Suspended for 27 days and pay docked for 54, check your roaming plans!
He wasn't punished for misusing the roaming. He's punished for lying about it.
Interesting that they have the power to dock pay. That seems to make this a quasi-judicial process (perhaps the suspension does anyway) and I'd argue that there's no way a group of politicians could be viewed to meet the requirements of Article 6.
“Suspended for 27 days and pay docked for 54 “
He got off lightly. Lying to his Superiors and the Electorate,and allowing others without security clearance to use his work computer. He should have been thrown out for his contiuing lies, what was it, around 3 months after, when he admitted he had been lying, and he knew it was his Sons who had watched football? All to get out of paying the bill. It wasnt the initial thing he did that was the problem, if he had just admitted he had used the computer for his own use, and offered to settle the bill, no one would have said anything, it was his cover up and lies after that brought him down, which seems to be a recurring theme with Politicians. Remember the MP from Peterborough, had a speeding fine, rather than pay it and take the points, she lied, was caught out, and got a 3 month jail sentence, even then, she thought she could still be a decent MP. Luckily the Electorate have a chance to boot them out now for such things, rather than wait until the next election.
Do you think that John Swinney got rid of Min for Indy because he doesn’t think Indy is important?
I think he got rid for the reasons he said so at the time, A minister spending time and [taxpayer] money on something that's not going to happen in the foreseeable was a spit in the eye to folks suffering from cost of living crisis and it smacked of party not focussed on the fact that all across the country, services are failing. It was a bit of political theatre to separate his cabinet from Yousef's. But it was also designed to send a signal to union supporting Labour voters - You can vote for us secure in the knowledge that this is issue is on the backburner now.
TJ - doesn't overall voteshare affect stuff like Short Money? So even if you won't vote for any of the candidates you feel have a chance of winning in your constituency, there is still an (albeit tiny) effect that your vote will have. Plus there might be a bit of a "success breeds success" effect, the higher the vote percentages for minor parties gets the more people are likely to consider them worth voting for in the future.
perhaps Chris. As above I will think hard about this and my position is not fixed. It does not sit well with me not to vote
the higher the vote percentages for minor parties gets the more people are likely to consider them worth voting for in the future.
Which is the thing that might make me vote.
Votes do indeed affect Short Money - which was news to me. As long as the party has at least one seat. So does the Scottish Green party qualify by their being Greens in the UK parliament? I thought there was a split between Scotland and UK Greens?
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01663/
Looks like the SNP will be losing a huge share of their funding.
I think he got rid for the reasons he said so at the time, A minister spending time and [taxpayer] money on something that’s not going to happen in the foreseeable was a spit in the eye to folks suffering from cost of living crisis and it smacked of party not focussed on the fact that all across the country, services are failing. It was a bit of political theatre to separate his cabinet from Yousef’s. But it was also designed to send a signal to union supporting Labour voters – You can vote for us secure in the knowledge that this is issue is on the backburner now.
Well which was it the reasons HE said so at the time:
Because the Scottish Government believes independence offers the best future for Scotland, all Cabinet Secretaries and ministers – not just one – are responsible for helping to bring about that better future.
As a party we will use every electoral opportunity to advance the cause. The next such opportunity will be the forthcoming UK General Election. The SNP will go into that election on a manifesto which will say on page one, line one: ‘Vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country.
We have achieved so much together: a Scottish Parliament and an independence referendum, both of which looked a long way off to me when I joined the SNP. They were accomplished by always keeping our eye on the prize, building support, keeping up the pressure, and trusting in democratic power. That’s how we are going to win our country’s independence.
(that is a direct quote from Mr Swinney)
OR the reasons you've listed above which are entirely different?
Sure, he got The Party Secretary to say the thing as party leader he couldn't
Chris McEleny said: “The new SNP government has made the decision to de-prioritise independence in order to try and broaden support for itself within parliament.
Votes do indeed affect Short Money – which was news to me. As long as the party has at least one seat. So does the Scottish Green party qualify by their being Greens in the UK parliament? I thought there was a split between Scotland and UK Greens?
