That's at least two in the running then.<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> </span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">I see Humza Yousaf as the continuity candidate. Will questions be asked about his faith? Ash Regan would mix things up a bit and might see the end of the SNP/Green alliance </span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">I'm still expecting Angus Robertson to put his name forward and he would likely have the support of Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell.</span>
Shame the NEC have ignored the Party Constitution with this accelerated leadership election though as I suspect we'll not have a chance to hear much from any of the candidates.
PLEASE FIX THE BLOODY EDITOR
PLEASE FIX THE BLOODY EDITOR
Just switch it off in preferences
@BruceWee of course their are scenarios where Scotland would be better off, if Westminster went full North Korea for example, but that's extremely unlikely so I didn't really count it as realistic.
So you’re a true blue British Nationalist?
You make that sound like an insult, but no I wouldn't describe myself that way, I genuinely believe rUK is better off in a union with Scotland and that Scotland would not do well as a small independent nation with it's access to Europe through another nation it has limited influence over.
Ah yes, the old “if you vote for independence, you’ll lose your place in the EU, the economy will tank, and you’ll be worse off financially” strategem.
That aged well…
Well you would need to re-join the EU which will take significant time, I absolutely agree that being in the EU is both socially and economically beneficial to its members. Your economy will tank in the meantime, you'll have a currency you have no control over (sterling or Euro), the cost of separation will be massive, it'll cause business uncertainty for years, revenue from fossil fuels is going to drop dramatically (assuming Scotland wins the battle over who gets what in the North Sea) and Scotland is currently a net recipient from rUK.
I'm not pro rUK or a little Englander, I genuinely believe Scotland would be in an awful state in the short to medium term (a generation at least) if it became independent. It would to a lesser extent also be detrimental to rUK to have to go through he costs and complexity of separation, time and resources that could actually be used to make life better both sides of the border when the Tories are gone.
Living in Scotland that’s as far as I need to read.
and that sums up much of the independence movement for me, I don't like what you're saying, I'm not engaging, exactly like the Brexiteers, no clear arguments as to why things will be better, project fear, play to emotion not reason. Scottish independence is exactly like Brexit, vague hopes it'll all be better if we can just get rid of the foreigners dragging us down. Well if you need an example of why fragmentation is bad look at Brexit, it's real now, it wasn't project fear, it was project reality.
@gordimhor of course but the EU is a large bureaucratic organisation that requires 26 countries to agree (and sometimes countries do things for completely unrelated reasons). Plus there will be negotiation, Scotland won't be happy with everything on offer. And this process can only start after the EU is clear what an independent Scotland looks like. Until borders which will be key for EU discussions are resolved the EU can't negotiate properly. Unfortunately whether you like it or not rUK will in someway be involved in the Scottish EU joining process and we've all seen how useless they've been at been at negotiating Brexit.
Anyway I know I'm not going to win any arguments with the true believers and as I'm south of the border I couldn't possibly understand how different you are north of it and anyway because I live in England I must be a Tory supporting little Englander harking back to the good old days of the empire so my views don't count. For what it's worth I'm deeply embarrassed by my nation and furious with our politicians, I just don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is the answer. I'm off to ride my bike.
and that sums up much of the independence movement for me, I don’t like what you’re saying, I’m not engaging, exactly like the Brexiteers, no clear arguments as to why things will be better, project fear, play to emotion not reason.
Your points have all been refuted numerous times on this and many other threads over the years. Either you are new to this debate or you refuse to read the points that contradict yours.
You have your beliefs and, short of the UK becoming North Korea, you have said you are not going to change your mind.
I and others have laid out exactly what it would take for us to move from Yes to No. Not pie in the sky utopia but just the same basic democracy enjoyed in many other large European countries.
If anyone is a True Believer it's you, I'm afraid.
In a less worse position than if you had voted to leave.
Glad you think so, last I checked we're out with no prospect of getting back in. Had we left we'd still be out but already working towards getting back in.
We need to grow up and work together, not just get huffy when we don’t get our own way and pretend we’re special when we’re not.
That's the thing though, we DO want to work together with the 26 countries on our doorstep*, unfortunately that decision was taken away from us.
