Next permanent Scotland manager

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

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.

So 'never' then. The utter shitebag, wait for the polls to tell us 'strategy' has run out of road. If it couldn't be achieved under Sturgeon at the peak of her powers, it is never going to be achieved by this bunch of alternatives. 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

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.

 

Good. They can take their unhinged bottle deposit tax and their boxes of quinoa with them on the way out the door. 

[renton]

21 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.

It's about 7-8 for a games console. So let's use that.

[Wee-Bey]

On 30/08/2019 at 17:29, Marlo Stanfield said:

A generation is 5 years, as this was the length of time it took Sir Reginald Generation, after which it is named, to come up with the concept back in 1879.

 

[ICTChris]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Good. They can take their unhinged bottle deposit tax and their boxes of quinoa with them on the way out the door. 

I wonder how popular this view is within the SNP and Scottish government.

Quinoa is also an excellent source of protein and fibre, which is important to maintain the constant sense of smug self-satisfaction among so many Green MSPs.

Edited to add - the Greens have apparently said that if the next First Minister does not continue a legal challange to the GRR veto they will pull out of the coalition.  I suppose it's their right to say that and have their own policies but what if the government lawyers advise that there aren't any legal grounds for a challange?  From what this story says about the candidates, if the legal advice is not to proceed they won't so the coaltion will fall anyway?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23409763.greens-will-quit-government-fm-fails-challenge-gender-law-veto/

Edited March 24, 2023 by ICTChris

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

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

Tried sending a parcel to Germany recently?

[itzdrk]

5 hours ago, J_Stewart said:

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.

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.

It's easier to say that Kate Forbes is competent than to say you agree with her right wing views.  

[MazzyStar]

17 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

Tried sending a parcel to Germany recently?

No 

 

[Trogdor]

12 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

It's easier to say that Kate Forbes is competent than to say you agree with her right wing views.  

Right and left wing is a matter of perspective. If you're Jeremy Corbyn, pretty much everyone is to your right.

[itzdrk]

Just now, Trogdor said:

Right and left wing is a matter of perspective. If you're Jeremy Corbyn, pretty much everyone is to your right.

If you are trying in some way to suggest Forbes is a centrist then I have no words.  

[Trogdor]

4 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

If you are trying in some way to suggest Forbes is a centrist then I have no words.  

I'd say Forbes is centre right on economic policy.

That doesn't equate to taking away the bedroom tax mitigation, reversing the progressive income tax, charging for tuition fees, charging for prescriptions and rampant deregulation that some on here seem to think it does though.

[StellarHibee]

10 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Right and left wing is a matter of perspective. If you're Jeremy Corbyn, pretty much everyone is to your right.

Right and left wing chat is for people stuck in their tribes. How about the sensible wing? The wing that stands up for the environment, living standards, a reasonable level of economic equality, health, education, local business.... etc.

[MazzyStar]

1 minute ago, StellarHibee said:

Right and left wing chat is for people stuck in their tribes. How about the sensible wing? The wing that stands up for the environment, living standards, a reasonable level of economic equality, health, education, local business.... etc.

^^^^Centrist found. 

[welshbairn]

33 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I wonder how popular this view is within the SNP and Scottish government.

Quinoa is also an excellent source of protein and fibre, which is important to maintain the constant sense of smug self-satisfaction among so many Green MSPs.

Edited to add - the Greens have apparently said that if the next First Minister does not continue a legal challange to the GRR veto they will pull out of the coalition.  I suppose it's their right to say that and have their own policies but what if the government lawyers advise that there aren't any legal grounds for a challange?  From what this story says about the candidates, if the legal advice is not to proceed they won't so the coaltion will fall anyway?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23409763.greens-will-quit-government-fm-fails-challenge-gender-law-veto/

Given the list of "reasons" given by Westminster for the GRR bill not fitting into the Equalities Act, like what if a woman appealing for equal pay using the comparative example of a man who later self id'd as a female half way through the proceedings, I doubt the legal advice would be that it's not worth taking it to court. Section 35 specifies that any objection has to be based on reasonable grounds

[StellarHibee]

3 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

^^^^Centrist found. 

Fascist or Marxist?

[Trogdor]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Given the list of "reasons" given by Westminster for the GRR bill not fitting into the Equalities Act, like what if a woman appealing for equal pay using the comparative example of a man who later self id'd as a female half way through the proceedings, I doubt the legal advice would be that it's not worth taking it to court. Section 35 specifies that any objection has to be based on reasonable grounds

The UK Supreme Court will not rule against the UK Government on matters pertaining to the Scottish Parlaiment, ever. See the Section 30 ruling which went further than was necessary to remove any ambiguity. A challenge to Section 35 will end up the same. It is a fools errand and a lost cause. 

It really is about time that Patrick Harvie, Lorna Slater, Ross Greer et al were fired by trebuchet into the Forth along with their demands.

[MazzyStar]

11 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Fascist or Marxist?

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

The UK Supreme Court will not rule against the UK Government on matters pertaining to the Scottish Parlaiment, ever. See the Section 30 ruling which went further than was necessary to remove any ambiguity. A challenge to Section 35 will end up the same. It is a fools errand and a lost cause. 

It really is about time that Patrick Harvie, Lorna Slater, Ross Greer et al were fired by trebuchet into the Forth along with their demands.

I'm pretty sure the SG knew that the Section 30 appeal had no chance of succeeding, it was about establishing that a de facto referendum through an election was the only democratic option open to express the will of the Scottish people. Section 35 is different.

Edited March 24, 2023 by welshbairn

[sophia]

3 hours ago, MazzyStar said:

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

What an utterly ridiculous thing to suggest.

There are many positives and chief amongst them is being able to wind up greedy Tory trawler owners and wee Bertie 

 

 

Unlucky Bertie 

Edited March 24, 2023 by sophia

[The_Kincardine]

7 hours ago, renton said:

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.

This would be an issue to thrash out or negotiate on but for it to be, " an ordinary part of the political cycle" would be to put Scotland onto a permanent referendum footing.  The 'deal' for giving HR the power to call a referendum would have to be couched in such a way as to make it the exception rather than the norm.

3 hours ago, Lurkst said:

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

That would work for me.  Gets right to the heart of the issue!