You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So according to yo because our current lot of MSPs have lost their way we have to stick with an unrepresentative government
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that you yourself express almost total dismay at the entirety of your political options, and these will be broadly the same group of people in charge post Indy. I just hope they don't **** it up if they're handed it that's all. On current form I think there's every chance they will, and then some. You only need look at Brexit, at Northern Ireland to see that where ever the political classes are asked to look at and make complex agreements that last decades they will make a pigs ear of it.
IRC - but it was Westminster who refused to allow the Scottish government to build state owned generators. It was westminster who rigged the "market" to make it uneconomical for private companies to build new generators. Oh - and it is Westminster who set up the subsidy scheme for renewables as it was also westminster who made sure the Scottish government could not invest in tidal
No nuclear is actually the only thing you can lay at the Scots governments door because that is done under planning law - a devolved power whereas energy supply is retained. i also agree with the no nuclear. Hows your new nuclear power stations coming on? Over a decade late already is it not? Most expensive electric generated anywhere is it not going to be? Porfits all going to subsidise french electricity?
The “profits all going to support French electricity” claim is a bit far fetched.
For most of the last decade the retail profits for EDF haven’t even been enough to fully cover the cost of working capital - so French consumers have been subsidising British consumers.
In 2021 EDF’s EBIT was around -£1.7B.
You only need look at Brexit, at Northern Ireland to see that where ever the political classes are asked to look at and make complex agreements that last decades they will make a pigs ear of it.
The current political classes - the Good Friday Agreement seems to be holding up nicely.
@tj You are seriously misguided if you think the SNP haven't pushed hard for as much wind as possible. Possibly because they knew that the subsidies were UK cost so it didn't matter.
Scotland already had enough wind power to cover Scottish generation on windy days by 2016. It has increased since then. All with SNP planning permission. This is not a balanced portfolio for an independent country. It doesn't matter while we are part of the UK but would be a problem for an Indy Scotland.
Luckily that is nowhere in sight. But as always you have a blind spot for SNP policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland
We will just need to disagree on how ready the Scottish electricity system is for Indy and whose fault it is.
Also nickc - why are they so useless? ( not in comparison to at westminster of course)
labour and tory parties in Scotland have to dance to the tune of the westminster parties - and in doing so left a free run fro the SNP who have been unchallenged in holyrood leading to the Hubris we see in the SNP
Go back a bit and we had high quality leaders of all parties. Compare Dewar to Sarwar. compare Ross to Goldie
IRC - yes they did push for wind. the only option open to them bar nuclear which we don't want. tidal - no serious investment allowed, Conventional - the same
I agree its unbalanced and that the system is not fit for purpose. thats why we need independence to build a system fit for purpose because we are not allowed to build system fit for purpose as Westminster will not allow it
Your point shows why we need independence and is not an argument against it - its an argument for it.
I’m saying that you yourself express almost total dismay at the entirety of your political options, and these will be broadly the same group of people in charge post Indy.
presumably in a post Indy world the parties 1. Stop arguing about Indy and focus on the country; 2. Have greater freedom to set their own policies; 3. Stop spreading their talent between holyrood and Westminster; 4. Will have such a huge reform that people who currently refuse to work together over a single issue might start to cooperate - that could even help local authority politics where “antiSNP mentality” sees unnatural bedfellows like Labour and Tory in partnership mostly out of spite over issues completely out of the local authority remit.
the interesting thing is - IF the SNP go bust, which doesn’t seem impossible their MPs / MSPs remain in post so there would actually be an opportunity for some smart thinking other parties to find a new variety of Scottish politics NOW rather than post Indy (who knows it could even save the Union!) but that seems as unlikely as all the SNP folk just hopping over to Alba.
Indeed Poly.
Holyrood was supposed to be co operative and consensual hence PR and a chamber in an arc not opposing seating. labour in particular since losing power have been an obstacle automatically opposing anything the Snp want to do - even on occasion when its been UK policy . Labours attitude has not been helpful to good governance at all both by being needlessly obstructive and by being so allowing the SNP a free run. When the only response is no no no SNP bad its easy to ignore. If it had been " decent policy but needs this added or does not go far enough" it would have contributed to better governance of Scotland.