I've just crunched the numbers - the Green Party numbers do seem to be based only on Green Party voted in England and do not include the Scottish Green Party Votes. That was interesting as I didn't realise there was a direct 1 vote = xx p per annum relationship.
"Sure, he got The Party Secretary to say the thing as party leader he couldn’t
Chris McEleny said: “The new SNP government has made the decision to de-prioritise independence in order to try and broaden support for itself within parliament"
Oops 😁
He wasn’t punished for misusing the roaming. He’s punished for lying about it.
Thank you @poly, I had grasped that, I was merely trying to lighten the mood in here.
interesting interpretation of what she said (and ignoring the barnet consequences of any such policy in rUK)
Why should the SNP refuse or agree to co-operate with another party at Westminster on the basis of its policies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Seeking to influence those matters outside Scotland while jealously guarding the exclusive right of Holyrood to legislate on them inside Scotland seems...odd.
In any case, this constitutional crap is tiresome and oxygen-sucking. Let's see the parties' manifestos for the next 5 years.
pca - I don't think that's what she was saying. My interpretation was "I'm quite happy to help work with them, afterall some of the policies they'd like to introduce in rUK we've introduced in Scotland already" now the hidden subplot I read behind that was "if Labour don't take my offer they are being petty" and "potentail scottish labour voters don't need to worry that they'll let the tories in, if they vote for us, because we will help labour if they need it". You can argue that since they don't want to be part of WM long term they should take the Sien Fein stance and not turn up, but given every policy in rUK has a financial consequence for Scotland that would seem a bit dumb.
You can argue that since they don’t want to be part of WM long term they should take the Sien Fein stance and not turn up
No-one is saying that. Comparing the SNP to Sinn Fein is absurd and offensive in every dimension.
The SNP shouldn't seek to use its political power to influence policy outside Scotland on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament when it doesn't stand for election outside Scotland, let alone have a mandate outside Scotland. Should the UUP consider a coalition with the Tories if they promise to impose UUP policies in Scotland?
Even on devolved matters Westminster has influence over Scottish Government policy because of the barnett formula. Why should a Scottish Government of any flavour not then attempt to influence decisions taken at Westminster that have implications for the Scottish Government spending plans in Scotland
"Looks like the SNP will be losing a huge share of their funding."
Air time too - pretty good chance they will no longer be the third largest party so will lose their spot at PMQs and their Opposition Days.
How is SNP supporting Labour any different to the DUP supporting the Tories?
Same limitations apply.
As for
will not work with Labour because of their tribal hatred of Labour and pigheaded view on the union
You got that completely the wrong way round.
You got that completely the wrong way round.
Whoosh!
The oleaginous Anas Sarwar trying, and failing, to dodge a question about whether his family business pays its workers a living wage. He claims he doesn't own any of the business, which is technically true - it's a trust for his kids that owns it.
Sarwar is not my first choice for a clean hands/clean sweep leader to rid the Scottish government of sleaze...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-69063836
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6687889.stm - but this was reversed on appeal to be fair
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/05/0525/sarwar.shtml
Does anyone use the electoral calculus website? How credible is it?
Well, they're predicting that the SNP will be down to 12 seats on 4th July. I can't see it going that low!
Whoosh!
Yup. Take it that was your point.
Does anyone use the electoral calculus website? How credible is it?
Came here to say exactly that.
It was a real eye opener to discover the previous voting habits of my new constituency (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) had it existed in 2019.
They reckon if it had existed in 2019 it would have been 44% SNP, 42.6% CON & 5.1% LAB (who were 4th behind Lib Dem).
Hadn't appreciated the new boundaries had made the constituency go so blue (They predict (somehow - no idea how) this time it could be 29.4% SNP, 28.6% CON and 26.1% LAB. That a pretty tasty contest. I'm not sure it'll work out like that as I think people's voting this time around is going to be very hard to predict with so many variables.
