They can form a govt if they can cobble together a coalition that commands a majority, under any leader, could be Yousaf or another.
As for the mechanism by which an election is held if this cannot be achieved, I have no idea.
129 MSPs.
63 of which are SNP.
The Preciding Officer doesn't get a vote.
If it's 64 Vs 64 then Yousaf stays.
Ash Regan could be the decider. If she votes NC then I think Yousaf would have to make way for someone else. I'm not sure what happens if that person also fails to get 64 votes, but there's no way any other party is going to get 64 votes either.
Going "to the country" would likely be the next move? We've seen other countries manage to carry on for months/years without a functioning government.
So far as I understand since the motion is vote of no confidence in him he doesnt have to resign, whereas if there was a vote of no confidence in his government he and all his ministers would have to resign within 28 days.
If I am correct about that I think this option will just lead to "death by a thousand cùrsa"
I bet Kate Forbes is clearing her diary 😂
Ash Regan could be the decider. If she votes NC then I think Yousaf would have to make way for someone else. I’m not sure what happens if that person also fails to get 64 votes, but there’s no way any other party is going to get 64 votes either.
id have thought there would be some on the opposition benches who would rather he didn’t lose it? In the end either they got a better leader which is bad for the opposition OR they go to the polls and would THEY be sure of reelection? A couple of “selfish” abstentions would be enough….
Aye, but (certainly at Westminster) there’s a convention that no opposition party would ever admit they didn’t want a GE.
The SNP have been falling apart for a while now, sadly that's politics, start up, get some power, incoming career politicians and the likes turn up and then add in fallings out, scandals, nepotism and so on and you've got the usual political goings on as in every successful party.
As for Humza, he's not the greatest, but in the current climate, he's probably the most vanilla, non damaging First Minister, which is not a bad thing due to the state of a few of the candidates that were up for it last time!
As for independence, that's not even in the discussion for me just now, that happens after the vote is confirmed, the only folks thinking it's good or bad are those who will vote Yes or No right now, next year, ten years from now no matter the argument.
Is this a variation of the Johann Lamont argument that Scots are genetically incapable of governing themselves?
Don't know where you got that inference from. No I was suggesting that for some voters in Scotland, probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate the SNP are the face of independence, and therefore as they are hardly covering themselves in glory at the moment that will tiant swing voters view of independence. We're along way from the RA RA days of the referendum.
And really, we’re trying to argue that the problems with the EU are equivalent to the problems with Westminster?
Pretty much, except Scotland is way more dependant on rUK than the UK was on Europe and that split hasn't exactly gone well has it.
I was suggesting that for some voters in Scotland, probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate the SNP are the face of independence, and therefore as they are hardly covering themselves in glory at the moment that will tiant swing voters view of independence.
I'd agree with this. I also think that lack of any momentum on the issue from the SNP has made folk less likely to turn out and support them. If the message remains "now is not the time" then folk just get turned off. I did see some polling suggesting that Labour were doing better than the SNP in many areas but I wonder how much of that is down to folk just not being engaged at the moment. An election (especially for Holyrood) will awaken some of those sleeping voters, which is why I think the SNP will do a bit better than the current polling suggests.
The fact that the electoral system makes it very difficult to gain a majority in Holyrood seems to pass everyone by. The fluke of 2011 was through a narrow window of a big list vote and slightly poorer seat performance. Usually if a party dominates, they will not get the list seats to take them over the line.
Time and time again being a minority is used as a stick to beat the main party (I remember when it was not the SNP).
One attraction for indy is that is the one thing that will kill the SNP. Wish such kryptonite existed against the Conservative party.
If I was the opposition I'd want him be first minister in the lead up to any general election. He's been inept in all of his previous roles, and made a huge error of judgement today, that could lead to him losing his job next week. If I was the opposition I wouldn't want to face Kate Forbes as she seems more confident and competent that Useless and more likeable than Sturgeon/Salmond (any religious eccentricity aside).
Humza actually seems a nice enough fella...just incompetent!
any religious eccentricity aside
Kate Forbes was incredibly naive to even respond to discussion on her personal beliefs, rather than stick to the policies she would support, especially after Tim Farron made that mistake previously. I am staggered she hadn't been coached in this beforehand. Shame as obvs very, very competant, but maybe wanted an out for family reasons.