Labours behavior has lost them votes and the chance to influence policy
Isnt that what an opposition is supposed to do on most subjects, challenge the party in power to ensure some robust dialogue
Latest beeb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65385825
Former treasurer 'didn't know' about the battle bus. I mean how did he not know? Surely the treasurer might be expected to notice, and do things like sign off a £100k spend out of a total pot of £600k??? If thats the case it sounds like there was zero oversight of the finances.
Don’t forget he was out of office for a year. Might be they bought it during that period.
Not how holyrood was supposed to work and labour would be far more effective if they made real points rather than just automatically opposing everything the SNP wanted to do. This even extended to things that were london labourr policy. Policy in Westminster, opposed at holyrood
Everyone including the electorate could see this which is a large part of the reason why their vote collapsed
Goldie was the tory leader during the first SNP minority government. No formal deal was done but by engaging constructively she gained influence and both altered some SNP policy to avoid things the tories did not like and got some of her wishlist enacted.
Once it became obvious labour were just going to oppose everything on principle they lost all influence even when it was a minority SNP government. Google "Bain principle"
Isnt that what an opposition is supposed to do on most subjects, challenge the party in power to ensure some robust dialogue
In a FPTP system, probably, but we've a PR system - one designed to try and stop a majority Govt.
From my perspective all I see are loads of List MSP complaining on Twitter but never actually offering an alternative policy.
Isnt that what an opposition is supposed to do on most subjects, challenge the party in power to ensure some robust dialogue
There's a difference between challenge and debate and sound bit politics. The media like a fighting match but the public mostly want their politicians to discuss stuff and find common ground rather than argue. It really feels like the SNP could rebrand any opposition policy as their own and the opposition would oppose it because it was being promoted by a guy in a yellow tie. The greens have been smart - their alignment on the one issue everyone else hates the SNP for has given them the ability to get a lot of green policy high on the agenda (its wrong to suggest that the GRA is not a core green policy - it absolutely is; economic policy; A9 dualling; even the Ferries Fiasco probably has a touch of green influence throughout. Imagine if the Lib Dems had held their nose on Indy what they might have been able to influence.
It is astonishing that the treasurer was unaware of such a purchase. I'm not saying he's lying (it would be pretty dumb to lie, as in 2023 someone always has an email, or whats app that can catch you out). Chaotic governance doesn't surprise me that much - but presumably there's an accountant or bookkeeper on the payroll who much be getting their CV ready?
The SNP's former treasurer has clarified when he found out that the party had bought a luxury motorhome.
Colin Beattie, who was in the role for a total of nearly 20 years, was asked by journalists whether he knew about and had signed off the purchase.
"No, I didn't know about that," he said.
He later said although he did not know about the transaction at the time of purchase, he found out about it in the 2021 annual accounts.
That's cleared that up then 🤷♂️
So, I bet whoever signed the paperwork for the purchase is going to be sweating.
I wonder if the 'never been used' comment is actually 'never been used by the SNP as a battle bus' hence its seizure, I hope we will find out in due course
Also nickc – why are they so useless?
Ooof, where to start? party messaging and control loss of individuality, social media is horrific, a generally hostile environment, pay, hours, no support, no thanks, the ever grinding loss of your soul, anxiety paranoia, petty jealousy. Who'd be an MP or SMP these days? I certainly wouldn't. I think genuinely intelligent thoughtful people take one look at that and run a mile, we're left with the folks that don't. Dunning-Kruger perhaps plays a role
We can all name one or two politicians we can genuinely say are in it for the right reasons, We can all name dozens who're are useless party hacks, what's that expression? "Politics is show business for ugly people" seems pretty spot on most of the time.
Scotland already had enough wind power to cover Scottish generation on windy days by 2016. It has increased since then. All with SNP planning permission. This is not a balanced portfolio for an independent country. It doesn’t matter while we are part of the UK but would be a problem for an Indy Scotland.
Is that installed power or capacity factor power? Because wind has a circa 0.33 capacity factor which means you need roughly 3x the actual required load spread across as large an area as possible to account for outages (low/high wind, maintenance, failure etc). The industry does itself no favours with nonsense like "enough to power the whole of Glasgow" when in fact they mean 33% of the time. Now that can vary by location and wind can be up to 0.5 but not much more than that.
When we were running (Hunterston) we had a capacity factor nearer 0.8 albeit that wasn't running at full tilt.
@DT78
I'm quoting the Daily Record but this is widely reported on many media outlets.