Moray had the narrowest margin for Remain in the vote on Brexit. I've always assumed (probably incorrectly) that some of that was due to the presence of a large number of military and ex-military due to Kinloss and Lossiemouth.
This is an odd story for two reasons:
1) the SNP's finances are so wrecked post-Sturgeon that they can only afford to spend £811 on online media advertising in a month.
2) the SNP is quick to remove songs containing racially-charged words from its campaign. Its last leader spoke at some length and movingly in Parliament about the murder of George Floyd by an American policeman (like Gaza, a subject about which the Scottish government can do absolutely nothing). And yet when it came to police choking a black man to death on the street in Scotland, about which the Scottish government can do something - it's nine years on and there is no conclusion in the public inquiry. This is glacially slow. The entire leadership of Police Scotland and the Scottish Government will have turned over without anyone ever being found accountable. It is completely shameful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-68939728
The SNP/John Swinneys principles have gone down a notch by again saying Matheson should not be sanctioned any more for his failure to admit using his Ministerial supplied Tablet for private use, allowing someone not security checked to use it, and then lying to cover this up.
If this was taken to Court, he’d be prosecuted for Perverting the course of Justice. Why didnt Swinney just say ‘yes, he broke our rules, lied about it, so he needs to take the punishment’ rather than saying he has been punished enough already. What by losing his Ministers salary? He still has his MSP salary of £72k.(against ~£100k for a Minister)
According to a report on the Radio, the SNP were going to oppose the sanctions against Matheson, even though such votes should be a free vote. I’m sure there must be some SNP MSPs who are/were appalled at his behaviour, and wanted him to be suspended, but Swinney pushed it through that all SNP Members should vote against. Luckily they saw sense when it was clear they couldnt win, then they all abstained.
Swinney had a chance to show he wont stand for any impropriety in his Party, with a chance to stand up for morals in the Scottish Parliament, but instead, he’s come out to say Matheson was suspended because the other Parties dont like him!
Total joke, I’ll be glad when they get an arse kicking in the election, then again in 2 years time when the MSP election comes up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/suspension-for-ex-minister-who-claimed-11000-roaming-bill-on-expenses
If this was taken to Court, he’d be prosecuted for Perverting the course of Justice.
Bit of a stretch there.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said...Swinney’s decision to defend Matheson was proof the first minister’s promises to usher in a new era of integrity in politics were meaningless.
This isn't the ground you want to fight on, Anas...
And yet when it came to police choking a black man to death on the street in Scotland
There's still time to give Lord Bracadale your evidence, the Inquiry resumes next week.
And yet when it came to police choking a black man to death on the street in Scotland, about which the Scottish government can do something – it’s nine years on and there is no conclusion in the public inquiry. This is glacially slow. The entire leadership of Police Scotland and the Scottish Government will have turned over without anyone ever being found accountable. It is completely shameful.
I'm not sure in real terms what you think the Scottish Government should have done? There IS an inquiry ongoing. The PIRC is the correct channel for investigating the police. Don't get me wrong, its painful how long the wheels of justice take, but thats a bigger issue than one case. Do you think politicians should be trying to influence a judicial process?
The SNP/John Swinneys principles have gone down a notch by again saying Matheson should not be sanctioned any more for his failure to admit using his Ministerial supplied Tablet for private use, allowing someone not security checked to use it, and then lying to cover this up.
I don't think he objected to a penalty; it was the magnitude of the penalty and the process for getting there that Swinney was objecting to. The highest sanction on any MSP ever. Was it really the worst thing an MSP has done? At least one member of the committee stated their view before the evidence! To be honest the idea that any politician can come to a fair view on other politicians is a nonsense.
I’m not sure in real terms what you think the Scottish Government should have done? There IS an inquiry ongoing. The PIRC is the correct channel for investigating the police. Don’t get me wrong, its painful how long the wheels of justice take, but thats a bigger issue than one case. Do you think politicians should be trying to influence a judicial process?