Humza actually seems a nice enough fella…just incompetent!
Very much this. Rather than throw his toys he could have negotiated an end to the Bute deal with the Greens to both their advantage.
All the politicians from all main partys in Scottish parliament seem so utterly lightweight
Kate Forbes was incredibly naive to even respond to discussion on her personal beliefs, rather than stick to the policies she would support,
Definitely. Although some of her previous support to get to where she did might have left her in an echo chamber where she actually though those things would resonate.
especially after Tim Farron made that mistake previously. I am staggered she hadn’t been coached in this beforehand.
I don’t think she was really prepared at all for the election - it came as a surprise so there was no coaching. That said, like many strongly religious people they believe their views are unchallengeable and I’m not sure that even with hindsight she’d say she got that wrong.
Shame as obvs very, very competant, but maybe wanted an out for family reasons.
A core skill of being a major political leader is knowing how to read the room. I’d say a political leader with strongly held, openly communicated religious views of any flavour in Scotland was not actually as competent as the rest of her persona would suggest.
Scotroutes… an awful lot of people have voted SNP and will be looking at the alternatives thinking- you’ve done nothing to move towards compromise on the biggest issue in Scottish politics, Alba might do better than they should, and the greens haven’t really shown themselves to be very good but I think will mop up disgruntled left wing Indy voters. The other parties are weirdly anonymous and lacking in meaning.
Fasgath - Indy probably causes the tories to implode too! New parties will of course fill the various vacuums left after Indy causes the parties to question their very existence and tear themselves apart with infighting
It's absolutely fine to be religious and to be a political leader. As was repeatedly brought up during the leadership contest Yousaf himself is religious.
What is not OK is to come out and say you are going to allow your religious beliefs to influence your decisions. Anyone who says that is simply too much of a religious nutter or too politically incompetent to be in the running. Even Blair knew that. He didn't let people know he prayed on whether to invade the Middle East and kill several hundred thousand Arabs until after he was out of office.
We'll see what happens. If there is a lurch to the Alba side of the divide then I can see the SNP losing a lot of support among young people. What that is going to mean for the independence movement long term we'll have to wait and see.
probably the key ones in the middle of the independence debate
I will vote, I'll not vote SNP next time round, I'm not an Alba voter, and the Conservatives would need a full personality/ethics transplant, locally the Greens are invisible but available as a protest vote. Which doesn't leave too many choices.
As was repeatedly brought up during the leadership contest Yousaf himself is religious.
To be fair, you could never accuse him of pursuing a religious agenda in office...or any kind of agenda. It all seems to be stumbling from one thing to the next.
So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union.
Or is it because publicly they're not prepared to actually say that just want Scotland ruled no different to Yorkshire, or Somerset etc - i.e. Holyrood dismantled and no Scotland only policies?
If this isn't true, is it purely that you can't stand the SNP because they're anti-Tory - so you voted for Brexit and/or Tory in 2019, you don't believe in climate change, nor GAS about folk in poverty (should work harder!)?
I can only conclude it's one or the other as you're fixated on the dismantling of any independence ability.
You also seem to just want to 'live' off the wide backs of the English taxpayers.
the Conservatives would need a full personality/ethics transplant
So the state of the UK economy won't impact your vote at all?
So you support Brexit, increasing the National Debt by +£300 million PER DAY, love that Tory donors got rich off PPE corruption, adore paying ever higher taxes for poorer public services etc etc?
I really don't see how Yousaf wins this confidence vote, even if he technically 'wins'.
Presumably Regan isn't going to vote for him unless she gets some or all of the demands she's been gleefully writing a list of. If the problem with the BHA was that the tail was wagging the dog, how is it going to look if Alba's sole MSP (who wasn't elected as an Alba MSP) is now seen to be setting the agenda for the SNP.
There was a way to end the BHA less acrimoniously, I'm sure, but Yousaf's way could end up burying both him and the SNP.
So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union.
Well I am very much in favour of not breaking away from the Union, but I also happen to think the SNP have generally done a quite decent job in government. I'll never vote for them for one obvious reason, but the independence issue aside they broadly speaking represent my political viewpoint.