*obviously that includes the rUK but since "they" only want to play with countries with a cricket team I guess that's on them.
Scotland would not do well as a small independent nation with it’s access to Europe through another nation it has limited influence over.
How's the Republic of Ireland doing these days?
The ROI was formed in 1937. Anything leave has got is emotional arguments and speculation. The 'you must be new to this' or 'we've explained in small words' is nicely insulting. Way to frame an argument. You just don't know what an independent Scotland will look like, you'll be placing a hard border across which 75% of your trade must cross, and you seem positively unwilling to learn anything from brexit. Here we are 7 years later and still haven't got it sorted.
On the other hand you can see what happens with labour. Realigning with the rest of the EU will take time.
I don't want you to go for my own selfish reasons but if go you must I'll wish you luck. You'll need it because you'll be negotiating with Westminster. It's going to be extremely expensive.
See it’s stupid and misleading statements like that which highlight the desperation of the leave campaign. An independent Scotland wouldn’t have been kicked out of the EU, it would never have been a member, regardless of whether the UK was or not
What a load of deceitful crap you've posted. We're all aware of the situation, which was that Scotland was part of an EU member state, and would not have been in the event of independence. That argument was advanced repeatedly as a reason to vote for the union. Of course, Scotland is now worse off as it can't apply to join.
You just don’t know what an independent Scotland will look like, you’ll be placing a hard border across which 75% of your trade must cross, and you seem positively unwilling to learn anything from brexit. Here we are 7 years later and still haven’t got it sorted.
Yes, it's been explained many times (if it sounds insulting, sorry, but it's frustrating to make the same points over and over again, only for someone new* to come along and make the same point as if it is something no one has thought of before).
No, we can't map out what iS is going to look like. Mostly because any plan will be multi-step and step 2 is going to rely on the result of step 1. You can have general goals that you're aiming for but you're saying unless we can tell you exactly what going to happen during step 17 then independence is an invalid choice.
The fact is, you can't tell us what the UK is going to look like next year. There are no precedents for a country like the UK leaving the EU. It's a very uncertain situation that is constantly evolving and the contradicting positions are impossible to resolve.
On the other hand, we have loads of examples of small countries either in the EU or immediately adjacent to it in the EFTA. Admittedly, apart from Ireland, none of them share a border with a former Empire having a xenophobic temper tantrum so there's that, but overall it's still far less of a leap into the unknown than sticking with Brexit Britain.
*often that someone new is someone who has made the same point, had it answered, and then disappeared for a couple of weeks only to pop up and ask the same question again.
The ROI was formed in 1937.
But only recently "had" to begin transhipping goods through a non-EU state. Except they didn't because they just shipped direct to France by sea.
you’ll be placing a hard border across which 75% of your trade must cross
Again, no it doesn't. We have ports on both coasts capable of shipping to the wider EU with other possible sites if we needed them.
Yes, I get that a high proportion of trade is with the wider UK and that certain commodities would likely come from there but framing a land border as cutting us off is just daft.
You can have general goals that you’re aiming for but you’re saying unless we can tell you exactly what going to happen during step 17 then independence is an invalid choice
In no way am I saying it's an invalid choice. However it's common for the proponents to wave away the difficulties and sell certainties where none exist. It's an immensely difficult task and I can't help but reflect on the surprise a certain poster here greeted the news that it was commonly thought that sorting everything out and joining the EU might take 10-15 years.
Yes, there are several examples of small countries aligning closely with or being members of the EU but they were (forgive my slight) 'whole' countries in their own right when they signed up. By which I mean they had established customs borders, fully formed governmental departments and administrations, their own currency etc.
You're correct in asserting that no-one can say what the UK looks like to a large extent in a year's time of course but it's a relatively large economy where shall changes won't alter it's course dramatically (truss aside!). You've a comparatively small economy and small changes will be comparatively more significant. Also, we're 7 years down the line separating from our nearest large trade partners. Hopefully getting closer again after the next election. 👍
We have ports on both coasts capable of shipping to the wider EU with other possible sites if we needed them
No dispute there but 75% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK. Using coastal ports won't help mitigate the issues.
