Next permanent Scotland manager

[Rugster]

5 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

I wonder how likely it is that when she loses the leadership election, Ash Regan will resign from the party. 

She'll defect to Alba

[renton]

1 minute ago, Rugster said:

She'll defect to Alba

I thought she already had.

[renton]

9 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Growing the economy would be nice, as would expanding the tax base, as I'm sure everyone would agree. It's just that I haven't heard a word about how she'd go about it. Maybe a hint about reducing higher tax rates, but that's about it.

Aye, she's hinting towards the usual trickle down economics.

There was a paper out the other day, Ed Balls was one of the co-authors. It was looking at "regional" inequalities in the UK. One interesting point is that in the devolution era, Scotland has shot past most of the rest of the UK and is only behind London and the South East in terms of economic output. More interesting was the conclusions that they found the biggest drivers were lack of access to STEM graduates, difficulty in growing R+D clusters and mobility within those regions.

So, Scotland with it's universities and a fairly vibrant tech sector, life science se tor and even a growing Space sector in addition to renewables actually has a decent base to start from. Want to grow it more? More capitalization for the SNIB, more government support for organisations bridging Universities to industry, get even more STEM grads, build transport infrastructure and more houses, quicker. Support and empower local government more to make choices that will benefit their areas.

[welshbairn]

 

32 minutes ago, Rugster said:

She'll defect to Alba

[TheScarf]

If a Ross County fan gets the FM gig we're done for IMO.

[Trogdor]

Can we end the campaign now? This is so uninspiring. 

[SandyCromarty]

13 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

In terms of mouthing vacuous platitudes with skill and aplomb - which is what Nationalism responds best to  - that was a cakewalk for Humza.

Forbes - who is very cack-handed in this sort of setting - at least tried to say something of substance and was right that Scotland  - independent or not - has to try and grow a moribund economy.

Thanks Sweaty for the insight from afar.

[welshbairn]

This is where the Inverness Courier is holding their readers' hustings on March 17th. Bunch up at the back please!

[DC92]

I can see why Forbes held a theoretical appeal. A relatively fresh face with new ideas who might be able to build on existing support and reach new voters (Sturgeon even cited the need to broaden appeal as one of her reasons for stepping down). This idea is far preferable to a lower quality, less popular derivative of the current leadership churning out diminishing returns. 

Unfortunately for her she seems to have based her campaign in the alternate reality occupied by her Unionist commentator pals who've spent the best part of a decade writing weekly opinion pieces about how the SNP were finished, rather than the actual reality in which they've won every election by a huge margin and even increased their share of the vote in the last couple. It might make sense to trash your government's record like that when you're polling 23% and you aren't the finance minister, it doesn't when you're polling 43% and you are.

That's without getting to the gay marriage stuff and the clown running through a minefield impression that was the first week of her campaign. She's really gone out of her way to royally f**k the natural advantage she likely had here.  

[SandyCromarty]

12 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Kate Forbes hasn't said a word about how she'd speed up the dualling of the A9, same as eliminating child poverty.

A few years back I wrote to the Transport Minister outlining my concern over the obvious lack of work on dualling the A9, some weeks later I got an extensive letter from one of the aides explaining the delays and a total assurance that the dualling would absolutely be completed by 2025, and here we are in 2023.

My problem with Kate Forbes is her lack of association with young voters who view her beliefs as belonging in another age and not theirs, I know that the party views the young vote as absolutely essential to our future and the last thing the young need to hear is that gay marriage and sex outside marriage is wrong, the world we live in now and one which is now acceptable in all walks of life is what the young know and live with.

Kate Forbes religious beliefs are not in step with modern life, the annoying thing is that she is highly intelligent and without those beliefs she would walk the job.

And tbh I do not see any of the three candidates as a suitable successor to Nicola.

And maybe Nicola knew this would be the case.

Angus why did you pull out? all of the family would have voted for him.

[Rod1877]

Did Kate Forbes really "trash the SNP's record in government"?  Or did she just suggest that Humza Yousaf's personal record in his cabinet roles, as distinct from the record of the government as a whole, has been less than stellar?  I'm not sure that it's how I'd have gone about it, but it doesn't seem too out of place in that particular form of debate when candidates are trying to demonstrate that they're more suited to the job than others.  It's not as if any of it hasn't been said before and it seems to me that she gave him a perfect opportunity to defend his record.  The fact that he was unable to do so with any kind of conviction was more telling.

