Next permanent Scotland manager

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

If the SNP ever have the leverage to force the Tories or Labour to do anything, it should be to devolve the right to call an independence referendum at a time of Holyrood's choosing, not a one off Section 30 agreement. And we shouldn't hold one until the result is likely to be considerably more than 50+0.1 in favour, at least 55% and preferably more than 60%. It would be nearly impossible to make Independence work with near total non cooperation from half the population, it has to be a resounding and conclusive Yes vote imo.

A reasonable quid pro quo would be to devolve the calling of said referendum to HR with three provisos: 1. A minimum time between votes.  Maybe 15 years?  2. A minimum vote threshold.  60% of votes would work or 50%+1 of the entire electorate. 3. The wording of the question should be agreed as part of the act.

[Scary Bear]

40 minutes ago, renton said:

I think it's fanciful that they'd eventually turn around and say "fair play it's been long enough, on you go"

A generation is such a nebulous concept as to be worthless, not to mention that it has no legal standing.

Basically, I agree in so much as until the SNP can create some leverage, no UK prime minister is likely to be as hubristic as Cameron was in 2012. He thought he could kill off every deep division in UK politics with a few big referendum wins and run the table for a decade.

I disagree that the Tories have a decent moral reason for saying no. The c***s are just running scared.

As for the last paragraph. UK politics isn't founded on co-operative agreement (even the coalition government was basically the Tories absorbing then destroyingvthe Lib Dems) and any notion of a working relationship is founded squarely on Holyrood doing what it's told as apparent in Gordon Brown's last foray into constitutional reform. So why should the SNP or any Scottish Government worth the name be content with that?

Is that last bit a rhetorical question?

If not, I’m not sure how to answer it. Under the Scotland Act that just seems to be the way of it at the moment.

 

[renton]

3 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Is that last bit a rhetorical question?

If not, I’m not sure how to answer it. Under the Scotland Act that just seems to be the way of it at the moment.

 

I guess my point is that a meaningful constructive arrangement between Holyrood and Westminster when those two are held by different parties is all but impossible since the leverage flows only in one direction.

[J_Stewart]

13 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I think the objectively funniest result would be a razor thin Forbes win. Total chaos would ensue as the SNP establishment would have to deal with failure and try and work out how to live with Forbes.

It's a small thing, and more general points rather than direct reply to the post, but where has this idea that Forbes is some backbench outsider that's risen to prominence in spite of the SNP management (ala Corbyn) come from exactly? She was appointed Finance Secretary by those very same people, and since her appointment the view was that she was being prepped for a prominent party role, maybe even the leadership. Had she not sprinted out of the traps spouting social beliefs akin to a steaming drunk uncle at a wedding, there's a very good chance the likes of Swinney, Robertson et al would have stayed entirely neutral with Humza and Forbes 1A and 1B in whichever order you want...and Mad Ash in at 4,756,089Z.

Quote

The Greens would perhaps pull out of the coalition. Who would make up the government - bit difficult for her to appoint Yusef after basically saying how shit he is in the campaign, would others serve with her?

This is also a neat summary as to why I can't understand this idea of her competence. She very nearly blew up her entire campaign within the first week, alienating their current partners in govt as a result and a decent sized portion of the membership. Has then preceded to nuke relations with her fellow cabinet ministers, whilst also implying that the govt, that she's a significant part of, were shite, in the process undermining her own credibility, and providing opposition Parties with a variety of attack lines. Absolutely none of that are the actions of a shrewd political operator. 

Going purely by their political positions, I'd prefer Yousaf to Forbes. Whether you believe Humza has his own opinions or is just following the centre-left party line being fed to him, Kate's a lot more socially and financially conservative, and in terms of competence, I don't see much more than a cigarette paper between them.

[Scary Bear]

3 minutes ago, renton said:

I guess my point is that a meaningful constructive arrangement between Holyrood and Westminster when those two are held by different parties is all but impossible since the leverage flows only in one direction.

There must have been some sort of constructive agreement when Salmond and Cameron were in charge otherwise we would never have got a referendum in the first place. I agree that given the low levels of support for independence at that time it was probably Cameron thinking he could take advantage, but it still happened. So it is possible, dependent on the personalities involved. However, as a yes vote is now a real possibility, it’s unlikely to happen now.

[renton]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

A reasonable quid pro quo would be to devolve the calling of said referendum to HR with three provisos: 1. A minimum time between votes.  Maybe 15 years?  2. A minimum vote threshold.  60% of votes would work or 50%+1 of the entire electorate. 3. The wording of the question should be agreed as part of the act.

I wouldn't like the big gap between a single referendum.