Real things the SNP could have done:
1) not wait 5 years after the man's death to publish the terms of reference to an inquiry.
2) not allowed Bracadale so much time in delivery of his report. Even allowing for COVID, it is absurd that 4 years on there is still witness testimony being gathered and no time frame for reporting.
The Scarman Report into the Brixton Riots (or, as some locals call it, "Brixton Uprising") was ordered 2 days after the violence finished. It has a far wider scope. It reported within 6 months. Its scope and recommendations were wider than the Bracadale inquiry. It provided a blueprint for massive reforms of police in England and Wales and how they approach ethnic minorities.
3) not allow Police Scotland to sit around and do nothing substantive for 10 years. Bracadale is not a judge. The inquiry is not a judicial process. It is an executive process.
The inquiry deals very narrowly with the immediate circumstances of the homicide and the post-homicide procedures. There is nothing to stop Police Scotland reviewing its own race relations, restraint techniques, and response to disturbed and distressed issues in the meantime. There were patently obvious things that could have been implemented years ago.
But all of these wider issues have been kicked into the long grass, and there has been no accountability in the senior levels of the police or in the government that oversees them.
4) not been quite so sanctimonious about George Floyd when it could have spent time fixing problems in the police force it does control.
Meanwhile, the hits just keep on coming: he Scottish Government will have to return £450m of pre-Brexit EU funding because its record keeping was so pishpoor that they couldn't prove money would be properly spent on targeted projects.
Scotland was suspended 5 times from EU projects after 2015: there were only 27 suspensions anywhere in the whole EU during the same period.
The SNP was responsible for almost 1 in 5 suspensions! It really does seem to have a problem with financial record keeping...
Surely not. Next thing you will be claiming it can't build ferries.
There's clearly an issue with public inquiries in Scotland taking significantly longer than in the rest of the UK.
I don't believe that changing the proceedure while the Bayoh inquiry is ongoing would do anything to bringing speedier òr fairer justice for the Bayoh family
There’s clearly an issue with public inquiries in Scotland taking significantly longer than in the rest of the UK.
im not sure postmasters, the grenfell families, the Bloody Sunday families, the Hillsburgh families, the Manchester arena families, or Steve Lawrence’s family would agree!
I don’t believe that changing the procedure while the Bayoh inquiry is ongoing would do anything to bringing speedier or fairer justice for the Bayoh family
the Inquiries Act is, as far as I understand it, UK legislation and so only some specific practicalities could likely be modified by the Scottish Government. It’s difficult for a government to change an inquiry process without being accused of interfering in the outcome. Eg you tell the chairman he only has X budget or X months to do it - and you are effectively excluding certain types of evidence or witnesses. The question then would be “why are Scot Gov trying to rush to a conclusion” (from either the families or the police federation).
1) not wait 5 years after the man’s death to publish the terms of reference to an inquiry.
i haven’t studied the timeline in detail but there was first a PIRC investigation. Had that concluded “to everyone’s satisfaction” there would have been a fatal accident inquiry. The M9 inquiry took nearly 9 years from the accident to the report. Thats not the longest FAI reported this year. Even very simple FAI take 3 yrs - that is wrong. Given that inquiries effectively write blank checks it’s important that government is rigorous in deciding when inquiries are necessary. This could have been a “standard” FAI except that that could not consider PIRCs role in the investigation etc.
2) not allowed Bracadale so much time in delivery of his report. Even allowing for COVID, it is absurd that 4 years on there is still witness testimony being gathered and no time frame for reporting.
see above why thing the hands of the inquiry is not likely to be a good idea. I’ve not followed why it’s taken so long, but I expect that certain witnesses have dragged the process out, that bracadale isn’t sitting every day as well as all the covid and other hurdles. You seem certain on what did or did not happen, but the issues are not just about the hour or two when Bayou died - they are about systemic issues before and after that and if we actually want to fix them it’s better to establish facts.
