Jump to content

The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.


Ludo*1

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It's sad that - after a hate-fuelled, rabble-rousing narcissist was ousted as FM

She did pretty well for a narcissist tbf. Seeing off all of those society conscious conservative leaders over her tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

She did pretty well for a narcissist tbf. Seeing off all of those society conscious conservative leaders over her tenure.

With the stench of corruption and the possibility of insolvency around the SNP you clearly have an astonishingly low bar to 'pretty well'.  But we all knew that.

Edited by The_Kincardine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StellarHibee said:

Indeed, you're incredibly good at it. The typical "I vote tory, but the others are just as bad ken".

So do you have anything to say about Humza and his use of the SC to further division in Scotland or do you want to make this about me?  Again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

So do you have anything to say about Humza and his use of the SC to further division in Scotland or do you want to make this about me?  Again?

That's your interpretation. Considering you think the tories are the guys to vote for, i'd say your interpretation skills when it comes to political matters isn't all that sharp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

So do you have anything to say about Humza and his use of the SC to further division in Scotland or do you want to make this about me?  Again?

Unsurprising that an extremist UK Nat would want Scotland to get solidly behind divisive, border-building, anti-immigrant, transphobic Brexit Britain … in the name of not liking division, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

That's your interpretation. Considering you think the tories are the guys to vote for, i'd say your interpretation skills when it comes to political matters isn't all that sharp.

Bear in mind this is someone who has claimed to want the Irish forcibly repatriated under UK rule. I think “sharp” is probably less accurate than “mad, bad, and dangerous”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

So do you have anything to say about Humza and his use of the SC to further division in Scotland or do you want to make this about me?  Again?

The Scottish Parliament (all of the parties, including the tories) thought this was within the competence of Holyrood and have thought this for 5 years.

That the scottish tories then shat their pants when told "its a bad thing" by Boris/Liz/Rishi is neither here nor there.

Those tories with a conscience voted for it regardless and it passed with a whopping majority.

The Scottish Parliament is NOT divided on this issue, and the SC is only being asked to rule because the Westminster tories dingied the bill.

All of this "how much will it cost" shite is just a smokescreen - there would be a cost of precisely £f**k.all if Westminster hadnt decided to make it an issue in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

So do you have anything to say about Humza and his use of the SC to further division in Scotland or do you want to make this about me?  Again?

 

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

That's your interpretation. Considering you think the tories are the guys to vote for, i'd say your interpretation skills when it comes to political matters isn't all that sharp.

That's that Q answered - to no one's surprise.

I see that with the loss of their auditors and the possibility of not having the audit done by May 31st the WM Nats may lose their Short money.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23449248.snp-finance-woes-deepen-auditors-leave-partys-westminster-group/

Given that Flynn was appointed WM leader in December, surely he must have known they didn't have an auditor.  And if he knew, it's barely credible that Humza didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

The Scottish Parliament (all of the parties, including the tories) thought this was within the competence of Holyrood and have thought this for 5 years.

That the scottish tories then shat their pants when told "its a bad thing" by Boris/Liz/Rishi is neither here nor there.

Those tories with a conscience voted for it regardless and it passed with a whopping majority.

The Scottish Parliament is NOT divided on this issue, and the SC is only being asked to rule because the Westminster tories dingied the bill.

All of this "how much will it cost" shite is just a smokescreen - there would be a cost of precisely £f**k.all if Westminster hadnt decided to make it an issue in the first place.

If Humza had said, "The bill was passed by HR and we feel we have a  duty towards those most affected by it to pursue this to the end" I'd have sympathised with him.  If he had said, "We'll try and work with WM over x months to try and find an acceptable solution" I'd have applauded him.

He didn't.  He admitted it was about taking issue with WM, "Regardless of what you think of the GRR Bill".  It is shitty, lowest-common-denominator politics.  It stinks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If Humza had said, "The bill was passed by HR and we feel we have a  duty towards those most affected by it to pursue this to the end" I'd have sympathised with him.  If he had said, "We'll try and work with WM over x months to try and find an acceptable solution" I'd have applauded him.

He didn't.  He admitted it was about taking issue with WM, "Regardless of what you think of the GRR Bill".  It is shitty, lowest-common-denominator politics.  It stinks.

 

I agree that it stinks - Holyrood asked Westminster what was required to make the bill compliant, and Alister Jack has not given an answer.

The tories clearly wanted this fight, so what is holyrood to do?

Bend over and self lubricate the hairy Scottish arsehole for them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If he had said, "We'll try and work with WM over x months to try and find an acceptable solution" I'd have applauded him.

Do you think it is possible for both parties to find an acceptable solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leith Green said:

I agree that it stinks - Holyrood asked Westminster what was required to make the bill compliant, and Alister Jack has not given an answer.

The tories clearly wanted this fight, so what is holyrood to do?

Bend over and self lubricate the hairy Scottish arsehole for them?

He could have had two bites at the Moral High Ground cherry: 1. Keep making it all about GRR or 2. Suspend the SC route for a period of time to negotiate a compromise.  Either option would have been to his credit and would allow him to retain most all-party support.  That's what grown-ups would have done.

He's now made it not about GRR and we're back to corrosive Sturgeonism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Do you think it is possible for both parties to find an acceptable solution?

I'd hope so.  And in this situation, the very act of offering a fixed time to look for a  compromise before taking the option of last resort would have put Humza in credit.

Of the three (I suppose 4 if you include 'do nothing') options available to him, he has chosen the worst.  It's now a tiresome journey through the courts knowing it's no longer about GRR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

He could have had two bites at the Moral High Ground cherry: 1. Keep making it all about GRR or 2. Suspend the SC route for a period of time to negotiate a compromise.  Either option would have been to his credit and would allow him to retain most all-party support.  That's what grown-ups would have done.

He's now made it not about GRR and we're back to corrosive Sturgeonism.

This is pish.

Holyrood asked what was required AND GOT NO ANSWER.

If the "grown ups" knew what was required, they would have said, presumably?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

This is pish.

Holyrood asked what was required AND GOT NO ANSWER.

If the "grown ups" knew what was required, they would have said, presumably?

OK so you're happy to go to court on a 'not the GRR issue' then?  'It's shitty politics but it's the Taoooorrrrries' fault'?  Is that a reasonable summary of your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...