Instead, I would make it so that a referendum was held as part of each Holyrood cycle, but that you needed at least two Yes votes in a row to begin negotiations for independence.

That way, you remove constitutional politics from the everyday management of Holyrood since you are getting the referendum regardless of who is in power. It also generates a significant cooling off period between votes. A Yes vote generated more by frustration at Westminster or some government policy can be mitigated against: Unionism would have 5 years to answer the criticisms brought up by one Yes vote. 

Hold the vote midway between Holyrood cycles. No percentage thresholds, but with a consistent, agreed question.

You might well find that making the extraordinary referendum into an ordinary part of the political cycle might take the sting out of it for Unionism, or it might normalise the idea for more people to support Indy in the longer term.

[renton]

3 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

There must have been some sort of constructive agreement when Salmond and Cameron were in charge otherwise we would never have got a referendum in the first place. I agree that given the low levels of support for independence at that time it was probably Cameron thinking he could take advantage, but it still happened. So it is possible, dependent on the personalities involved. However, as a yes vote is now a real possibility, it’s unlikely to happen now.

Yeah, exactly so. Fresh off of stomping on voting reform for the foreseeable future (partly because Clegg was playing to his own party favouring AV instead of trying to get Labour involved) he thought he could do the same with us, and despite the warning of a close run vote that normalised the idea of Scottish independence, he thought he could do the same with Brexit.

The only thing I can imagine now is catching Labour short of a majority.

The only way to get two sides round a table is when both sides have leverage over the other. Nothing is done out of goodwill. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by renton

[Trogdor]

I am surprised by the number of people on here who believe the coalition with the Greens is somehow sacrosanct. 2007 to 2011 & 2016 to 2021 are good examples.

The SNP could comfortably govern as a minority administration at the moment. The parliament has 129 MSPs, one becomes Presiding Officer which leaves 128 MSPs who can vote. Of those the SNP have 64 of them which is exactly 50%. The most the opposition could do is tie a vote which would defeat legislation but they would all have to combine.

The SNP had a mere 47 MSPs from 2007 to 2011 and were able to govern just fine. 

The SNP had 63 MSPs from 2016 to 2021 and governed just fine.

I'm not sure why all of a sudden only having 64 MSPs is some sort of problem and the Greens are required to prop up the government. Its simply not the case.

Its a myth that the media keep perpetuating as well and it grinds my gears.

[Wee-Bey]

8 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I am surprised by the number of people on here who believe the coalition with the Greens is somehow sacrosanct. 2007 to 2011 & 2016 to 2021 are good examples.

The SNP could comfortably govern as a minority administration at the moment. The parliament has 129 MSPs, one becomes Presiding Officer which leaves 128 MSPs who can vote. Of those the SNP have 64 of them which is exactly 50%. The most the opposition could do is tie a vote which would defeat legislation but they would all have to combine.

The SNP had a mere 47 MSPs from 2007 to 2011 and were able to govern just fine. 

The SNP had 63 MSPs from 2016 to 2021 and governed just fine.

I'm not sure why all of a sudden only having 64 MSPs is some sort of problem and the Greens are required to prop up the government. Its simply not the case.

Its a myth that the media keep perpetuating as well and it grinds my gears.

Exactly, it's tail wagging the dog stuff.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Yeah, exactly so. Fresh off of stomping on voting reform for the foreseeable future (partly because Clegg was playing to his own party favouring AV instead of trying to get Labour involved) he thought he could do the same with us, and despite the warning of a close run vote that normalised the idea of Scottish independence, he thought he could do the same with Brexit.

The only thing I can imagine now is catching Labour short of a majority.

The only way to get two sides round a table is when both sides have leverage over the other. Nothing is done out of goodwill. 

The pro AV campaign was about the limpest I've ever seen, it made the Remain one look positive and inspirational. And AV was the least proportional of the systems on offer, so even with an intensive campaign it would have been hard to get voters excited. It was really lost by default, the status quo campaign was professional and slick. I can only think Clegg pushed for it as a sop to his own activists but privately promised Cameron they would just offer a token campaign. Then when Project Fear worked for the indy ref he thought using the same strategy for Brexit would be a doddle.

Edited March 24, 2023 by welshbairn

[ICTChris]

56 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I am surprised by the number of people on here who believe the coalition with the Greens is somehow sacrosanct. 2007 to 2011 & 2016 to 2021 are good examples.

The SNP could comfortably govern as a minority administration at the moment. The parliament has 129 MSPs, one becomes Presiding Officer which leaves 128 MSPs who can vote. Of those the SNP have 64 of them which is exactly 50%. The most the opposition could do is tie a vote which would defeat legislation but they would all have to combine.

