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
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.
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?
I really don't see how Yousaf wins this confidence vote, even if he technically 'wins'.
Presumably Regan isn't going to vote for him unless she gets some or all of the demands she's been gleefully writing a list of. If the problem with the BHA was that the tail was wagging the dog, how is it going to look if Alba's sole MSP (who wasn't elected as an Alba MSP) is now seen to be setting the agenda for the SNP.
There was a way to end the BHA less acrimoniously, I'm sure, but Yousaf's way could end up burying both him and the SNP.
So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union.
Well I am very much in favour of not breaking away from the Union, but I also happen to think the SNP have generally done a quite decent job in government. I'll never vote for them for one obvious reason, but the independence issue aside they broadly speaking represent my political viewpoint.
Of course their record in government hasn't been perfect, no party, regardless of politics, ever is. But Scotland is a brilliant place to live. I've loads of friends and family down south, and speaking to them I reckon the quality of life up here is much better. And for me being part of the Union is one of the reasons.
The SNP have done a lot of good things (though let's not mention ferries), and have been able to do these things while being part of the UK.
As for Humza, well he seems a decent enough bloke, the sort you'd happily go for a beer with. But politically he's hopeless. Which is why I think it's strange the Tories have forced a no confidence vote with an election still possibly 6 months away. If he goes then I suspect Kate Forbes will get in who may well revitalise the SNP in time for the next election.
“So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union. “
I think keeping the Union is the best thing currently. Devolution should be extended, Scotland has definitely had the better deal after the Scottish Parliament was set up. As for finances, I’m still not sure Scotland will win, financially, by going Independent. There are so many figures thrown out that it’s a case of which one is correct? If we’re 'living off the backs of English Taxpayers’ then I dont mind that. Other areas in the UK get that too, so why not Scotland?
'as you’re fixated on the dismantling of any independence ability.’ Who says that? There is always an independence ability, but the main promoter of that, the SNP has fallen over, and clearly will not be able to mount a Referendum for 10 years +. They had their best chance in 2014, and have subsequently shown they are not the Messiahs many thought they were, and are fallible just like all other Parties.
'Cant stand the SNP’. Who says that? The only people who say they hate the other party are people who say it about the Tories. There were a few who said it about Labour when Corbyn was in charge, but I have no experience of people saying they hate the SNP. They say they are useless, incompetent, corrupt, but not much more than that.
Independence is a single policy. What’s needed is a complete policy review by the SNP, and to make sure they are doing the correct thing for the Country and the People, rather than being ruled by their ‘Main Aim’. It is running the Country that is the hard part, get that right, and people will see they are doing things correctly, and eventually agree that Independence would be beneficial if it is promoted correctly, rather than having constant digs that the UK Government is holding us back. (And, please stop saying it’s the English, it is the UK Parliament, we do have representation there, as do NI, Wales and England)
On the "Islay's economy is bigger than Birmingham's" claim: I had a little poke around and I couldn't see anyone that was suggesting it and had any numbers. The only source I could see that was articulating the claim and then dismissing it was the Scottish Daily Express (shudder). It seemed to suggest that the claim was comparing the aggregate retail value of all Scotch sold worldwide (including taxes paid to foreign governments on foreign consumption) and then attributing it all to Islay, which is of course nuts. But that's the Express saying it, so...
As an aside, I see that "Brexit" is so toxic even among Scottish Daily Express readers that the paper describes Scottish independence as "Scexit".
So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want...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!)?...You also seem to just want to ‘live’ off the wide backs of the English taxpayers.
These assumptions are mad things that you've just invented. It's a world that exists only between your two ears.
Is it impossible to hold the SNP to account for their actions in government without it being a position on independence? Or to ask it another way, can't someone be in favour of devolution or independence and still criticise the SNP for poor performance?
The SNP's apparent fumbling of health and addiction policy isn't because they're in favour of independence - it's because they're rubbish and complacent in government. Turning everything that happens in Scotland and Scottish politics into a conversation about independence is extremely reductionist. Sometimes that seems to be a deliberate tactic to distract from the issue actually in question.
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. .....etc etc
Completely agree! Also why I think Assisted Dying should be a manifesto topic for each party.
re drugs:
The death rate is higher as the Scots changed the emphasis from rehabilitation and recovery to one that prioritises harm reduction. It didn't work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they tried to save money by getting rid of many of the rehabilitation and recovery programmes, and instead relied on users giving up by themselves while being supported on 'cleaner' drugs. and secondly, drug habits change over time, and most Scottish drug deaths are users that are combining street and 'script drugs for fun rather than O/Ding on opiates becasue of addiction (which is mainly what harm reduction schemes are aimed at).
