Forum menu
The fixed term parliament act and repeal was Westminster elections. Holyrood elections under the Scotland Act.
Just had a look. The Holyrood elections were originally every 4 years, but were changed to every 5 so they couldn't overlap with Westminster. That was the source of my confusion. So, every 5 years regardless of any intervening election.
Both the Gender reform act; and liam McArthers asssisted dying bill actually show Holyrood in a good light in that they were / are well considered compromises based on a lot of debate and expert opinion - not the results of a single parties ideology. Both have / had cross party support.
It would be really stupid to have one now and another in 26. I cannot believe that was the intention when the act was written.
A quick Google says that
Any extraordinary general election would be in addition to the ordinary general elections, unless held less than six months before the due date of an ordinary general election, in which case it would supplant it.
Scotland Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk)
I hadn’t realised how godbothery Scottish politics was.
Its not in general. Its just in the last couple of years god botherers have got into positions of power.
Well you don’t see the UK govt collapsing because of fringe issues like gender recognition.
Not to mention irrelevancies like environmental targets.
Yes, instead you see the Tories able to do pretty much whatever they want because 30% of the population agree with them. And no one can do anything about it.
Thanks, but I'll stick with minority governments and coalitions.
Not to mention irrelevancies like environmental targets.
Is a target that's completely unachievable relevant?
don’t feed the troll
You don't think the unstable nature of coalition politics is a topical issue when it has caused the collapse of a government?
god botherers
genuine question, why is it acceptable to use this kind of language to describe religious folks? If someone used a derogatory term to describe for example a trans person they’d (rightly) receive a hammering and most likely a ban.
its typical stw hypocrisy..
For the Scottish Parliament to work properly there has to be the ability to compromise which is made much more difficult when the bosses get on the phone and say, ‘You know that legislation you’ve spent 2 years working on? Yeah, we don’t like it. Ditch it.’
labours tribal hatred of the SNP
This is the sound of feet stamping about the fact that opposition parties have the temerity to be in opposition to the SNP. "But why won't they just agreeeeee?" Apparently when everyone does what the SNP says, it's compromise, but when the SNP does what its voters instructed it to do, it's...what?
There is plenty of scope for compromise between nationalist and unionist parties. The SNP just hasn't cut a deal to get what it wants. This is just another around-the-houses way of blaming Teh Unionists for the SNP's lack of success in government and making everything about independence, even when the subject matter is clearly devolved and would be handled by the same parliament in the same way even in an independence Scotland.
This is the sound of feet stamping about the fact that opposition parties have the temerity to be in opposition to the SNP. “But why won’t they just agreeeeee?”
Actually, on GRR there was cross party support after years of negotiation and compromise. Only the Tories opposed it and even they were in favour when Ruth Davidson was in charge.
Tories blocked it. Then Labour said, 'Actually, we don't like it either.'
It's a perfect example of the Scottish Parliament acting in the way it was designed only for the main offices to jump in and have a temper tantrum.
It's amazing the number of people who feel the need to comment on this thread despite having obviously paid very little attention to Scottish politics recently.
PCA - its really not the SNP that is the cause of the non co operation. Its labour mainly and their complete refusal to work with the SNP anywhere any time instead simply attempting to wreck everything automatically opposing pretty much everything the SNP suggest. Labour have been punished at the polls for this attitude giving the SNP 16 years of power and labour 16 years on the sidelines.
We have had labour in Scotland opposing issues like minimum alcohol pricing even tho it was london labour policy
I used to be a labour voter but since they lost power in Scotland and behaved so badly I have stopped voting for them. Its the bain principle and their only policy is "SNP baaaaaaad"
I wonder if the SNP's decision making recently has any relation to the imminent changes coming in UK politics - it's been relatively easy for the SNP to contrast themselves against the Tories for 14 years. I wonder if there's a fear in SNP circles that it may not be as easy with a Labour (in my opinion Labour in name only) UK government round the corner.
SNP support/goodwill is waning - but what will be interesting is whether there is still real appetite for Independence in the wider populace in say 10 years time.
I really want to see proper cross party work in the Scottish Parliament again - I'm no SNP supporter but I think TJ has a point that Labour hasn't done itself any favours in Scotland with their refusal to talk to the Government in order to move things that matter on for the greater good. The SNP and Labour should have more in common than not - but that divisive referendum campaigning a decade ago did a lot of damage to Labour in Scotland, and we all are paying the price.
Is a target that’s completely unachievable relevant?
It wasn't unachievable when it was created.
Humza just resigned, god knows who will be next, there's horrific candidates chasing this one now!
there’s horrific candidates chasing this one now!
I like Gilruth and MacAllan.
But it's not going to be either of them.
I am pretty sure that there are talented folk within the SNP - but I believe they do not want the leadership now as the next election cycle will be bad news with the SNP losing power at holyrood. they want to be the next but one leader to renew the party after the poor election results that are coming.
There is also a battle for thed direction oif the SNP with the right ie the tartan tories trying to move the poarty to the right. Fergus Ewing in particular is trying to do this as he hates the attempts to control grouse moors. Others in the mix as well. the SNP is a broader church than most parties and the fracture li9nes are showing
Its hard to see a candidate coming forward that will be able to cobble together a majority. the right of the SNP certainly cannot unless they deal with the tories. Possible I suppose if D.Ross goes ( he has hung his hat on the no co operation peg)
Forbes will never get it - even if she become SNP leader she will not get a parliamentary majority
Isn't McAllan off on maternity now, and she wasn't exactly great with the Ferries and other transport issues if it's the one i'm thinking off, Gilruth would be fun to see her up against Forbes, but all i see is more dirty washing being aired with another battle within the SNP for this.
genuine question, why is it acceptable to use this kind of language to describe religious folks? If someone used a derogatory term to describe for example a trans person they’d (rightly) receive a hammering and most likely a ban.
its typical stw hypocrisy..