The Scarman Report into the Brixton Riots (or, as some locals call it, “Brixton Uprising”) was ordered 2 days after the violence finished. It has a far wider scope. It reported within 6 months. Its scope and recommendations were wider than the Bracadale inquiry. It provided a blueprint for massive reforms of police in England and Wales and how they approach ethnic minorities.
And whilst those reforms I am sure were positive they didn’t stop the need for a Lawrence Inquiry, or the de Menes inquiry and the implications that IPCC were not fit for purpose etc.
3) not allow Police Scotland to sit around and do nothing substantive for 10 years.
do you know if they’ve done nothing? They’ve had three Chief Constables in that time. But, quite rightly, the government is one step removed from Police Scotland. It’s the job of SPA to ensure that Police Scotland is operating correctly. For government to pre-empt the inquiry and pressure SPA to do something would seem odd. But a large part of the scope of the inquiry is not about Police Scotland directly - it’s about PIRC.
Bracadale is not a judge. The inquiry is not a judicial process. It is an executive process.
technically you are correct, he’s a retired judge and Statutory Inquiries are initiated by ministers but it replaces the function of the FAI which is a judicial process and I’ve no doubt that if Bracadale though his independence was being pressured (even if only in timeline) he’d publicly quit.
using retired judges for inquiries makes a lot of sense BUT inevitably age is not on his side, probably both from his willingness to sit 5 days a week and the risk that health will add further delays or disruption.
I don’t believe that changing the proceedure while the Bayoh inquiry is ongoing would do anything to bringing speedier òr fairer justice for the Bayoh family
The point of the police identifying and addressing its own failures around restraint, training and community relations would be to stop similar deaths and injuries. This is a normal part of running a police service. It doesn't need to sit around and wait for the conclusion of a public inquiry specifically into Bayoh's homicide which in any case is not necessarily looking into those broader areas and will not necessarily have any recommendations in those broader areas.
The public inquiry will not end with redress for the Bayoh family or punishment of anyone. It is not a court proceeding. It has no power to being charges or award compensation. Whether the family feels like justice has or has not been done is up to them, obviously. Hopefully they will ultimately feel it has - but justice delayed is justice denied.
the issues are not just about the hour or two when Bayou died – they are about systemic issues before and after that...using retired judges for inquiries makes a lot of sense BUT inevitably age is not on his side, probably both from his willingness to sit 5 days a week and the risk that health will add further delays or disruption.
The terms of reference for the inquiry are very limited. They are nowhere near as broad as the Lawrence Inquiry let alone what Scarman was asked to do. There is no reason for Police Scotland to have sat on its hands for nearly a decade. This is an institution, government and country in denial that
Giving an old, ex-judge on a pension an unlimited timeframe and budget is a deliberate choice. Commissions, committees and inquiries are all easy ways for governments and institutions to kick the can down the road and avoid responsibility or action. It allows people to do nothing and hide behind platitudes or pearl-clutching about judicial independence.
This has worked out perfectly for Yousef as a government minister: he dodged accountability in 2015 as Justice Minister by calling the inquiry, he dodged accountability as First Minister because of the delays in the inquiry reporting, and by the time the report comes out he will neither be a minister nor (probably) an MSP!
The terms of reference for the inquiry are very limited. They are nowhere near as broad as the Lawrence Inquiry let alone what Scarman was asked to do. There is no reason for Police Scotland to have sat on its hands for nearly a decade. This is an institution, government and country in denial that
what is it you think Police Scotland should have done? (I don’t mean on the day I mean in the intervening 10 yrs) - what is the fundamental issue that police Scotland have and how should they have fixed it. I don’t doubt for a second that there will be individual and institutional racism; I genuinely don’t know to what extent that was a factor in this case, but even assuming it was - other than firing a small number of people who were involved what should they have done?
my understanding (and I haven’t followed the case in a lot of detail so I may be misreading the headlines) is that the whole reason for having an inquiry wasn’t about whether the officers acted appropriately that morning - a FAI could have dealt with that. It was as much to focus on what happened afterwards: did PIRC do the job we want/expect? did PIRC have the right powers to do its job properly? was PIRC sufficiently independent? To ask those questions you first need to establish what if was PIRC should have discovered.
if police Scotland have not made any changes why has there been no repeat of a similar incident (AFAIK) in 10 yrs? Does that mean there was not an institutional problem? No wrong doing in the first place? Changes to training? Recognition that cases like this take up huge amounts of time and resource and so a subtle culture change?
