Trogdor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 This is quite the strategy. Get all the bad news out on day one and own it. Bloody hell! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: I'm not sure you're right in this circumstance, Westminster still has to match the "reasonable" test which was notable for its absence in their justifications. It really doesn't in practice, which will involve a years-long legal fight over a policy that has already burned the political capital of one First Minister to demonstrate. Only a foolish leader would take up that baton and if the Greens don't like it then that's a handy line to demarcate where the obsessives are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Her answer on same sex marriage was interesting. She said she would have voted against it. However, she likened it to Angela Merkel who brought forward the vote on same sex marriage in Germany and voted with her conscience (against) but implemented the policy as it was the will of the parliament. Clip is here: https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1627745647356006400?s=20 Which would have been fine if she hadn't already said she'd stop the appeal over Westminster blocking Holyrood legislation over a devolved matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, virginton said: It really doesn't in practice, which will involve a years-long legal fight over a policy that has already burned the political capital of one First Minister to demonstrate. Only a foolish leader would take up that baton and if the Greens don't like it then that's a handy line to demarcate where the obsessives are. She could have just said she'd not stop the appeal as it was over a constitutional principle. Edited February 20, 2023 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 "Many members may be apprehensive about your views on social issues, are you able to reassure them ?' 'Aye, I don't think the gays should be allowed to get married' 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just now, welshbairn said: She could have just said she'd not stop the appeal as it was a constitutional principle. Fighting a constitutional principle on self-ID for transgender people rather than *checks notes* the self-determination of the entire nation is a rather moronic choice of hill to die on for a prospective Scottish National Party leader. The principle has already been established. Westminster governments can stick their oar into Scottish affairs and deny the democratic decision of the Holyrood parliament. Devolution is a busted flush - that is the principle that has to be fought for by dissolving the Union. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Which would have been fine if she hadn't already said she'd stop the appeal over Westminster blocking Holyrood legislation over a devolved matter. That doesn't trigger me as much. I'm similar to Viking-ton. The constitutional settlement is what it is. After losing the referendum case I wouldn't be counting on the UK Supreme Court ruling in the SG's favour. There is enough of a tangential impact of GRR on the Equality Act that I think the UG would win. I don't think its right but the UK Supreme Court have already shown their view with their expansive decision on the referendum. The courts are not the answer. It's now about building a majority and consistent opinion poll leads (the closer to 60% the better), also send our disrupters down to Westminster and use every procedural point to disrupt the UK Government's business. Make sure they can't ignore us. Be a tremendous pain in their collective arses. Its about attrition now and we need to dig in. Edited February 20, 2023 by Trogdor virginton gets changed to virginton 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Whit’s the goalie dain, Tom? Lunacy from Forbes and I’d be pretty surprised to even see her on the frontbench now. All being equal Yousaf should also be asked these questions - not as a politician, but as a person. His religion is also incompatible with social reform. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 13 minutes ago, welshbairn said: All Forbes had to do was to let the appeal go ahead to establish the principle that Westminster can't overrule devolved legislation with frankly laughable "reasons". Instead she's jumped into the "culture wars" with two hobnail boots, there was no need. I'm not so sure that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would see it as anything else other than a waste of time that would frame us as the junior partner railing against those with the real power on a policy that is difficult to articulate. I see only one winner and if that is Alister Jack, then that's quite an achievement. I've just seen her Channel Four clip and whereas I don't agree with her view on marriage, she also said she's not in the game of revisiting that legislation. In looking for positives at least she's left no "I smoked but never inhaled" room for any pressing on her real position! I do agree with her that doing core stuff competently is what we should be about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, Bodie said: Who's he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hibee_Hibernian Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, sophia said: I'm not so sure that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would see it as anything else other than a waste of time that would frame us as the junior partner railing against those with the real power on a policy that is difficult to articulate. I see only one winner and if that is Alister Jack, then that's quite an achievement. I've just seen her Channel Four clip and whereas I don't agree with her view on marriage, she also said she's not in the game of revisiting that legislation. In looking for positives at least she's left no "I smoked but never inhaled" room for any pressing on her real position! I do agree with her that doing core stuff competently is what we should be about. The fact she’s said she wouldn’t overturn it now is pretty much irrelevant. Coming out with that statement when trying to become leader of a party that’s positioned itself as “centre left” is never going to go well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Who's he? Hootsmon writer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Who's he? Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday Westminster correspondent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 13 minutes ago, Bodie said: "Senior member" = reading this thread 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC92 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 20 minutes ago, Paco said: Whit’s the goalie dain, Tom? Lunacy from Forbes and I’d be pretty surprised to even see her on the frontbench now. All being equal Yousaf should also be asked these questions - not as a politician, but as a person. His religion is also incompatible with social reform. There you go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 30 minutes ago, virginton said: It really doesn't in practice, which will involve a years-long legal fight over a policy that has already burned the political capital of one First Minister to demonstrate. Only a foolish leader would take up that baton and if the Greens don't like it then that's a handy line to demarcate where the obsessives are. Well, it's likely academic as she's gone and totally fucked it with the Gay Marriage comments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Wild speculation here, but if, and at this stage probably when the new leader proves to be a disaster and baring a Westminster import, is there a chance sturgeon comes back into the fold before the next parliament having ‘had time to reflect and re-charge’? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 minute ago, parsforlife said: Wild speculation here, but if, and at this stage probably when the new leader proves to be a disaster and baring a Westminster import, is there a chance sturgeon comes back into the fold before the next parliament having ‘had time to reflect and re-charge’? Salmond already played that song. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.