You could try reporting both of those posts but you'll often run into the sensibilities and prejudices of the Moderators (that's not a complaint, just a reflection of reality). And anti-religious bias has already popped up on this thread.
Anyone who thinks that having people of faith in positions of power is new, or unique to Scotland, hasn't been paying attention for the last few thousand years.
I think she's going on maternity soon. So there's that. And the fact she was the face of scrapping the emissions target.
Has Liz Truss thrown her hat into the ring yet?
the right of the SNP certainly cannot unless they deal with the tories.
Isn't that massively unlikely though? Even if they've got common policy ground, there is a massive elephant in the room, that would massively the Tories' vote as the party of the union?
genuine question, why is it acceptable to use this kind of language to describe religious folks? If someone used a derogatory term to describe for example a trans person they’d (rightly) receive a hammering and most likely a ban.
god botherer isn't a derogatory term for religious people. It's a mildly insulting description of a particular kind of religious person. It's entirely possible to be religious and not be a god botherer (it's also possible to choose not to be religious at all but that's beside the point).
It's definitely not in the same category as using derogatory terms for trans people.
its really not the SNP that is the cause of the non co operation. Its labour mainly and their complete refusal to work with the SNP anywhere any time instead simply attempting to wreck everything automatically opposing pretty much everything the SNP suggest. Labour have been punished at the polls for this attitude giving the SNP 16 years of power and labour 16 years on the sidelines.
We have had labour in Scotland opposing issues like minimum alcohol pricing even tho it was london labour policy
Its amazing how nothing is ever the fault of the SNP! Even when they have devolved power the failings are still someone else's fault.
They have been in power since 2007 and have failed on so many metrics yet its somehow the fault of the union. They even failed on Independence but half the time that gets blamed on Gordon Brown.
Good riddance, lets hope we get a party with some competence in who will start to try and improve Scotland not just divide and blame.
Well you don’t see the UK govt collapsing because of fringe issues like gender recognition.
Yes, rather pathetic when you could go for bankrupting the nation.
(Westminster parties, and the SNP are internal, hidden coalitions - although Johnson expelled an important part of the Conservative party)
This. Independence was always a **** stupid idea so lets hope it’s dead and buried for the forseeable
Yes, the total denial to see the similarities between Indy & Brexit astound me.
Yes, the total denial to see the similarities between Indy & Brexit astound me.
Sure, there are similarities in terms of they both involve leaving a union.
If that's as much as you are capable of understanding then your points of view make much more sense.
Yeah, Brexit Means Brexit is obviously a much better plan.
Its pretty much the same plan! Both utterly ludicrous.
Like both would see us sanctioned as non members of the EU or customs union etc. However repair options differ.
Its hard to see a candidate coming forward that will be able to cobble together a majority. the right of the SNP certainly cannot unless they deal with the tories. Possible I suppose if D.Ross goes ( he has hung his hat on the no co operation peg)
A candidate who was not hell bent on indy ASAP could potentially persuade other parties to abstain on issues that they broadly agree with. Whilst that seems like a massive concession for the SNP, they are unlikely to try and majorly progress any Indy stuff in this parliamentary term except maybe something like Ash Regan's "referenda on referenda" bill! Its a position which might annoy some of the most belligerent indy fans (but they are potentially headed to Alba anyway) but could appeal to "mainstream" indy sympathisers who actually want them to run the country for now.
Yes, rather pathetic when you could go for bankrupting the nation
Who's being bankrupted? Have I missed something?
Sure, there are similarities in terms of they both involve leaving a union.
The impact of independence on Scotland would be much, much worse than the impact on the UK from brexit. You can't argue that leaving the EU was bad for the UK only then to do the exact opposite when it comes to Scotland.
You can’t argue that leaving the EU was bad for the UK only then to do the exact opposite when it comes to Scotland.
Sure, but at least then you can do something to go about fixing things and not leave your kids to continue dealing with a nation seemingly obsessed with nothing but past 'glories' and performative cruelty.
Unless there is a radical shift in the UK's trajectory there is nothing there for anyone except more of the same.
And I don't see you making any arguments for more of the same anywhere except here.
"We have had labour in Scotland opposing issues like minimum alcohol pricing even tho it was london labour policy"
The SNP accuse Scottish Labour of just being a branch office of UK Labour. So are they wrong for not following UK Labour 100% and not just being a branch office?
John Swinney to make a comeback. Safe pair of hands apparently.
Sure, but at least then you can do something to go about fixing things and not leave your kids to continue dealing with a nation seemingly obsessed with nothing but past ‘glories’ and performative cruelty.
It would be far less damaging to just vote out the current Tory Government which seems highly likely this year.
You can't fix much for your children if your country is in a total financial ruin.
Will
it’s been relatively easy for the SNP to contrast themselves against the Tories for 14 years
The SNP isn't competing against the Tories in Scottish elections. The choice in front of them isn't Tory or SNP - it's Labour or SNP.
And anti-religious bias has already popped up on this thread.
Not just bias, but actual conspiracy theory - that Humza Yusuf was under the sway of "the Mosque". Which mosque and how? Never answered...