Giving an old, ex-judge on a pension an unlimited timeframe and budget is a deliberate choice.
but my understanding is that is not a choice of the Scottish Government. It’s enshrined in the Inquiries act that once you set up a public inquiry government doesn’t get to set the budget or timeline. There probably are arguments against using ex judges - but that is the norm in the U.K. not Scotland specific.
Commissions, committees and inquiries are all easy ways for governments and institutions to kick the can down the road and avoid responsibility or action. It allows people to do nothing and hide behind platitudes or pearl-clutching about judicial independence.
but equally - if the justice secretary had simply said - there’s no need for a public enquiry, it’s quite obvious what needs done here, there would be an outcry from all directions that a man died whilst the police were restraining him, PIRC investigated and found nothing to justify prosecuting the cops involved and yet the Justice Secretary either thinks he knows better or is resisting calls for a public inquiry.
I dont think there’s anything pearl clutching about judicial independence- without an independent inquiry it’s pretty much pointless - it will come to the conclusion the government of the day wants, or it will simply be branded biased by the government of the day. If you think Judicial Independence is a nice to have, go visit a court in a country that doesn’t really have it - and you’ll see how political interference in judicial decisions actually undermines the whole of democracy.
whilst they might be easy ways to kick the can down the road a blank cheque inquiry is difficult for the Scottish Government - they don’t get more money from Westminster for having an inquiry, they get blamed for being part of the cover up if they don’t have one, they get blamed for wasting time and money if they do.
Looks like 3 jobs Dougie is going
https://news.sky.com/story/douglas-ross-to-resign-as-leader-of-scottish-conservatives-13150604
FAIs? Seems most take under 3 years. If that isfrom the date of death that is probably not bad.
The report I googled to find that fact had this quote which was surprising to say the least.
"By looking at these specific FAIs we have learned harrowing details of the final days and hours of prisoners including young man who resorted to calling 999 from his cell because he was having a mental health crisis. Emergency services then tried to contact prison staff to carry out a welfare check, but no one picked up for 1 hour and twenty minutes. Even after speaking to emergency services prison staff didn’t carry out the welfare check, but confiscated his phone. He was found hanged the following night.
“The Sheriff who presided over the Fatal Accident Inquiry, concluded the care provided to this prisoner was ‘competent and compassionate’ and that his death was unavoidable. No findings or recommendations means there were no lessons to be learned, or to put it simply, ‘there’s nothing to see here.’”
I can only say that Ì'm neither shocked nor surprised by the findings of the Glasgow University report regarding deaths in custody.
The prisons are very over crowded and the prison service requires investment urgently . The chances of that happening are very slim given the competing demands on the public purse.
Having checked out the candidates in my seat, I reckon I'll be abstaining this time around. I was hoping that there would be a non-SNP, pro-Indy option, but there's none.
IRC - most are under 3 yrs but 30% are over 3 yrs. Most coroners inquiries are concluded in England in 3-6 months (that for all cases not custody cases, and they have a lot more cases).
Latest YouGov poll shows SNP to lose more than half of their seats, coming down to just 21 MPs in 2024.
If there were "perfect" PR in which parties got exactly the same percentage of the 650 total MPs as their share of the popular vote, then SNP would have got 26 MPs in 2019 (instead of their 48 actual FPTP MPs) and would get 21.45 MPs in 2022 on 3.3% of the vote (instead of their predicted 21 FPTP MPs).
Latest YouGov poll shows SNP to lose more than half of their seats, coming down to just 21 MPs in 2024.
