Next permanent Scotland manager

[Wee-Bey]

4 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

How do people define a 'good politician'?  Someone who speaks well?  Someone that wins elections?  Someone that's a capable administrator?  Someone that has a clear vision for what they want to do in office?  

 

Given the standard in this godforsaken island I'd probably define this as one of the few who doesn't have their hand in the till or isn't a bumbling incompetent or a dribbling bigot.

[renton]

Just now, Trogdor said:

The bold bit would certainly help. The SG needs to deliver, there is no hope of converting more people to yes by just being less worse than the Tories at Westminster. Which frankly seems to have been the strategy up to now. This is the opportunity for a reset, tell me what you'll do differently. 

I dunno, certainly the politicians have to be able to "run" their departments in so far as maintaining priorities - but when it comes to administration - the actual delivery of policy? That's on the Civil Service.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

9 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

How do people define a 'good politician'?  Someone who speaks well?  Someone that wins elections?  Someone that's a capable administrator?  Someone that has a clear vision for what they want to do in office?  

 

I'd say it's someone who is good at furthering their own aims, objectives and values.

[Donathan]

7 minutes ago, Bodie said:

You'd be better off directing this question at the SNP tbf, but seeing as there hasn't been any elections called during the Westminster managerial merry-go-round, why would you think the Scottish parliament would have do so ?

I don't necessarily think they have to, but given that the SNP repeatedly ask for elections every time the Conservatives change PM, it's hypocritical not to call one in this scenario.

7 minutes ago, renton said:

It's fine, if that's what they did - but they don't.

They effectively do - the house of commons can fire the PM whenever they like.

5 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

It's not effectively the same system at all. 

The Holyrood chamber votes on its First Minister, the House of Commons does not. 

 

The person who would win the hypothetical vote is always the PM, so it's effectively the same system. They just skip the actual voting stage.

 

Westminster and Holyrood are both parliamentary systems where the PM/FM is the person the chamber has confidence in.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 minutes ago, Donathan said:

I don't necessarily think they have to, but given that the SNP repeatedly ask for elections every time the Conservatives change PM, it's hypocritical not to call one in this scenario.

They effectively do - the house of commons can fire the PM whenever they like.

The person who would win the hypothetical vote is always the PM, so it's effectively the same system. They just skip the actual voting stage.

Westminster and Holyrood are both parliamentary systems where the PM/FM is the person the chamber has confidence in.

This is some hill to die on. 

1. They can't just call an election. Holyrood rules don't allow for that in remotely straightforward fashion.

2. "Ifs, buts and maybes" are irrelevant straw men here. The simple fact of the matter is that the process of choosing Scotland's First Minister has to be voted upon by all MSPs. The process of choosing the UK's Prime Minister does not. 

 

[Mark Connolly]

12 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Given the standard in this godforsaken island I'd probably define this as one of the few who doesn't have their hand in the till or isn't a bumbling incompetent or a dribbling bigot.

Or, at the very least, knows how to hide all that shit and never get caught, like the good old days

[Wee-Bey]

6 minutes ago, Donathan said:

I don't necessarily think they have to, but given that the SNP repeatedly ask for elections every time the Conservatives change PM, it's hypocritical not to call one in this scenario.

And, it would also be hypocritical for certain people to call for something they themselves weren't willing to do.

9 minutes ago, Donathan said:

The person who would win the hypothetical vote is always the PM, so it's effectively the same system. They just skip the actual voting stage.

But the Holyrood vote isn't hypothetical it's an actual vote and with the Green Party already on record saying they wouldn't vote to confirm Forbes alongside half a dozen SNP MSP's, it will only take a couple more SNP abstentions to create the possibility of someone else being voted in as first minister.

[Jacksgranda]

38 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Why is it ok for the Scottish Parliament to choose the FM but not ok for the UK parliament to choose the PM? The SNP have repeatedly called for elections whenever the Tories have changed leaders in recent years.

The UK Parliament didn't choose the PM. They were presented with the PM by the Conservatives.

[Blue Brazil Forever]

7 hours ago, Bodie said:

An hour and not a single response.

Quizzes on p&b are a deeply help belief, it's a key tenet of my faith being a member of the Roy Walker Evangelicals after their breakway from The Church of Magnus Magnusson during the great Multiple Choice Reformation. By not voting you're all guilty of a gross breach of the Equalities Act 2010.