Of course their record in government hasn't been perfect, no party, regardless of politics, ever is. But Scotland is a brilliant place to live. I've loads of friends and family down south, and speaking to them I reckon the quality of life up here is much better. And for me being part of the Union is one of the reasons.
The SNP have done a lot of good things (though let's not mention ferries), and have been able to do these things while being part of the UK.
As for Humza, well he seems a decent enough bloke, the sort you'd happily go for a beer with. But politically he's hopeless. Which is why I think it's strange the Tories have forced a no confidence vote with an election still possibly 6 months away. If he goes then I suspect Kate Forbes will get in who may well revitalise the SNP in time for the next election.
“So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want, the Union. “
I think keeping the Union is the best thing currently. Devolution should be extended, Scotland has definitely had the better deal after the Scottish Parliament was set up. As for finances, I’m still not sure Scotland will win, financially, by going Independent. There are so many figures thrown out that it’s a case of which one is correct? If we’re 'living off the backs of English Taxpayers’ then I dont mind that. Other areas in the UK get that too, so why not Scotland?
'as you’re fixated on the dismantling of any independence ability.’ Who says that? There is always an independence ability, but the main promoter of that, the SNP has fallen over, and clearly will not be able to mount a Referendum for 10 years +. They had their best chance in 2014, and have subsequently shown they are not the Messiahs many thought they were, and are fallible just like all other Parties.
'Cant stand the SNP’. Who says that? The only people who say they hate the other party are people who say it about the Tories. There were a few who said it about Labour when Corbyn was in charge, but I have no experience of people saying they hate the SNP. They say they are useless, incompetent, corrupt, but not much more than that.
Independence is a single policy. What’s needed is a complete policy review by the SNP, and to make sure they are doing the correct thing for the Country and the People, rather than being ruled by their ‘Main Aim’. It is running the Country that is the hard part, get that right, and people will see they are doing things correctly, and eventually agree that Independence would be beneficial if it is promoted correctly, rather than having constant digs that the UK Government is holding us back. (And, please stop saying it’s the English, it is the UK Parliament, we do have representation there, as do NI, Wales and England)
On the "Islay's economy is bigger than Birmingham's" claim: I had a little poke around and I couldn't see anyone that was suggesting it and had any numbers. The only source I could see that was articulating the claim and then dismissing it was the Scottish Daily Express (shudder). It seemed to suggest that the claim was comparing the aggregate retail value of all Scotch sold worldwide (including taxes paid to foreign governments on foreign consumption) and then attributing it all to Islay, which is of course nuts. But that's the Express saying it, so...
As an aside, I see that "Brexit" is so toxic even among Scottish Daily Express readers that the paper describes Scottish independence as "Scexit".
So still nothing from the anti-SNP/independence posters accepting that what we have is what they want...you can’t stand the SNP because they’re anti-Tory – so you voted for Brexit and/or Tory in 2019, you don’t believe in climate change, nor GAS about folk in poverty (should work harder!)?...You also seem to just want to ‘live’ off the wide backs of the English taxpayers.
These assumptions are mad things that you've just invented. It's a world that exists only between your two ears.
Is it impossible to hold the SNP to account for their actions in government without it being a position on independence? Or to ask it another way, can't someone be in favour of devolution or independence and still criticise the SNP for poor performance?
The SNP's apparent fumbling of health and addiction policy isn't because they're in favour of independence - it's because they're rubbish and complacent in government. Turning everything that happens in Scotland and Scottish politics into a conversation about independence is extremely reductionist. Sometimes that seems to be a deliberate tactic to distract from the issue actually in question.
It’s absolutely fine to be religious and to be a political leader. As was repeatedly brought up during the leadership contest Yousaf himself is religious.
What is not OK is to come out and say you are going to allow your religious beliefs to influence your decisions. Anyone who says that is simply too much of a religious nutter or too politically incompetent to be in the running. .....etc etc
Completely agree! Also why I think Assisted Dying should be a manifesto topic for each party.
re drugs:
The death rate is higher as the Scots changed the emphasis from rehabilitation and recovery to one that prioritises harm reduction. It didn't work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they tried to save money by getting rid of many of the rehabilitation and recovery programmes, and instead relied on users giving up by themselves while being supported on 'cleaner' drugs. and secondly, drug habits change over time, and most Scottish drug deaths are users that are combining street and 'script drugs for fun rather than O/Ding on opiates becasue of addiction (which is mainly what harm reduction schemes are aimed at).