"A motorhome allegedly bought as an SNP “battle bus” is said to have sat outside the home of party boss Peter Murrell's mum for more than two years until it was seized by cops."12 Apr 2023
When we were running (Hunterston) we had a capacity factor nearer 0.8 albeit that wasn’t running at full tilt.
Is one of the issues with capacity of single installations like that not that when it goes down it has a much bigger impact on the total network? Its a bit like Calmac ferries. You can have two big boats each with more than enough capacity but as soon as one breaks down everyone is crossing their fingers are praying that the other one lasts until its sister ship is fixed.
Who’d be an MP or [MSP] these days? I certainly wouldn’t. I think genuinely intelligent thoughtful people take one look at that and run a mile, we’re left with the folks that don’t.
Actually, that is a good point. There was a time when I'd have looked positively at the possibility if there was a party that truly reflected my beliefs. Now there is no way I'd want the Social Media hassle etc. I also suspect that getting elected requires a SM façade with 140-character soundbites and polarised views which many genuinely intelligent, thoughtful people probably don't embrace.
I also suspect that getting elected requires a SM façade with 140-character soundbites and polarised views
In most cases I doubt it. In most cases the only real requirement is to wear the right party colours. The SM facade is good for getting you invites to news shows etc if you are into that sort of thing which then might help you get promoted.
In terms of actually getting elected its getting yourself onto the list of candidates most likely with an unwinnable seat for a cycle or two before managing to get onto a good seat list.
presumably in a post Indy world the parties ... Stop spreading their talent between holyrood and Westminster
But if there is a shortage of talent among Scottish political parties, why the enthusiasm for rejoining the EU among Scot Nats? That'll just spread political talent across Edinburgh and Strasbourg and Brussels. 😱
It does amuse me that things that are the responsibility and under the control of Westminster like that or the electricity "market" are used to show an independent scotland could not survive.
Its almost as if folk believe the tory way is the only way and iScotland could not do anything differently or alter anything
@poly yes one big producer does have a bigger impact if it goes down but wind turbines are rarely isolated beasties. If you get a loss of grid event that's going to have the same effect on Whitelees as Torness. Of course wind tends to be a lot more intermittent than fission hence the lower capacity factor for wind. It's not a bad thing, it's just an idiosyncrasy.
If it costs so much to transmit electricity South to the main population centres, why don't the folk local to the generating capacity get it cheap?
Or move more of the heavy users North (Fort William smelter anyone?)
Re Fort William smelter This is another skeleton in a fairly crowded cupboard.
But if there is a shortage of talent among Scottish political parties, why the enthusiasm for rejoining the EU among Scot Nats? That’ll just spread political talent across Edinburgh and Strasbourg and Brussels.
I think Scotland only had 8 MEPs across all parties so I don’t think it creates a brain drain. My perception, which may be entirely wrong, is that EU politics was much more about negotiation and deals (not necessarily all as transparent as we would like) than scoring points on the telly.
If it costs so much to transmit electricity South to the main population centres, why don’t the folk local to the generating capacity get it cheap?
Have you not noticed that prices are dependant on DNO?
Besides, if you follow your analogy to it's conclusion then anyone consuming power in London would be paid to do so. Yes, that's how the grid works. No, it makes no ****ing sense to me either.
just out of interest what was the view of westminster after the labour years? sure, by the end things were pretty ropey and let's put aside iraq please - that's more to do with blair than the party itself. those years gave scotland devolution and more than a few other things in the whole of the UK were functioning a hell of a lot better than they are now. thoughts?
NHS significantly improved but left us with a legacy of incredibly bad value for money PFI hospitals and wasted vast sums on holyrood so they could avoid using the old royal high as it was a "nationalist shibboleth"
B-
Load of good stuff that helped Scotland but huge vanity and money wastage that we are still living with today and is still costing us vast sums.
Better than the tories for sure but thats a low bar.
MY personal view. I don't speak for anyone else
I don't think that Scotland and England had diverged so much at that point (yes - I'm talking about electorally, I know that neither population is homologous). Devolution was in its infancy and some of the recent changes hadn't been made. There was still anger in Scotland about "Scottish" Labour not even spending all of the block grant available to it and instead returning it to the Treasury (perhaps in order not to upset their masters in London??) As has been much hypothesised, a future Labour Govt at Westminster could spike the Indy guns for a while, but I don't think the present Labour leadership/policies really chime all that much with the current Scottish electorate. On Europe alone there is a massive gulf.