You said this,
However it’s common for the proponents to wave away the difficulties and sell certainties where none exist.
and this,
Hopefully getting closer again after the next election. 👍
To me, this is a clear example of waving away difficulties. SKS has come out and ruled out the Simgle Market, the Customs Union, and any return to freedom of movement which rules out any kind of Swiss type arrangement.
There really isn't much left he can actually do once he's ruled all this out.
When it comes down to it, Labour's position on Europe is the same as the Tories. Possibly just a bit more competent and a bit less evil, but fundamentally the same.
He's left himself no avenue to move closer to Europe in any meaningful way, which is what Scotland and to a slightly lesser extent rUK need. I understand why he's saying it, but it does us absolutely no good.
Labour's policy of 'Make Brexit Work' is the definition of waving a major difficulty away and selling certainties where none exist.
Given the choice, I think Scotland should choose the option that is actually realistic rather than Labour's vague have cake and eat it nonsense or whatever insanity the Tories are selling this week.
The independence argument is still to be done, everything that is discussed these days are all hypothetical, and can be argued by either side, EU membership will bring Scotland wealth, or it'll increase costs with rUK, etc, etc, etc. Reality is, if IndyRef2 happens, then that's the time where facts, figures or estimates will come into play to sell either sides arguments.
As for Labours position just now, i doubt they're arguing against reducing the impact of Brexit, but personally i feel that the UK has no chance of getting back in the EU any time soon, the Brexiteers made sure it was as painful as possible to leave, and even more painful to try and rejoin, then you add the likes of France and their opinion of having the UK in the EU, and it gets harder, hypothetically the likes of Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, etc to have a reduced benefit if the UK came back in, as they benefited with our exit.
Anyway, back to the leadership battle, looks pretty depressing so far, lots of whispers that Kate Forbes is the favourite and will be well backed to throw her hat in the ring, even worse, Alex Salmond is starting to get back on the airwaves and TV!
looks pretty depressing so far,
I agree.
Labour’s policy of ‘Make Brexit Work’
It's not a policy, it's a slogan. Significant difference.
One thing the SNP has been good at, is holding the party line. Is this down to Sturgeon and her husband? What will happen with any new leader, will the party split in fractions. The SNP was formed from those whose over riding objective was independence, but withouta strong leader is there a chance it will split into a series of smaller parties (e.g. Alba)
too much bigotry for me and it rains a lot.
The bigotry is more one sided, and has more to do with unionism than religious divide, but yes it does rain quite a bit.
Mind though, if it didn't rain so much, it wouldn't be called Dear Green Place.
@molgrips It's a bit more than a slogan. This from Keir Starmers speech on the fourth of July last year. You can read it all on Labour's website.
"We cannot afford to look back over our shoulder because all the time we are doing that we are missing what is ahead of us.
So let me be very clear.
Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.
We will not be joining the single market or the customs union."
The bigotry is more one sided
Believe me, it's not. Both sides are as bad as each other and it's definitely drawn on sectarian lines. It's a national embarrassment.
Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.
Yes, we've done this before, and it's unavoidable unfortunately. We are where we are, as they say.
But the point stands. I don't think you quite understand what's going on here.
Ah. If only we were all as clever as you.
No dispute there but 75% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK. Using coastal ports won’t help mitigate the issues.
Trade would change. Predicting exactly how that will pan out by assuming that it is others that will be the net losers, not the UK (of whatever size), when these changes occur is a fools game. Look at Ireland, we’re importing more and more from them, yet they are importing less and less from us. Impositions of new borders creates change… but here’s the catch… the UK alone only controls its own borders… its neighbours are free to trade elsewhere… and the UK isn’t in a position to dictate the terms of that trade between other countries.
I think it's very clear what's going on Labour under Starmer will not be bringing us any closer to the EU than the Tories.
Or is it another one of his cunning statements which are to be believed in England and Wales but not believed by Scottish voters
I think whatever solution they come up with for NI could be adapted for Scotland. From what I remember, NI has something like 250 border crossing points compared to Scotland's 6.
And if they don't come up with a solution, the UK is well and truly sunk. Scotland will be better off switching entirely to trading with the EU if the UK is going to be a pariah state.