The Scottish system is a good starting point, but it still needs the push and support (including penalties) from agencies to get people to stop, and it needs to evolve to cope with the way that folks are actually using drugs, and it hasn't.
the greens haven’t really shown themselves to be very good but I think will mop up disgruntled left wing Indy voters
Lorna Slater has already said that Independence isn't a red line for co-operating with Labour, so I think it depends on where folk place their Left/Right political beliefs as a relative priority with Independence.
(FWIW, I despise the use of Left/Right to describe folks political leanings as it's simply not nuanced enough).
The gloves are off now
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24280190.anas-sarwar-lodge-vote-no-confidence-scottish-government/
Wings has Neil Gray as the new leader when Yousaf resigns in the next couple of days.
Wings has Neil Gray as the new leader when Yousaf resigns in the next couple of days.
That's a sad indictment on the lack of leaders in the SNP these days, that and Salmond being allowed back in the press to gloat about how it's all a shambles now he's not in charge.
SNP have had their time at the top seat and they now need replaced. Most of what they have done has been great, but the last 4 years or so have seen some big issues and not getting them resolved quickly (or letting them happen)...they are too relaxed at being in the top seat now and taken their eye off the ball.
Same with the Tories...
Each party will likely have something or things that appeal to the masses...
The decision to not hit our climate targets has been really poor, considering we seemed to be doing well...
Needs a refresh and a new think at the top.
I wouldn't have thought Labour actually wants the SNP to leave government at this moment. They don't want a coalition without an election, and they don't want an election when they're not prepared for it.
The Scottish system is a good starting point, but it still needs the push and support (including penalties) from agencies to get people to stop, and it needs to evolve to cope with the way that folks are actually using drugs, and it hasn’t.
I've been motivated by this thread to do some proper digging on the stats. Both ROS and ONS say the Scottish/English data is not directly comparable and requires extreme caution to interpret. BUT what is interesting is that "drug deaths" is a gross simplification.
We DO count people who die from taking "illegal" drugs - which I guess is what we all expect. We include in those numbers people who took those drugs with the intention of overdosing. That's a relatively small number, but was still somewhat surprising to me. In Scotland at least the vast majority of the deaths are Heroin related (more accurately Opiod related), not some mix of MDMA/Cocaine. The deaths correlate very strongly with areas of deprivation. That last statement is no surprise - but does suggest there won't be quick fixes either. If I understood correctly they don't include deaths caused to others (e.g. if I get high and drive my car into someone else, or if I stab someone in a drugs related crime etc). What was most surprising though was that the numbers only include deaths which are directly linked to drugs with a fairly immediate nexus between taking the drugs and it leading to death. If I die at 50 as a result of long term chronic health problems cause or agrivated by drug taking that will NOT be recorded as a drug death. In that sense both Scottish and English numbers are a significant under reporting.
If there is a difference between policies North and South of the border, then it would actually be interesting to understand the total picture. Many of the gang related stabbings that england has become infamous for will have a drugs element. You probably also need to look at other factors - does helping the drugs problem exacerbate alchohol problems? Does that hurt people other that the "user" too? Overall the life expectancy numbers suggest Scotland has not succeeded in the big picture so I'm not saying to ignore the drugs numbers but perhaps it gets the wrong emphasis? Is England "ahead" of Scotland or actually is it behind on the curve and will have its depressing increase in the 2030s as a result of social policies implemented today? Its too soon to see if the Lord Advocate's policy of not prosecuting most drug use has an effect - but it is clear that when Scotland took different approaches on knife crime and treated it as a public health issue it has had a very positive effect. Anyone who thinks punishment is the way to stop Opiod users has clearly never had a serious discussion with someone who injects heroin; just as anyone who thinks it could be sorted in one parliamentary term when the underlying causes have taken decades to establish.