Humza Yousaf seems to be prepared to settle for (more?) devolution rather than Independence anyway so I genuinely can't see anything changing much for the next 5 - 10 years or so, making much of this thread absolutely pointless 🙂
well if you believe the hype many seats are set to fall to labour. i don't mean to be disrespectful but i'm wondering if a fundamentally better governed and fairer UK would mean scottish nationalists would be better prepared to muck in with the UK, or if there's just no way back?
and let’s put aside iraq please - that’s more to do with blair than the party itself.
Why are we putting aside Iraq?
As I said earlier, Iraq was the seed of my support for independence and it's still a very pressing issue because the conditions that allowed Blair to invade Iraq are still very much present.
I laid out my conditions for supporting the Union earlier and a big part of that is that the UK has to be run by consensus rather than a tiny minority of swing voters (possibly as few as a couple of hundred thousand) deciding the direction of the country for the rest of the 60 million.
Until the underlying problems are fixed (which they are showing absolutely no signs of doing) then independence is always going to be the best option.
i’m wondering if a fundamentally better governed and fairer UK would mean scottish nationalists would be better prepared to muck in with the UK, or if there’s just no way back?
Let's say, by some miracle, the best of all governments is elected with such a huge majority that it is able to enact all the policies it wants without hinderance.
What happens in 10 years time when the inevitable Tory government is elected and simply undoes all these reforms?
Even if a fantastic Labour government comes to power, it's a temporary blip in a system that is rigged to elect governments with huge majorities returned by a tiny percentage of the population.
And more often than not it's going to return a Tory government.
Unless Labour commits to the points I made earlier, there's no way back for many, I feel. Forget about Labour and Tory, it's the UK system of government itself that's rotten.
more often than not it’s going to return a Tory government.
Extend that to Tory-lite and we're back to the Keir Starmer thread 😁
@Del - look up "The Vow" as relates to the last Indyref and then look at what happened subsequently. There's a very good reason that many (by no means all) Scottish voters won't trust any Labour government. I think it's inevitable that a Scottish Independence movement will exist as long as control exists in Westminster. What's unknown, and subject to campaigning, is what the strength of that movement will be. For sure it will ebb and flow, but we've not really had a hard push at it since 2014, despite the golden opportunity that Brexit provided and I can't (yet) see another Brexit-type situation arising, though who knows with this current Tory government 😁
well if you believe the hype many seats are set to fall to labour.
Many? For me 15 is the top of the range - that would still leave the SNP as the biggest party at holyrood and a labour / tory coalition in Holyrood as likely - but the holyrood election is still a ways off.
At Westminster? SNP still the largest block
i don’t mean to be disrespectful but i’m wondering if a fundamentally better governed and fairer UK would mean scottish nationalists would be better prepared to muck in with the UK, or if there’s just no way back?
Trouble is we are not being offered that in any way - perhaps better run but the labour party are so far from their roots and are not offering what a large section of the Scots electorate want
I do not think there is any way back at all. We have seen what a left of centre social democratic government is like and will not be bought off by a right wing labour government throwing a few crumbs but refusing to even consider return to the EU, PR for westminster, getting rid of the HOL etc
Devolution and the independence campaign has meant that the scots electorate have become more sophisticated in thinking about how to use their vote
Labour have made it totally clear they have no understanding or consideration for the people of Scotland. they are merely fighting over the unionist vote with Tories and Lib Dems
I was a life long labour voter until 2014. I will not vote for them in their current guise. Doing deals with the tories on local councils and at elections has put them beyond the pale for me. a labour / tory / lib Dem coalition in Holyrood as an anti SNP deal will destroy labour in Scotland
The behaviour of Labour in Holyrood since losing power has be appalling and off putting to the swing voters
vote labour get tory / two cheeks of the same arse
I do often wonder what your average unionist thinks (or hopes) is going to happen in the future.
Like, what do the Scottish Unionist voters see as being a win? What are you hoping is going to eventually happen to Scotland and the UK as a whole and how likely do you think some or part of what you hope for is going to happen?
In terms of actually getting elected its getting yourself onto the list of candidates most likely with an unwinnable seat for a cycle or two before managing to get onto a good seat list.
Or just be drafted in as per Ross was (or Sunak into probably the safest seat in the House).
Re Fort William smelter This is another skeleton in a fairly crowded cupboard.
You'd prefer a 'free market' solution, or something else?
what do the Scottish Unionist voters see as being a win?
Never met one that could explain TBH.