The SNP had a mere 47 MSPs from 2007 to 2011 and were able to govern just fine. 

The SNP had 63 MSPs from 2016 to 2021 and governed just fine.

I'm not sure why all of a sudden only having 64 MSPs is some sort of problem and the Greens are required to prop up the government. Its simply not the case.

Its a myth that the media keep perpetuating as well and it grinds my gears.

I think rather than the practical impact it would be the symbolic/political impact of the Greens leaving a Forbes/Regan government.  The Greens have been very close to the SNP under Sturgeon and it would represent a break with that.  It would also open up a new opposition front for the SNP/Scottish Government.

 

[scottsdad]

32 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The pro AV campaign was about the limpest I've ever seen, it made the Remain one look positive and inspirational. And AV was the least proportional of the systems on offer, so even with an intensive campaign it would have been hard to get voters excited. It was really lost by default, the status quo campaign was professional and slick. I can only think Clegg pushed for it as a sop to his own activists but privately promised Cameron they would just offer a token campaign. Then when Project Fear worked for the indy ref he thought using the same strategy for Brexit would be a doddle.

The big difference between the two referenda was timescale. Indyref was 3 years in the making. By the time folk voted everyone was engaged and know the nooks and crannies over every argument you could think of. 

The Brexit one, Cameron tried to run like a general election campaign and run it in a few weeks. That allowed Farage and co to talk about immigration alone. All the other stuff, like Norn Iron, were barely mentioned. It became an uninformed referendum on immigration. 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

The big difference between the two referenda was timescale. Indyref was 3 years in the making. By the time folk voted everyone was engaged and know the nooks and crannies over every argument you could think of. 

The Brexit one, Cameron tried to run like a general election campaign and run it in a few weeks. That allowed Farage and co to talk about immigration alone. All the other stuff, like Norn Iron, were barely mentioned. It became an uninformed referendum on immigration. 

Cameron also ran a totally negative campaign, he'd got big concessions from the EU over opt outs and restrictions on freedom of movement but didn't bother publicising them, and barely mentioned anything positive about the EU, just doom and catastrophe if we left.

[DrewDon]

On 20/03/2023 at 15:58, Savage Henry said:

Add “overt racist” to that as well.

 

Accidentally started playing this at full volume on a train. I genuinely think it would have been less embarrassing to be caught out by that porn noise. 

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, Trogdor said:

I am surprised by the number of people on here who believe the coalition with the Greens is somehow sacrosanct. 2007 to 2011 & 2016 to 2021 are good examples.

The SNP could comfortably govern as a minority administration at the moment. The parliament has 129 MSPs, one becomes Presiding Officer which leaves 128 MSPs who can vote. Of those the SNP have 64 of them which is exactly 50%. The most the opposition could do is tie a vote which would defeat legislation but they would all have to combine.

The SNP had a mere 47 MSPs from 2007 to 2011 and were able to govern just fine. 

The SNP had 63 MSPs from 2016 to 2021 and governed just fine.

I'm not sure why all of a sudden only having 64 MSPs is some sort of problem and the Greens are required to prop up the government. Its simply not the case.

Its a myth that the media keep perpetuating as well and it grinds my gears.

As an indyref2 bargaining chip, having a pro independence majority government was seen as a point of strength. 

Now with a referendum off the table for the foreseeable there really isn't the same need for it.

 

[Lurkst]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 3. The wording of the question should be agreed as part of the act.

Are you an empty-headed Jock Natter? YES/NO

 

[Jacksgranda]

5 hours ago, renton said:

 

A generation is such a nebulous concept as to be worthless, not to mention that it has no legal standing.

 

I would have thought that 20 years would be a generation.

 I've a stepdaughter who's 45, her son is 23, his son is nearly 3.

[MazzyStar]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Cameron also ran a totally negative campaign, he'd got big concessions from the EU over opt outs and restrictions on freedom of movement but didn't bother publicising them, and barely mentioned anything positive about the EU, just doom and catastrophe if we left.

Because other than freedom of movement, there is barely anything. 

[Suspect Device]

3 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I would have thought that 20 years would be a generation.

 I've a stepdaughter who's 45, her son is 23, his son is nearly 3.

I've said it before but I prefer to use a Dundee generation, so about 12 to 14 years.

 

 

 

ETA. Being a bit harsh because I believe the rate of underage pregnancy has dropped but I wouldn't let that get in way of the joke.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Suspect Device

[superbigal]

2 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I've said it before but I prefer to use a Dundee generation, so about 12 to 14 years.

 

 

 

ETA. Being a bit harsh because I believe the rate of underage pregnancy has dropped but I wouldn't let that get in way of the joke.