The opposition parties bashing the SNP were also the people who opposed the SNP "named person scheme" which might just, over a generation (not a parliamentary term) have helped some of our most vulnerable children avoid following in their parents footsteps. Perhaps, like many government policies, it had flaws but sadly the tendency to reject solutions from the majority party for the sake of it is a symptom of parliamentary arithmetic. Holyrood was designed to have minorities and work on cooperation - perhaps we are heading back towards that.
In Scotland at least the vast majority of the deaths are Heroin related (more accurately Opiod related), not some mix of MDMA/Cocaine.
and not just Heroin, its benzodiazepines - as you point out lots of the opiate drug death are OTC like pregabalin and diazepam, Scotland has a poly-drug misuse issue. Folks are O/Ding on a mix of drugs.
I see the SNP's rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
Both ROS and ONS say the Scottish/English data is not directly comparable and requires extreme caution to interpret.
Rly? Because the report that is the source of the data explicitly says
2. 'Drug-misuse deaths' is the terminology used by the NRS in their 'Drug-related deaths in Scotland' statistical publication and is consistent with the terminology used in other parts of the UK. The term ‘misuse’ is seen by some as stigmatizing. The Scottish Government aims to use neutral language where possible unless referencing an official title, technically defined term or policy from a different organisation.
This is the same definition and source from which the same data linked throughout above comes from. Nothing new.
increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Source for this claim...?
The proportion of income moving from rUK to Scotland was around 0.08 per cent, while the proportion of income moving from Scotland to the rest of the UK was 0.9 per cent.
The slight increase in the number of higher taxpayers moving out of Scotland in 2018-19 is estimated to have resulted in £61m in tax receipts going to the UK Government instead of the Scottish Government.
But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.
In 2021-22, the most recent year of available data, £200 million in additional taxable income was brought into Scotland.
But the HMRC study says it could not draw “definitive conclusions” on whether the reason for the migration trend is tax difference.
“We cannot observe the counterfactual situation where tax divergence did not occur, we cannot conclude the policy change had no effect,” it said.
grimepFree Member
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Daily Mail headline by any chance?
We came from England, both high/highest rate taxpayers but we've never been asked whether it was for the taxes, benefits or the weather 🙂
Correlation vs Causation, look it up.
I chose to live in a highly taxed location in a highly taxed country. I'd happily pay even more tax but others wouldn't so that might not be productive. Junior paid no university fees and the free schools were great. The health service still works though it is being stressed by the boomer demographic reaching peak care reqirements. There are great public pools, ski resorts, sports fascilities, theaters, heeitage sites... .
These are how I measure things not on how many individuals get hooked on drink and drugs, or choose an unhealthy diet. So Scotland scores quite well and better than England on things that matter to me.
So the state of the UK economy won’t impact your vote at all?
So you support Brexit, increasing the National Debt by +£300 million PER DAY, love that Tory donors got rich off PPE corruption, adore paying ever higher taxes for poorer public services etc etc?
I've literally no idea how you arrived at this response. You sure you haven't read something into my post that actually isnt there?
Grimep
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
Ha.ha……..we have a comedian in the making, needs a fair bit of work but crack on….
Forbes believes that it is acceptable for the state to discriminate against people based on the persons sexual orientation.
That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.
"Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?"
I think the historical record of the past 40 years has made it pretty plain where neo liberalism leads. Can we recover? Or will the vast wealth accumulated over these years being used against us be too much to resist.
PCA - here's what the NRS say: https://blog.nrscotland.gov.uk/2023/08/22/what-actually-counts-as-a-drug-death/ and the ONS: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/comparability-of-drug-related-death-statistics-across-the-united-kingdom/ nobody seems to believe that Scotland is not worse than England but we don't collect the same data or report in the same way so have to use a different metric for intra-country comparison from we do for everything else - and we can't look deeper to see if the English data is driven by different drugs etc.
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.
Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.
Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?
It is interesting how you use socialist as an insult whilst many people in Scotland would see it as something to aspire towards. I know a lot of people who live in Scotland who will fall into the category of paying more tax than they would if they lived in England. They come from a wide range of political perspectives. I can't remember any saying they were considering moving because of tax policy. I can only think of two who've actually moved to england since the difference started... one of them was very unhappy that his children were now going to have to pay more in university fees and was trying to persuade his employer (who wanted him to move) to cover that cost...