I’m still expecting Angus Robertson to put his name forward and he would likely have the support of Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell.
Robertson has ruled himself out today.
From what I remember, NI has something like 250 border crossing points compared to Scotland’s 6.
Just counted 26 roads, for my own amusement and plenty of trails. Beautiful border, and loads of it is along rivers.
Kate Forbes has entered the contest, this leadership battle is making it even more head-scratching why Sturgeon has left, are the SNP about to copy the tories in causing more issues through self harming than the opposition?!
Just counted 26 roads, for my own amusement and plenty of trails. Beautiful border, and loads of it is along rivers.
You're confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there's no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don't understand?
Perhaps you can explain why a NI style agreement would make any sense in the absence of a Good Friday agreement? That's literally the only reason there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI!
You’re confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there’s no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don’t understand?
I checked after he posted, they are definite crossing points and not just roads meandering along the border. Some are running parallel to main crossings granted but he's still not wrong.
The EU argument is well down the road after independence, a lot more areas have to be understood and agreed before any effort goes into the EU discussions.
And if they don’t come up with a solution, the UK is well and truly sunk. Scotland will be better off switching entirely to trading with the EU if the UK is going to be a pariah state.
That's just thinking that this is about goods that can be sold to Party B rather than Party A, it's a lot more complex than that and the Scotland / rUK partnership across all areas will need to be thought out if an independent Scotland joined the EU.
Oh dear
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1627737647601930241?t=6g2XZegDBlwFaLYkO8drAA&s=19
Next!
^^ This is not exactly "news"
Can we perhaps clarify which faiths are acceptable and which aren't?
We might need to start by trying to define "faith".
If you think that this interview has not torpedoed her chances I have garden bridge to sell you
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1627748904363036674?t=WExmF-fjQAwE-5aCXoxwjQ&s=19
You’re confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there’s no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don’t understand?
I even said it was for my own amusement. It's of no consequence. So maybe leave off the aggro?
I don’t object to her voicing her views, I don’t agree with them however and don’t think she should be first minister. Largely as I don’t think she’s shown us she’s particularly capable in her very short career so far
I do take issue with the fact she wasn’t prepared to vote on such an important issue that affected many folks in Scotland (even if I probably don’t agree with the way she would have voted) as she was on maternity leave, yet has binned that off to further her own ambitions
Tbh it’s a pretty damning indictment of the SNP when her and the other candidates, who have achieved the grand total of absolute sweet fa, are looking at the top job. That’s an accusation that can be leveled at pretty much every other political party as well tbf, however at least with Nicola I felt we had someone moderately competent in charge, regardless if I agreed with all her politics
Can we perhaps clarify which faiths are acceptable and which aren’t?
We might need to start by trying to define “faith”.
I don't have a problem with her faith. I do question where faith has a role in the state, more so in the position of First Minister. She is supposed to an elected representative of the people and if she can't represent the views of people she doesn't necessarily agree with then she's in the wrong job.
It's a set of views that would probably rule her out from becoming tory leader
Not sure how she thinks its going to go down in a moderately progressive party like the SNP
She is currently the bookies favourite I believe. Is this because her religious veiws weren't previously widely known?
She is currently the bookies favourite I believe. Is this because her religious veiws weren’t previously widely known?
I think the presumption was that she'd moderate her stance
Possibly also refkects a dearth of decent candidates
Does she need to moderate her stance on same sex marriage?
The issue has been settled and is unlikely to ever come up again.
Edit: I have absolutely no idea but is it possible that she might receive some respect for expressing an opinion which she doesn't need to express and she knows to be unpopular?
Might it not suggest a level of honesty, and therefore trustworthiness, uncommon among politicians these days?
Doesn't stop it being weaponised against her
And it pissed off a lot of MSPs who are in same sex partnerships
Oh for sure it will be used against her. I was only questioning whether is it absolutely certain that it has destroyed her leadership bid.
Especially as same sex marriage won't be an issue should she become leader.
is it possible that she might receive some respect for expressing an opinion which she doesn’t need to express and she knows to be unpopular?
Probably, but from all the wrong people.
Whether or not she intends it, that's very much from the JRM/Billious Barrage playbook.