The Scottish system is a good starting point, but it still needs the push and support (including penalties) from agencies to get people to stop, and it needs to evolve to cope with the way that folks are actually using drugs, and it hasn't.
the greens haven’t really shown themselves to be very good but I think will mop up disgruntled left wing Indy voters
Lorna Slater has already said that Independence isn't a red line for co-operating with Labour, so I think it depends on where folk place their Left/Right political beliefs as a relative priority with Independence.
(FWIW, I despise the use of Left/Right to describe folks political leanings as it's simply not nuanced enough).
The gloves are off now
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24280190.anas-sarwar-lodge-vote-no-confidence-scottish-government/
Wings has Neil Gray as the new leader when Yousaf resigns in the next couple of days.
Wings has Neil Gray as the new leader when Yousaf resigns in the next couple of days.
That's a sad indictment on the lack of leaders in the SNP these days, that and Salmond being allowed back in the press to gloat about how it's all a shambles now he's not in charge.
SNP have had their time at the top seat and they now need replaced. Most of what they have done has been great, but the last 4 years or so have seen some big issues and not getting them resolved quickly (or letting them happen)...they are too relaxed at being in the top seat now and taken their eye off the ball.
Same with the Tories...
Each party will likely have something or things that appeal to the masses...
The decision to not hit our climate targets has been really poor, considering we seemed to be doing well...
Needs a refresh and a new think at the top.
I wouldn't have thought Labour actually wants the SNP to leave government at this moment. They don't want a coalition without an election, and they don't want an election when they're not prepared for it.
The Scottish system is a good starting point, but it still needs the push and support (including penalties) from agencies to get people to stop, and it needs to evolve to cope with the way that folks are actually using drugs, and it hasn’t.
I've been motivated by this thread to do some proper digging on the stats. Both ROS and ONS say the Scottish/English data is not directly comparable and requires extreme caution to interpret. BUT what is interesting is that "drug deaths" is a gross simplification.
We DO count people who die from taking "illegal" drugs - which I guess is what we all expect. We include in those numbers people who took those drugs with the intention of overdosing. That's a relatively small number, but was still somewhat surprising to me. In Scotland at least the vast majority of the deaths are Heroin related (more accurately Opiod related), not some mix of MDMA/Cocaine. The deaths correlate very strongly with areas of deprivation. That last statement is no surprise - but does suggest there won't be quick fixes either. If I understood correctly they don't include deaths caused to others (e.g. if I get high and drive my car into someone else, or if I stab someone in a drugs related crime etc). What was most surprising though was that the numbers only include deaths which are directly linked to drugs with a fairly immediate nexus between taking the drugs and it leading to death. If I die at 50 as a result of long term chronic health problems cause or agrivated by drug taking that will NOT be recorded as a drug death. In that sense both Scottish and English numbers are a significant under reporting.
If there is a difference between policies North and South of the border, then it would actually be interesting to understand the total picture. Many of the gang related stabbings that england has become infamous for will have a drugs element. You probably also need to look at other factors - does helping the drugs problem exacerbate alchohol problems? Does that hurt people other that the "user" too? Overall the life expectancy numbers suggest Scotland has not succeeded in the big picture so I'm not saying to ignore the drugs numbers but perhaps it gets the wrong emphasis? Is England "ahead" of Scotland or actually is it behind on the curve and will have its depressing increase in the 2030s as a result of social policies implemented today? Its too soon to see if the Lord Advocate's policy of not prosecuting most drug use has an effect - but it is clear that when Scotland took different approaches on knife crime and treated it as a public health issue it has had a very positive effect. Anyone who thinks punishment is the way to stop Opiod users has clearly never had a serious discussion with someone who injects heroin; just as anyone who thinks it could be sorted in one parliamentary term when the underlying causes have taken decades to establish.
The opposition parties bashing the SNP were also the people who opposed the SNP "named person scheme" which might just, over a generation (not a parliamentary term) have helped some of our most vulnerable children avoid following in their parents footsteps. Perhaps, like many government policies, it had flaws but sadly the tendency to reject solutions from the majority party for the sake of it is a symptom of parliamentary arithmetic. Holyrood was designed to have minorities and work on cooperation - perhaps we are heading back towards that.
In Scotland at least the vast majority of the deaths are Heroin related (more accurately Opiod related), not some mix of MDMA/Cocaine.
and not just Heroin, its benzodiazepines - as you point out lots of the opiate drug death are OTC like pregabalin and diazepam, Scotland has a poly-drug misuse issue. Folks are O/Ding on a mix of drugs.
I see the SNP's rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
Both ROS and ONS say the Scottish/English data is not directly comparable and requires extreme caution to interpret.