Whichever definition is used, it remains the case that Scotland has a much higher drug death rate than anywhere else in the UK. The scale of the difference under either definition highlights that differences in production of the statistics do not explain the gap.
https://blog.nrscotland.gov.uk/2023/08/22/what-actually-counts-as-a-drug-death/
But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.
There's been huge net immigration from outside the EU into the UK since Brexit. Rrelatively few immigrants to the UK move to Scotland (it has 8.2% of the population but only 4% of non-EU immigrants). But still you could easily have a situation in which the relatively small number of Scotland-quitting high earners is outbalanced by a larger group of Scotland-arrivers, and net income tax take would increase. Or many other scenarios...
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/where-do-migrants-live-in-the-uk/
That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.
Nobody is saying her religious beliefs means she is not allowed to do the job.
The problems is when someone's religious beliefs prevent them from doing the job, and is there is no reasonable workaround that allows them to follow the rules of their faith and still do the job. In this case, she has said she won't be able to do the job because her religious beliefs mean she cannot consider certain issues objectively. She cannot reasonably argue for or against certain issues because she has already admitted her positions come from her faith and therefore she cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter what arguments or evidence is presented to her.
Like I said, a lot was made of Yousaf's religious beliefs but at no point did he ever suggest his faith would influence his decisions.
And even then, no one is saying that she isn't allowed to stand. Just that they won't vote for her and would advise others not to vote for her because, as she has said herself, her religious beliefs mean she cannot be objective in all matters.
Not a fan of Forbes, but didn't she just say she couldn't vote for the gender recognition reform bill, not sure i've ever heard her say she couldn't do the job because of her religious beliefs?
Asked by Channel 4 if she would have voted against gay marriage, had she been elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2014 when the legislation was approved, she said: "I would have."
Now, perhaps she had non-religious reasons for saying this but if she does she didn't feel the need to elaborate. We can only assume she would have voted against gay marriage because of her faith.
Maybe she'll explain her secular reasoning at some point, if she has any, but until then we have to assume it was because of her faith.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-admits-would-voted-29267948
What Yousaf said about the same issue.
Speaking on LBC Radio, he said: "I'm a supporter of equal marriage. Let me get to the crux of the issue that you're asking me.
"I'm a Muslim. I'm somebody who's proud of my faith. I'll be fasting during Ramadan in a few weeks’ time.
"But what I don't do is, I don't use my faith as a basis of legislation. What I do as a representative, as a leader, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament is my job is to bring forward policy and pursue it in the best interest of the country."
It could be argued that this was purely a political statement. I'm sure Yousaf is well aware that many in Scotland are more comfortable with a Christian 'voting with their conscious' than a Muslim doing the same.
What Yousaf did was avoid voting for gay marriage by inventing an excuse to miss the vote.
I would rather have an honest MSP who voted against it for their own personal reasons while accepting that once passed it was the law of the land and to be accepted as such.
What Yousaf did was avoid voting for gay marriage by inventing an excuse to miss the vote.
True, and every politician has to do certain things to placate a certain key constituency at various points of their career. Expecting politicians to behave any other way is naive in the extreme. He could have avoided placating the mosque, lost their support in the next election, and then we wouldn't have to bother talking about him.
Also, Yousaf doesn't have the luxury of having an acceptable religion to make allowances for so it's not really surprising that, even after he is no longer dependent on the mosque vote, he can't come out and say, 'I needed their support.' Life would be so much simpler if he could just be a Christian.
I would rather have an honest MSP who voted against it for their own personal reasons while accepting that once passed it was the law of the land and to be accepted as such.
That's only an option for politicians who follow the 'correct' religion.
I accept that politicians who are religious are going to have personal views and it may well affect their decisions, but in many ways that just means they have to work doubly hard to find secular arguments to justify their decisions.
With arguments about assisted dying, protection of abortion clinics, and Gender Recognition, which of these are you happy to just let Forbes hide behind her faith by exercising her conscious and which one would you like her to be able to put forward coherent secular arguments?
Remember, an MSP voting on a single issue is very different to a FM setting the agenda for the party and the country.