Can’t see it happening, everyone I know votes SNP and have no intention of voting for another party.
My bubble is quite small though < 6
Earlier projections had SNP seats at 14 so 21 might be seen as an improvement 😂
Rather than vote share, I'll be keeping an eye on the number of votes cast for SNP. I'm still of the opinion that many Ex-SNP voters just aren't going to bother voting at all this year.
Oh, and since we're here, should we mention Maggie Chapman (SGP) telling us that "Road building is a subsidy for wealthy, usually white men,"?
I also think the SNP will do better than is being predicted.
Most voters might look on Labour as being an English party and think, 'well they have their new party, we're going to stick with our purely Scottish party'
Not sure a dialogue about national "purity" is consistent with the SNP's civic nationalism. Sounds a bit Milosevic-y to me.
Having checked out the candidates in my seat, I reckon I’ll be abstaining this time around. I was hoping that there would be a non-SNP, pro-Indy option, but there’s none.
You're cool with knowing that whoever is elected in your seat, you supported?
That dialogue seems to be entirely in your own mind
Dunno - it's @dyna-ti that's segregating political parties in Scotland into "English parties" and "purely Scottish" parties.
Dunno – it’s @dyna-ti that’s segregating political parties in Scotland into “English parties” and “purely Scottish” parties.
Surely they're just pointing out the facts?
Oh, and since we’re here, should we mention Maggie Chapman (SGP) telling us that “Road building is a subsidy for wealthy, usually white men,”?
To be fair, she's basically an activist currently in a political role, the greens do have a few of these unfortunately.
As for the SNP vote, not sure how they'll do, bit like the tories, i hear a lot of negativity for the SNP just now, but push comes to shove, the voters tend to go back to normal when they're in the voting booth, i can't see them shedding too many seats, but the problem they always have is that the longer they are seen as being in power in Scotland, the more chance you'll be seen as incompetent or not up to the task, this has happened to every party in my lifetime, the Thatcher years, New Labour and the current tories, the longer you're in power, the more it falls apart at the end, although again, not seeing that just now, but it's not far off for the SNP with the in-fighting, front page failures, etc.
You’re cool with knowing that whoever is elected in your seat, you supported?
I'm cool knowing that whoever is elected in my seat I didn't "support" them. This isn't the 1979 referendum.
i hear a lot of negativity for the SNP just now,
I'm struck by how little positivity I hear. Across my social media a lot of friends and colleagues tended to amplify news stories about the SNP - particularly ones that focused on friction between SNP objectives being throttled by Westminster. The SNP was in a curious position of both being the party in power and the plucky underdog.
What really surprised me is when Sturgeon resigned - amongst that cohort in particular and broadly too- no mention.
During the leadership campaign there was suprisingly little noise - nothing supportive of one candidate or another - more commentary from people who themselves were SNP members wondering aloud who they would vote for because they didn't really know the candidates.
But that got quieter and quieter, until - the results were announced - silence
and since then nothing.
People who are / were quite enthusiastically vocal just seem to have nothing to say, or rather nothing to broadcast.
I don't know if that means anything about how those particular people will vote (although one to two, regardless of being members of the SNP can't vote for them because they don't live in Scotland 🙂 ) but it seems like a lot of the shine has come off the SNP brand for its supporters. Maybe they are just as committed as voters but they've certainly either stopped being champions for the party or the party in government isn't doing anything for them to champion.
Useless's hot take on why he was forced out...
Rrrrrrrrright.
Get over it Useless. So much Islamaphoba that the leaderd of both main parties were Moslem in a 95%ish non Moslem country.
Somone's going to have to point out the part where he says Islamophobia is the reason he's not party leader anymore because I'm struggling to find it.
No mention of Humza's demise being down to islamophobia in that article at all.
Irrespective of their religion all party leaders seem to have a strange relationship with the truth.
Surely they’re just pointing out the facts?
Is this the first sighting of the "no true Scotsparty" fallacy?
