Next permanent Scotland manager

[Boo Khaki]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Such as?

In the immediacy 'buffer' zones, and the future of GRR. The Tories are not going to be around forever, so the largest obstacle looks likely to be removed by the end of 2024, and I have no faith Forbes will pick it up again once they are gone. Her idea of reforming the bill into something that will make it past westminster is a nonsense, because its abundabtly clear from the s35 documentation that there is no form they will accept that simultaneously achieves what the bill is designed to do.

[Goomba]

41 minutes ago, virginton said:

Relatively speaking to whom? Starmer supports Brexit, is subservient to the gammon views of Red Wall England and his party is now getting the standard attention of corporate lobbyists who see the way the wind is blowing. There's no chance of him outflanking the SG on the left. 

[orfc]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

Shouldn't they have voted for it then? Or against it? Abstaining is the weak lemon drink of conviction, it doesn't sound like they were fussed about Brexit beyond the opportunity to leverage it as "Westminster bad"

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

It's possible that Forbes as leader wouldn't even get elected FM. It's unlikely another party leader would either which would force an election if they couldn't agree on one within 28 days.

This is cloud cuckoo land stuff. That would see the SNP literally implode.

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

This is cloud cuckoo land stuff. That would see the SNP literally implode.

I'm not suggesting SNP MSPs wouldn't vote for her but she needs Green votes as well or from some other party.

Edited March 3, 2023 by welshbairn

[ScotiaNostra]

So at this moment in time, we have 3 contenders who nobody really wants to win but there are no other options. Id struggle to even vote in this one currently unless one of them suddenly starts putting in regular inspiring speeches about where the country is going.  I want a new FM whos full of positivity, plans we can all benefit from and can lift the spirits of the country after a bleak 10 years. Which I doubt is going to happen but I live in hope that whoever gets the job, will do that.

[Boo Khaki]

If the Greens don't endorse her and half a dozen to ten SNP MSP's also dingie the vote, then we're getting to the point where a united effort from the opposition parties could kybosh it, but thats a lot of ifs and buts and I can't see it happening. 

[Trogdor]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm not suggesting SNP MSPs wouldn't vote for her but she needs Green votes as well or from some other party.

The opposition would have to unite around a single candidate. In 2007, Salmond was elected FM with 49 votes from MSPs. I imagine a number of parties would simply abstain as they did then. Ironically, the 2 Green MSPs supported Salmond back then.

It is extremely unlikely. The importance of the Greens is vastly overstated by posters on here. They are an irrelevance.

[Trogdor]

We need to tackle the bigger issues facing the nation. Is it too difficult to improve the NHS, close the attainment gap, tackle inequality, reduce drug deaths, grow the economy, make taxation more progressive, deliver big infrastructure? The focus on marginal issues is started to grind my gears.

For a period now the SG has been focusing on the wrong things like the named person scheme, the hate crime bill, gender recognition reform. These had laudable aims but each has been badly implemented (or delayed or cancelled) and expended significant political capital in the process.

Its time to get on with the day job, the electorate are losing patience. The look how shit Westminster is, is no defence.

I first supported the SNP when they promised to scrap the graduate endowment and make education free and they delivered it! I am toiling at the moment and these three candidates are not inspiring me one bit.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Which wasn't what you were asking for examples of.

 

Erm yes I was - future hypotheticals of laws that would be rolled back or rights removed by the Free Church FM. It's almost as if the claim is completely ludicrous. 

[Iain]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm yes I was - future hypotheticals of laws that would be rolled back or rights removed by the Free Church FM. It's almost as if the claim is completely ludicrous. 

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

In the immediacy 'buffer' zones, and the future of GRR. The Tories are not going to be around forever, so the largest obstacle looks likely to be removed by the end of 2024, and I have no faith Forbes will pick it up again once they are gone. Her idea of reforming the bill into something that will make it past westminster is a nonsense, because its abundabtly clear from the s35 documentation that there is no form they will accept that simultaneously achieves what the bill is designed to do.

1) Buffer zones are not a removal of existing rights. 

2) Your argument about GRR is all over the place. If the Tories aren't going to be around forever then your assertion that 'Westminster' will not accept any form of reform is by extension a logical fallacy. There will be a change of government which will throw the justification of a S35 order up in the air immediately. 

The wider point that it is completely foolish for the SG to expend taxpayers' money and it's dwindling political capital entering an obvious trap has been recognised by two (not very good) candidates who at least are capable of independent thought. It's no surprise that Yousaf wants to lollop in to save a dung piece of legislation, because Sturgeon passed it and he has no other leadership principle. 

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Iain said:

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

Because Scotland in 2023 is analogous with Bible Belt America and you just can't move for Free Church evangelicals praisin' the Lord all around us.

A complete and utter nonsense argument. 

[MazzyStar]

6 minutes ago, Iain said:

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

This isn’t the red states in America.

[Abdul_Latif]

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

Some major Aberdeen voting against SPL vote reform energy there.

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

1) Buffer zones are not a removal of existing rights. 

2) Your argument about GRR is all over the place. If the Tories aren't going to be around forever then your assertion that 'Westminster' will not accept any form of reform is by extension a logical fallacy. There will be a change of government which will throw the justification of a S35 order up in the air immediately. 

The wider point that it is completely foolish for the SG to expend taxpayers' money and it's dwindling political capital entering an obvious trap has been recognised by two (not very good) candidates who at least are capable of independent thought. It's no surprise that Yousaf wants to lollop in to save a dung piece of legislation, because Sturgeon passed it and he has no other leadership principle. 

As others have already pointed out, you didnt ask which rights i thought Forbes would roll back, and neither did i suggest i feared she would. You specifically asked about which future hypotheticals i was concerned about. 

My point about westminster is  not 'all over the place', your comprehension apparently is. As things currently stand "westminster" refers to this tory government, which is not intetested in GRR regardless of how it is presented. I thought I was perfectly clear that I was talking about 2 years or so from now when the Tories are gone, Forbes is FM, that I do not expect her to have any appetite for submitting a GRR bill to a more accommodating Starmer government, even though its far less lilely to be blocked.

 

S35 does not cease to be in effect purely because the government that enacted it is removed, so i'm baffled as to how you have utterly mangled what was a pretty simple chain of events.

[Savage Henry]

3 hours ago, Antlion said:

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

It really is.  But it’s being echoed by the Alba wing of the SNP.  

[Anonapersona]

9 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

This isn’t the red states in America.

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

[alta-pete]

4 minutes ago, Anonapersona said:

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

She what?

[MazzyStar]

2 minutes ago, Anonapersona said:

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

Scotland won’t drift towards that since it is supported by a tiny percentage of the population and an even smaller percentage of the parliament, unless Forbes plans on forming some sort of theocratic dictatorship but somehow I don’t think that will happen.