I accept that politicians who are religious are going to have personal views and it may well affect their decisions, but in many ways that just means they have to work doubly hard to find secular arguments to justify their decisions.
Nope. You really have no idea of the concept of "faith" whatsoever.
I am not discriminating against her for her religeous beliefs. I am not refusing to provide goods or services. I am not in a position with any power over her.
She thinks it acceotable for the state to discriminate against folk on grounds of their sexuality iw no gay marriage..
Nope. You really have no idea of the concept of “faith” whatsoever.
Probably.
Even when I was getting dragged to church every Sunday, when I was saying prayers first thing before lessons started, before break, after break, before lunch, after lunch, and before home time, and even during the entire year of actual education that was lost so we could learn how to put a cardboard tasting biscuit in our mouth, I honestly never felt much in the way of faith.
The only time I felt myself in need of any kind of faith was when we started transitioning to adulthood and suddenly found that saying 'being gay is bad just because' wasn't going to cut it anymore and people were actually asking, 'but why is being gay bad?' having 'faith' meant we were able to continue with our homophobic views for a bit longer because they were justified by our 'beliefs'.
If 'faith' means never having to justify or defend your prejudices then the world could do with a lot less of it, imo.
I do not think that there should be any bar against a person of faith holding the highest political office in the land. No matter what there faith is no matter how actively or passively they follow their faith.
I personally do not want a person whos decision would be guided by their faith to hold the office of First Minister. I believe we're in bad situation when if we start barring people from office on the basis of their faith or any other characteristic
This is amongst other factors is what lead me to vote Regan 1st and Yousaf 2nd in the leadership contest whilst believing that Forbes was the most able candidate.
placate a certain key constituency...He could have avoided placating the mosque...even after he is no longer dependent on the mosque vote
This is a weird suggestion. Are we just going to let it slide? There's only one constituency in Scotland where Muslims are close to 13%, and Yusuf didn't even represent it. He was on the regional Glasgow list where Muslims are about 3% of the population. That's leaving aside that Muslims don't vote as a unitary bloc depending what "the mosque" tells them to. He's never been "dependent on the mosque vote". This is like the old canard that all Catholics are in the service of Rome or Jews are just going to do whatever Israel tells them to.
https://www.ft.com/content/66d02b4b-5c30-4955-8144-bbcd962078b1
Meanwhile, I hadn't realised that Owen Jones (who it should be noted has never lived or worked or studied or up to this point has had any particular interest in Scotland) was now writing a column for The National. But his latest column is a corker: "you know what the SNP's difficulties are really about? Gaza. And if you aren't upset about Humza's difficulties, you're probably a genocidaire".
With arguments about assisted dying, protection of abortion clinics, and Gender Recognition, which of these are you happy to just let Forbes hide behind her faith by exercising her conscious and which one would you like her to be able to put forward coherent secular arguments?
Again, as stated earlier, she will always vote 'No' to those types due to her religion, and dare say her constituents, but as FM she will go with whatever way the votes have gone, again, i do not prefer her to anyone, but democracy does mean you get to vote and leadership is about managing the outcome of that vote to the best of your responsibility.
As for Humza, i just always got the vibe of him being a bit like Gordon Brown, and i mean that in the way they took over the leadership, when the writing was already on the wall and their terms in charge was basically herding cats.
This is a weird suggestion. Are we just going to let it slide?
It's not unusual for influential figures to be able to exert political pressure in any number of ways. It doesn't simply come down to demographics of a constituency or region. That's what I took from 'pressure from the mosque'.
But of course, it could have simply been to avoid socially awkward situations after Friday prayers at his local mosque. I guess we'll never know for sure.
I'm reassured by this:
“But what I don’t do is, I don’t use my faith as a basis of legislation. What I do as a representative, as a leader, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament is my job is to bring forward policy and pursue it in the best interest of the country.”
But then as a Muslim he doesn't really have the luxury of being able to come right out and say, 'I just vote how the Imam tells me' so who knows.
Again, as stated earlier, she will always vote ‘No’ to those types due to her religion, and dare say her constituents, but as FM she will go with whatever way the votes have gone,
But as FM she is not just voting her conscious on individual issues. She is supposed to be driving the agenda for the country. She would have to be actively pursuing policies that she would then vote against.