Rly? Because the report that is the source of the data explicitly says
2. 'Drug-misuse deaths' is the terminology used by the NRS in their 'Drug-related deaths in Scotland' statistical publication and is consistent with the terminology used in other parts of the UK. The term ‘misuse’ is seen by some as stigmatizing. The Scottish Government aims to use neutral language where possible unless referencing an official title, technically defined term or policy from a different organisation.
This is the same definition and source from which the same data linked throughout above comes from. Nothing new.
increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Source for this claim...?
The proportion of income moving from rUK to Scotland was around 0.08 per cent, while the proportion of income moving from Scotland to the rest of the UK was 0.9 per cent.
The slight increase in the number of higher taxpayers moving out of Scotland in 2018-19 is estimated to have resulted in £61m in tax receipts going to the UK Government instead of the Scottish Government.
But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.
In 2021-22, the most recent year of available data, £200 million in additional taxable income was brought into Scotland.
But the HMRC study says it could not draw “definitive conclusions” on whether the reason for the migration trend is tax difference.
“We cannot observe the counterfactual situation where tax divergence did not occur, we cannot conclude the policy change had no effect,” it said.
grimepFree Member
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Daily Mail headline by any chance?
We came from England, both high/highest rate taxpayers but we've never been asked whether it was for the taxes, benefits or the weather 🙂
Correlation vs Causation, look it up.
I chose to live in a highly taxed location in a highly taxed country. I'd happily pay even more tax but others wouldn't so that might not be productive. Junior paid no university fees and the free schools were great. The health service still works though it is being stressed by the boomer demographic reaching peak care reqirements. There are great public pools, ski resorts, sports fascilities, theaters, heeitage sites... .
These are how I measure things not on how many individuals get hooked on drink and drugs, or choose an unhealthy diet. So Scotland scores quite well and better than England on things that matter to me.
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?
I've literally no idea how you arrived at this response. You sure you haven't read something into my post that actually isnt there?
Grimep
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
Ha.ha……..we have a comedian in the making, needs a fair bit of work but crack on….
Forbes believes that it is acceptable for the state to discriminate against people based on the persons sexual orientation.
That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.
"Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?"
I think the historical record of the past 40 years has made it pretty plain where neo liberalism leads. Can we recover? Or will the vast wealth accumulated over these years being used against us be too much to resist.
PCA - here's what the NRS say: https://blog.nrscotland.gov.uk/2023/08/22/what-actually-counts-as-a-drug-death/ and the ONS: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/comparability-of-drug-related-death-statistics-across-the-united-kingdom/ nobody seems to believe that Scotland is not worse than England but we don't collect the same data or report in the same way so have to use a different metric for intra-country comparison from we do for everything else - and we can't look deeper to see if the English data is driven by different drugs etc.
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
It is interesting how you use socialist as an insult whilst many people in Scotland would see it as something to aspire towards. I know a lot of people who live in Scotland who will fall into the category of paying more tax than they would if they lived in England. They come from a wide range of political perspectives. I can't remember any saying they were considering moving because of tax policy. I can only think of two who've actually moved to england since the difference started... one of them was very unhappy that his children were now going to have to pay more in university fees and was trying to persuade his employer (who wanted him to move) to cover that cost...
Whichever definition is used, it remains the case that Scotland has a much higher drug death rate than anywhere else in the UK. The scale of the difference under either definition highlights that differences in production of the statistics do not explain the gap.
https://blog.nrscotland.gov.uk/2023/08/22/what-actually-counts-as-a-drug-death/
But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.
There's been huge net immigration from outside the EU into the UK since Brexit. Rrelatively few immigrants to the UK move to Scotland (it has 8.2% of the population but only 4% of non-EU immigrants). But still you could easily have a situation in which the relatively small number of Scotland-quitting high earners is outbalanced by a larger group of Scotland-arrivers, and net income tax take would increase. Or many other scenarios...
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/where-do-migrants-live-in-the-uk/
That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.
Nobody is saying her religious beliefs means she is not allowed to do the job.
The problems is when someone's religious beliefs prevent them from doing the job, and is there is no reasonable workaround that allows them to follow the rules of their faith and still do the job. In this case, she has said she won't be able to do the job because her religious beliefs mean she cannot consider certain issues objectively. She cannot reasonably argue for or against certain issues because she has already admitted her positions come from her faith and therefore she cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter what arguments or evidence is presented to her.
Like I said, a lot was made of Yousaf's religious beliefs but at no point did he ever suggest his faith would influence his decisions.
And even then, no one is saying that she isn't allowed to stand. Just that they won't vote for her and would advise others not to vote for her because, as she has said herself, her religious beliefs mean she cannot be objective in all matters.
Not a fan of Forbes, but didn't she just say she couldn't vote for the gender recognition reform bill, not sure i've ever heard her say she couldn't do the job because of her religious beliefs?