I believe the Scots electorate splits roughly into thirds on independence
1/3 for whom self determination is the only thing that matters - for richer or poorer - call them the ideological independence folk
1/3 for whom the union is the only thing that counts - call them the ideological unionists
1/3 that are looking for what will make Scotland a better place to live - call them the pragmatics
I'm ignoring the greens and lib dems and alba here as their vote is small and for simplicity
Of the ideological unionists most of them are tory. The tory base vote seems to be around 20% of the electorate so labour get around 12-15 % of the electorate from the ideological unionists. Labour have made it clear that they are resolutely unionist and will not even consider any significant electoral / constitutional reform so they will get very few votes from the ideological independence supporters. That leaves them fighting for the pragmatics . Now without a progressive set of policies then many of the pragmatics will look at a labour manifesto and go - there is nothing here for us. Even if labour attract half the pragmatics then they are still only on 30%ish of the vote. I believe that is about their ceiling in Scotland now - 30 - 35% of the vote. that would gain them a few seats maybe a dozen or even a few more if they do another anti SNP electoral pact with the tories but with the tory vote dropping I don't see the tories agreeing another pact
If labour in Scotland were allowed to produce policies aimed at Scotland ie serious constitutional reform and / or a willingness to have another referendum plus some properly progressive policies they perhaps they could peel off some of the ideological independence supporters and a chunk more of the pragmatics. Anytime Sarwar has made a hint in this sort of direction he has been rapidly slapped down by london.
The anti SNP pact with the tories also alienates a lot of the leftish voters who are generally on the independence side anyway. It certainly does for me.
So for me until Labour in Scotland divorce from London and start with some constructive engagement at holyrood ( their obstructionist stance is obvious to all) and repudiate the pact with the tories and start to look at policies that attract the pragmatics and the lefties they will be stuckwth a celiing of 30 - 35% of the vote
A labour / tory anti SNP coalition at holyrood which I fear is likely after the next holyrood election will destroy the labour party as an electoral force in Scotland
That rather over-simplifies the Labour position?
Within Labour there are the one-world/no border Socialists to whom any border is an anathema. Then there are the British Nationalists, to whom the UK is indivisible and want no truck with anything that differentiates each of the four nations. There are those who hold "Labour" values and see how they might be implemented in Scotland under an extended devolution and then those who believe that this can only happen through independence. It gives the Labour leadership a bit of a problem when trying to keep them all on board. Even supporting a referendum will lose them some support from three of those four groups.
Oh yes its an over simplification. Otherwise it becomes a PHD thesis 🙂
My point is that because of the tight control from London and the shift to the right then labour is limiting the parts of the electorate it will appeal to. Those that are not tribal labour supporters but those who labour need to make significant inroads electorally
also the shift to the right alienates some of those groups as well
There is also a part of the current labour voters who are independence supporters although my guess is more and more have abandoned labour and the part of the SNP voter who voted against independence
Yeah, that's the fourth group. As you say, probably now only a rump, though there are many for whom their tribal hatred of the SNP is greater than their desire for independence. A second (significant) Indy party might be attractive to them, even if only on the List vote.
Rather than a second indy party a lefty party that is open to independence? the various lefty groupings have gained traction in holyrood elections only to disappear in a bunch of splinters. There is definitely room in Scots politics for a real lefty grouping based in Scotland with policies that suit Scotland
The obvious position for a scottish lefty grouping and one that labour could adopt but will not is " constitutional convention to look at the relationship with England and the EU with a referendum on the outcome / independence once certain conditions are met"
I think something along those lines would gain electoral traction
Intheborders
I'd have preferred something else such as
https://eastlochabercommunity.scot/about/
Meantime I'm not convinced the deal with GFG was wise. Their problems are widely documented, but this article might ring a few familiar alarm bells.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/deputy-first-minister-claims-it-is-difficult-to-outline-total-government-liability-to-gfg-alliance-3860121
Here’s some sensible writing from a previous die-hard Unionist as to the problem:
It also transpires that whilst the Unionist press is Scotland talk about a ‘free fall’ in SNP membership numbers (it hasn’t), analysis suggests that Labour have about 8,000 members (many being TU reps getting their subs paid) and Tory membership being somewhat less.