Or do we just pretend these issues don't exist while she is FM and wait for someone who isn't constrained by their faith?
Ypusaf for all his protestations that he could leave his faith at home on the assisted dying bill he has only met the anti side who are 99% religious fundamentalists funded by soutar and us Christian nationalists and has come out parroting the anti nonsense. I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
So that just looks hypocrisy
I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
Could well be.
While it's an issue that is absolutely not clear cut and I would imagine many people (me included) have conflicting feelings on the issue the fact he refused to meet with certain groups is not a good sign.
It's the kind of thing I can definitely see people seeking to reinforce their own viewpoints, even unconsciously. From what I understand Sturgeon is swinging back towards being against it.
It's definitely worth keeping a close eye on and personally I'm very much in favour (although as I said I have some concerns but I think they are outweighed by the suffering caused).
So based on nothing whatsoever it's now an accepted fact that loads of higher rate income tax paying Scots have moved to England...
These "movers", were they already working elsewhere and just happened to live here, or they've moved with their jobs to England or something else (like it was made up in the first place)?
So based on nothing whatsoever it’s now an accepted fact that loads of higher rate income tax paying Scots have moved to England…
Only as far as Berwick i hear.
Wouldnt the issue of assisted dying be something that could well be addressed by a citizens assembly well informed by experts in the field òr even a second chamber?
I am cautiously in favour of assisted dying, I am hoping that there would be a free vote on the issue.
I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
Really surprised to hear this kind of language from TJ. Which mosque? What do you think exactly would happen?
Bizarre that I'm feeling the need to defend the leader of the SNP against allegations he's in the grip of clerics when I disagree with both his politics and his religion.
There is going to be a free vote on tbe assisted dying bill. Parliament is the right place for this
PCA hear hoofbeats? Its not something I have said lightly but he is exactly quoting word for word tbe false propaganda the anti side use after various meetings with the anti side.
Islam has a very strong position on this. It needs to be respected for the individual but its not a sound basis for public policy.
"There is going to be a free vote on tbe assisted dying bill." good.
"Parliament is the right place for this " It's too late for this bill now but I reckon this is the type of issue which well informed citizens assemblies could deal with
Not in this case given the utterly foul behaviour from the anti side. Inventing fake secular reasons to object when their objection is religious. Yes i have seeen the breifing paper where they make clear this is their tactic. They unashamedly lie as its " fibbing for god" so acceptable in their eyes.
It needs strong folk to stand up to the barrage of lies. It needs dispassionate experts.
To go back to more general stuff. The snp led government have had some great sucesses in lifting folk out of poverty and in insulating the people of Scotland from some of the worst excesses from down south but look tired and have run out of steam. Pretty typical after being in power that long. A big fightback from the tartan tories in thevparty recently.
Greens have squandered so much political capital on non core issues. Im not impressed.
Tories? Very much a minority party and run by a nonentity.
Labour? Contine to be useless just still having tantrums.
Lib dems. Still have the liar Carmichael and have never apologised. Once you lose your reputation for integrity they have nothing left
A plague on all their houses
Radio Scotland reporting rumours from more than one source that Humza is considering resigning before a VONC.
Which would complete a week showing a masterclass in shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the comment someone made on how a minority govt would work. Maybe pass fewer new laws and concentrate on governing well with what we have?
Certainly seems to be more than a rumour.
I feel bad as Sturgeon really did give him a horrible hospital pass in the way she resigned prior to the shit hitting the fan, but he hasn't shown the competency to deal with it so I guess it was inevitable.
Certainly seems to be more than a rumour.
could be an “I’ll go, but who are you going to elect then” test… because if everything hinges on Ash Regan or perhaps one or two other abstentions - they now need to think about what outcome they want after they’ve kicked Humza in the nuts.
i think we can be pretty sure we are about to get a new first minister - so who is it going to be?
- a new leader of the SNP needs to find support across their factious party; then to get acceptance from the people who just wanted Humza out
- an alternative from within the opposition would need support from lib/lab/green/alba so is almost impossible
so will we see an election? Presumably SNP still end up largest party after than - but with a smaller number of seats… so who will work together ?
