regan could be the decider. If she votes NC then I think Yousaf would have to make way for someone else. I’m not sure what happens if that person also fails to get 64 votes, but there’s no way any other party is going to get 64 votes either.

id have thought there would be some on the opposition benches who would rather he didn’t lose it?  In the end either they got a better leader which is bad for the opposition OR they go to the polls and would THEY be sure of reelection?  A couple of “selfish” abstentions would be enough….

Aye, but (certainly at Westminster) there’s a convention that no opposition party would ever admit they didn’t want a GE.

The SNP have been falling apart for a while now, sadly that's politics, start up, get some power, incoming career politicians and the likes turn up and then add in fallings out, scandals, nepotism and so on and you've got the usual political goings on as in every successful party.

As for Humza, he's not the greatest, but in the current climate, he's probably the most vanilla, non damaging First Minister, which is not a bad thing due to the state of a few of the candidates that were up for it last time!

As for independence, that's not even in the discussion for me just now, that happens after the vote is confirmed, the only folks thinking it's good or bad are those who will vote Yes or No right now, next year, ten years from now no matter the argument.

Is this a variation of the Johann Lamont argument that Scots are genetically incapable of governing themselves?

Don't know where you got that inference from. No I was suggesting that for some voters in Scotland, probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate the SNP are the face of independence, and therefore as they are hardly covering themselves in glory at the moment that will tiant swing voters view of independence. We're along way from the RA RA days of the referendum.

And really, we’re trying to argue that the problems with the EU are equivalent to the problems with Westminster?

Pretty much, except Scotland is way more dependant on rUK than the UK was on Europe and that split hasn't exactly gone well has it.

 I was suggesting that for some voters in Scotland, probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate the SNP are the face of independence, and therefore as they are hardly covering themselves in glory at the moment that will tiant swing voters view of independence.

I'd agree with this. I also think that lack of any momentum on the issue from the SNP has made folk less likely to turn out and support them. If the message remains "now is not the time" then folk just get turned off. I did see some polling suggesting that Labour were doing better than the SNP in many areas but I wonder how much of that is down to folk just not being engaged at the moment. An election (especially for Holyrood) will awaken some of those sleeping voters, which is why I think the SNP will do a bit better than the current polling suggests.

The fact that the electoral system makes it very difficult to gain a majority in Holyrood seems to pass everyone by.  The fluke of 2011 was through a narrow window of a big list vote and slightly poorer seat performance.  Usually if a party dominates, they will not get the list seats to take them over the line.

Time and time again being a minority is used as a stick to beat the main party (I remember when it was not the SNP).

One attraction for indy is that is the one thing that will kill the SNP.  Wish such kryptonite existed against the Conservative party.

If I was the opposition I'd want him be first minister in the lead up to any general election. He's been inept in all of his previous roles, and made a huge error of judgement today, that could lead to him losing his job next week. If I was the opposition I wouldn't want to face Kate Forbes as she seems more confident and competent that Useless and more likeable than Sturgeon/Salmond (any religious eccentricity aside).

Humza actually seems a nice enough fella...just incompetent!

any religious eccentricity aside

Kate Forbes was incredibly naive to even respond to discussion on her personal beliefs, rather than stick to the policies she would support,  especially after Tim Farron made that mistake previously. I am staggered she hadn't been coached in this beforehand.  Shame as obvs very, very competant, but maybe wanted an out for family reasons.

Humza actually seems a nice enough fella…just incompetent!

Very much this. Rather than throw his toys he could have negotiated an end to the Bute deal with the Greens to both their advantage.

All the politicians from all main partys in Scottish parliament seem so utterly lightweight

Kate Forbes was incredibly naive to even respond to discussion on her personal beliefs, rather than stick to the policies she would support,

Definitely.  Although some of her previous support to get to where she did might have left her in an echo chamber where she actually though those things would resonate.

especially after Tim Farron made that mistake previously. I am staggered she hadn’t been coached in this beforehand.

I don’t think she was really prepared at all for the election -  it came as a surprise so there was no coaching.  That said, like many strongly religious people they believe their views are unchallengeable and I’m not sure that even with hindsight she’d say she got that wrong.

Shame as obvs very, very competant, but maybe wanted an out for family reasons.

A core skill of being a major political leader is knowing how to read the room.  I’d say a political leader with strongly held, openly communicated religious views of any flavour in Scotland was not actually as competent as the rest of her persona would suggest.

Scotroutes… an awful lot of people have voted SNP and will be looking at the alternatives thinking- you’ve done nothing to move towards compromise on the biggest issue in Scottish politics, Alba might do better than they should, and the greens haven’t really shown themselves to be very good but I think will mop up disgruntled left wing Indy voters.  The other parties are weirdly anonymous and lacking in meaning.

Fasgath - Indy probably causes the tories to implode too!  New parties will of course fill the various vacuums left after Indy causes the parties to question their very existence and tear themselves apart with infighting

Surely the biggest case for Indy is simply pointing South to Westminster and saying 'we can be free from the damage caused to 90% in Scotland by this shower of shit'.

It's absolutely fine to be religious and to be a political leader.  As was repeatedly brought up during the leadership contest Yousaf himself is religious.

What is not OK is to come out and say you are going to allow your religious beliefs to influence your decisions.  Anyone who says that is simply too much of a religious nutter or too politically incompetent to be in the running.  Even Blair knew that.  He didn't let people know he prayed on whether to invade the Middle East and kill several hundred thousand Arabs until after he was out of office.

We'll see what happens.  If there is a lurch to the Alba side of the divide then I can see the SNP losing a lot of support among young people.  What that is going to mean for the independence movement long term we'll have to wait and see.

probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate

I will vote, I'll not vote SNP next time round, I'm not an Alba voter, and the Conservatives would need a full personality/ethics transplant, locally the Greens are invisible but available as a protest vote. Which doesn't leave too many choices.

Religious extremists are the very worst of people. As political leaders or otherwise.

As was repeatedly brought up during the leadership contest Yousaf himself is religious.

To be fair, you could never accuse him of pursuing a religious agenda in office...or any kind of agenda. It all seems to be stumbling from one thing to the next.

So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union.

Or is it because publicly they're not prepared to actually say that just want Scotland ruled no different to Yorkshire, or Somerset etc - i.e. Holyrood dismantled and no Scotland only policies?

If this isn't true, is it purely that you can't stand the SNP because they're anti-Tory - so you voted for Brexit and/or Tory in 2019, you don't believe in climate change, nor GAS about folk in poverty (should work harder!)?

I can only conclude it's one or the other as you're fixated on the dismantling of any independence ability.

You also seem to just want to 'live' off the wide backs of the English taxpayers.

the Conservatives would need a full personality/ethics transplant

So the state of the UK economy won't impact your vote at all?

So you support Brexit, increasing the National Debt by +£300 million PER DAY, love that Tory donors got rich off PPE corruption, adore paying ever higher taxes for poorer public services etc etc?