The answers are above if any of you irredeemable bigots are interested.

Maybe because nobody really gives a shit.

[Trogdor]

I see Alex Neil has doubled down. I sense an intervention from the First Minister at the time, Salmond. This could get a bit unedifying.

[Wee-Bey]

6 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said:

Maybe because nobody really gives a shit.

Feedback is always appreciated m8.

[carpetmonster]

4 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I see Alex Neil has doubled down. I sense an intervention from the First Minister at the time, Salmond. This could get a bit unedifying.

Here’s Humza from 2 days ago answering Ciaran Jenkins directly asking ‘do you personally support same sex marriage’ with ‘yes’ so if Neil is trying to hit him with a gotcha with ‘ah but he might not have done 8 years ago’ then that’s pish weak at best.

 

[Donathan]

Labour playing the “Humza Useless” card 

[Wee-Bey]

2 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Labour playing the “Humza Useless” card 

I'll top this with an official Scottish Labour press release which says Humza should be asked "Do you regret having the video 'Alex Salmond in kick erse mode' in your personal YouTube favourites ?"

[Trogdor]

5 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Here’s Humza from 2 days ago answering Ciaran Jenkins directly asking ‘do you personally support same sex marriage’ with ‘yes’ so if Neil is trying to hit him with a gotcha with ‘ah but he might not have done 8 years ago’ then that’s pish weak at best.

It's hardly a gotcha. Or at least it shouldn't be. I see he wasn't exactly convincing when asked by Chirs Musson today:

Quote

Q- Another Yes/No question.Did you have a conversation with Alex Salmond to ask to skip the vote because of pressure from religious leaders? 
A - Look, look, again, I have told you-
Q -  Can you say Yes or No to that?
A - No,I've told you very,very clear. I do not remember any conversation with Alex Salmond about the equal marriage vote. I'm sure we spoke about equal marriage, just as I would have spoken, I'm certain, with other government ministers.

If he cannot give a straight answer to what should be a fairly straight forward question It's a bit concerning. I'm not sure the "I do not remember" line will cut it. Although Sturgeon was fond of saying she couldn't recollect tbf.

[Miguel Sanchez]

3 minutes ago, Bodie said:

I'll top this with an official Scottish Labour press release which says Humza should be asked "Do you regret having the video 'Alex Salmond in kick erse mode' in your personal YouTube favourites ?"

I think your list of questions this morning was better.

[welshbairn]

4 hours ago, Bodie said:

I'm all in for Ash. An utter carcrash 6 month tenure before being emptied for a fresh slate of candidates who can look vaguely appealing and competent.

It's not a de facto referendum, it's a voter empowerment mechanism, and our mandate will have immediate international recognition. 

[Donathan]

If something looks like a de facto referendum and works like a de facto referendum, but isn’t actually a de facto referendum, does that make it a de facto de facto referendum?

 

 

Will any of the candidates propose a de facto de facto de facto referendum? 

[carpetmonster]

11 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

It's hardly a gotcha. Or at least it shouldn't be. I see he wasn't exactly convincing when asked by Chirs Musson today:

If he cannot give a straight answer to what should be a fairly straight forward question It's a bit concerning. I'm not sure the "I do not remember" line will cut it. Although Sturgeon was fond of saying she couldn't recollect tbf.

So, if as a younger man with less political clout he felt in hock to his religious leaders 8 years ago, that’s not great. However as of 2 days ago, if I’m an SNP member who values civil rights, he’s streaked ahead of Forbes based on them both going for that leadership in 2023 and her still being quite happy to discriminate on the basis of her faith. 

[Donathan]

10 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

So, if as a younger man with less political clout he felt in hock to his religious leaders 8 years ago, that’s not great. However as of 2 days ago, if I’m an SNP member who values civil rights, he’s streaked ahead of Forbes based on them both going for that leadership in 2023 and her still being quite happy to discriminate on the basis of her faith. 

The gay marriage question should not be governing ANYONE’S vote in this leadership election because it’s not a live issue. It was settled nearly a decade ago and none of the candidates are proposing to revisit it. I’m absolutely stunned that people are turning on a candidate over how she hypothetically would have voted on a fringe issue that was settled years ago.