[betting competition]

Hopefully Kate Forbes performance last night has put a lot of people off voting for her.

Edited March 8, 2023 by betting competition

[Granny Danger]

13 minutes ago, betting competition said:

Hopefully Kate Forbes performance last night has put a lot of people off voting for her.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

14 minutes ago, betting competition said:

Hopefully Kate Forbes performance last night has put a lot of people off voting for her.

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

[LiviLion]

28 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

You say that as if it doesn't describe every politician

[Eddie Hitler]

1 hour ago, DC92 said:

I can see why Forbes held a theoretical appeal. A relatively fresh face with new ideas who might be able to build on existing support and reach new voters (Sturgeon even cited the need to broaden appeal as one of her reasons for stepping down). This idea is far preferable to a lower quality, less popular derivative of the current leadership churning out diminishing returns. 

Unfortunately for her she seems to have based her campaign in the alternate reality occupied by her Unionist commentator pals who've spent the best part of a decade writing weekly opinion pieces about how the SNP were finished, rather than the actual reality in which they've won every election by a huge margin and even increased their share of the vote in the last couple. It might make sense to trash your government's record like that when you're polling 23% and you aren't the finance minister, it doesn't when you're polling 43% and you are.

That's without getting to the gay marriage stuff and the clown running through a minefield impression that was the first week of her campaign. She's really gone out of her way to royally f**k the natural advantage she likely had here.  

I don't think "but we won all the elections!" is a good shortcut to judging how well a government has done, its record, or the degree to which it has improved things - at least not in isolation.

Over much the same timeframe as the SNP have been in office, i.e. saving the first three years, the Tories have won each General Election. While the margins may not have been quite as large, are we to assume (as a shortcut) that the Tories' record is good and they must be doing right...because they have won all the recent General Elections and have thus (whether we might like it or not - and I don't) been electorally successful?

I don't think that can be right, and the usual reasons put forward (not without justification, I don't think) for the Tories winning are disengaged voters in some cases who don't really know what they are voting for, and in other cases voters who have voted because they supported a single issue constitutional change (Brexit).  Accordingly, the Tories received votes for reasons other than some sparkling record in government,

I'd suggest myself that the Tories have governed badly, but they have been winning elections. 

It is eminently possible for the SNP to also have governed poorly, but to have been rewarded by disengaged voters who weren't really following their actual policy moves and those who voted for them because they support a single issue constitutional change (independence).

Now, it's up for debate (on a case by case basis) whether SNP initiatives in particular policy areas have been good and contribute to a good policy record or not but I believe this shortcut argument of "but they kept winning elections so they must have been good!" needs to be thrown in the bin because the Tories show us you can win elections despite being absolute horrors.

[renton]

16 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

Did Kate Forbes really "trash the SNP's record in government"?  Or did she just suggest that Humza Yousaf's personal record in his cabinet roles, as distinct from the record of the government as a whole, has been less than stellar?  I'm not sure that it's how I'd have gone about it, but it doesn't seem too out of place in that particular form of debate when candidates are trying to demonstrate that they're more suited to the job than others.  It's not as if any of it hasn't been said before and it seems to me that she gave him a perfect opportunity to defend his record.  The fact that he was unable to do so with any kind of conviction was more telling.

Collective responsibility. She could have protested his appointment to any of those roles, resigned her cabinet position in protest. Instead, at every point she'll have defended him, his record and by extension the Government record in these areas.

And she didn't mean to give him that perfect opportunity. She tried to hit him on competence, and made herself look fundamentally unable to strategist how an opponent would respond, all the time happily trashing a record she has some responsibility for.

[Londonwell]

52 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

Tbf that describes Kate as much as it does Humza.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

31 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Tbf that describes Kate as much as it does Humza.

Im not disputing that either btw. My msp just came out in support for HY, shes just lost my vote. 

[Rod1877]

48 minutes ago, renton said:

Collective responsibility. She could have protested his appointment to any of those roles, resigned her cabinet position in protest. Instead, at every point she'll have defended him, his record and by extension the Government record in these areas.

And she didn't mean to give him that perfect opportunity. She tried to hit him on competence, and made herself look fundamentally unable to strategist how an opponent would respond, all the time happily trashing a record she has some responsibility for.

If collective responsibility is the test, why is HY not being slated for "trashing" her record as finance secretary by accusing her of leaving £600m on the table during budget negotiations with the UK government?  Why did he not resign in protest?  Why, when he knew all along that she was not suitably "progressive" did he not protest her appointment or resign his post in protest?