TBH if you don't spot why talking about "purity" in a nationalist politics discourse and claiming your political opponents (about half a million Scottish Labour voters, for example) are not really members of the nation is dangerous, you may want to study some 20th century European politics.
"As a state of mind, nationalism is always the same. It speaks about the purity of blood, history, language, myths, and traditions - anything that can be used to reinforce a kind of national narcissism..."
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nyuilp26&div=27&id=&page=
Quote"claiming your political opponents (about half a million Scottish Labour voters, for example) are not really members of the nation"Unquote
Except that no one made such a claim.
Well... it would have been fairer and more accurate to say that Labour are a British party and not an English party.
Agreed
anyone got any links to decent scottish polling? Seems inevitable that the SNP will lose seats but the estimates I see range hugely.
Still zero evidence of an election campaign here
Having checked out the candidates in my seat, I reckon I’ll be abstaining this time around. I was hoping that there would be a non-SNP, pro-Indy option, but there’s none.
You're Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey too aren't you?
We've got the Scottish Green candidate - but he's an 'interesting' looking chap! Findhorn Community I think - not that I hold that against him.
I think as a constituency it's going to be fascinating. If it had been a constituency last time it would have been a marginal SNP from the tories with Labour a distant 4th. But it didn't exist so the tactical vote and wasted vote calculations people make would have been totally different. Like you I think a lot of SNP voters might not bother, the tory vote will clearly be down but might hold up more than it might nationally. And a Sottish Labour vote might not be considered a wasted vote like it was in 2019 and surge more than expected. It might well be a tight 3 horse race.
Like you - I'm still struggling to get particularly motivated by any candidate on offer.
Still zero evidence of an election campaign here
My parents are saying the same thing. Apparently the SNP are out of money and some candidates are having to self-fund their campaigns.
Dunno what Labour's excuse is.
Having been down south a few years, is this actual election that much of a thing for Scotland these days for the SNP, when i first voted back in 1995, which was a big thing as the SNP got the Perth seat and there was a lot of momentum from that, and the next full election in 1997. I notice in recent years i've noticed that the SNP MPs do seem a little less visible, or able to do much, it seems a real step change from previous where being an MP in the HofP was a huge thing, now they seem to want to move to Holyrood to progress?
Bit of a long one, but are these UK election as much of a bother for Scotland these days, Holyrood is where actual work gets done for Scotland, the SNP MPs are doing a job making sure Scotland gets its share, but they do seem quite isolated in parliament, are these elections really going to do anything in the long run, it just seems a completely different question being answered by how it all pans out in a couple of weeks time?
Still zero evidence of an election campaign here
A fair few signs on lamp posts here. But no door stepping or leafletting.
The SNP candidate was doing the doors in Aviemore at the weekend. I've seen a few signs up and had a couple of mailshots from the Tory. The election hasn't been a topic of conversation.
Holyrood is where actual work gets done for Scotland, the SNP MPs are doing a job making sure Scotland gets its share
The reserved matters are all massively important to Scottish residents - (most) tax, monetary policy, foreign policy, defence... - and there is actual work to be done on all of them.
...but what do SNP MPs have to do to make sure Scotland gets its "share"...?
I've got a leaflet from my constituency's Labour candidate. That's the only election leaflet I've received so far. I'm in Edinburgh South West, currently the SNP had a strong majority here in 2019 with the Tories in second place but the polling sites seem to be saying that Labour are now close behind the SNP.
I've had loads from labour, one from the SNP.
1) interesting that the SNP has put independence as line 1 in the manifesto. If they get a majority of MPs in Scotland, I suppose they have a mandate for a referendum in the next term. And if they don't get a mandate does that mean they'll stop spending public money on exploring options for independence...?
2) Private Eye is reporting that the Electoral Commission has recorded the SNP as receiving zero donations in Jan-Mar 2024. That surely can't be right...? Is it below the threshold for reporting? They can't literally have had no-one give them any money at all, that doesn't make sense.
It does, if you consider how much they've betrayed their donors.