I think what I'm most amazed by is that some folk in the SNP really believed that Humza Yousaf had any intention of "fighting for an independence referendum".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65425495
An interesting aside - my parents - staunchly unionist and firmly against the GRA are outraged at the section 35 order to veto the GRA
An interesting aside – my parents – staunchly unionist and firmly against the GRA are outraged at the section 35 order to veto the GRA
Why? It is quite clear in the Scotland Act that the power is there. You can debate what effect the act would have had outside Scotland but it is quite clear that Holyrood can't pass acts that affect rUK>
Because its a clear democratic affront to do this.
Because its a clear democratic affront to do this.
I don't think you understand democracy. The Scotland Act clearly states that Holyrood can be overruled when an act affects rUK. This is what has happened. Perfectly legal and democratic. Democracy means obeying existing laws.
In other news the Scottish taxpayer has a £1.6M bill for crew for the ferries being built at Port Glasgow which don't yet have a confirmed date for entering service. Most of the 14 staff have been employed for a year.
I do understand democracy. the government we voted for makes a decision that gets vetoed by a government we didn't vote for an that is a result of an undemocratic electoral system
the tories have no legitimacy in Scotland
Its undemocratic and I don't know how you can pretend otherwise
Do you understand what devolution means? Some power is devolved, not all of it. If you don't like it then indy is the answer. Until then we have devolution and Holyrood can not pass laws that affect rUK. Simple.
Doesn't the supreme court have to rule before we can say the GRR bill(passed in Holyrood) affects the rest of the UK?
If so the legislation affected would be the GRA 2004 (passed in Westminster)
I think they will but technically it's not yet decided.
analysis suggests that Labour have about 8,000 members (many being TU reps getting their subs paid) and Tory membership being somewhat less.
The SNP has had an abnormally large, and probably unsustainably large membership since the referedum - its a shame it got themselves into a pickle over trying to mask the numbers falling as even a modest small percentage fall was a fall by more members than other parties have in total. They fell to a level 10 times the amount of members other parties have in scotland. No shame it that really and it should have been perfectly easy to be open and honest about it.
The membership increased five fold just after the referendum result - it seemed like the near miss meant people felt like that had to find something to pin their enthusiasm too and paying for a party membership was one of the things they could do that felt optimistic. The problem though is they are sort of members in name only. 'Members' of other parties although comparatively smaller in number, tend to be more actively engaged in the running of the party at national and local level - they're not just an income stream but but a source of support for the party in its day to day activities.
The folk who ponied up for SNP memberships in 2015 for large part were really 'subscribers' rather than 'members' - the SNP hasn't had a 100,000 strong army of actively engaged foot solders organising for and assisting the party. They have a few of those and a lot of people who pay subs and maybe read a newsletter and really its that latter group that has been dwindling. I guess after 7-8 years of paying in money and not really being all that interested in what you get back people will have not been too fussed about letting their DDs lapse.
To perhaps give an indication of how unengaged some of those 'members' are - of the 70,000 remaining after the fall from 100,000, only 50,000 managed to cast a vote in what was quite a long running ballot for the leadership campaign
indy is the answer.
Glad we agree.
To perhaps give an indication of how unengaged some of those ‘members’ are – of the 70,000 remaining after the fall from 100,000, only 50,000 managed to cast a vote in what was quite a long running ballot for the leadership campaign
I think a significant number of members simply had no one to vote for. You had a choice between a continuity candidate and two candidates whose positions made them unsupportable to many people.
If you wanted significant changes and couldn't vote for the two change candidates then who were you going to vote for?
Should have said above that I think the supreme court will agree with the UK government
let’s put aside iraq please
There's lots of people that would like to put aside the Iraq invasion - the families of 100,000 dead Iraqis, for a start.
Labour have made it totally clear they have no understanding or consideration for the people of Scotland. they are merely fighting over the unionist vote
This is a bizarro position that puts independence as the threshold issue and then all other policies as secondary considerations. It's weird to keep asking "why can't Labour just support independence?" - because independence is irreconcilable with their policy platform and if its members wanted independence, they'd have joined the SNP!
You have described yourself as a pragmatic nationalist but your treatment of independence at the primary question suggests otherwise.
the 70,000 remaining after the fall from 100,000, only 50,000 managed to cast a vote
That's a pretty high turnout, I think.
Point missed
1) on the constitution Labour could produce a compromise position - constitutional convention/ Federalism / Devo max / Second referendum if the polls show it likely to pass ( the NI position)
2) Policies that suit Scotland outside of the constitution ie like on minimal alcohol pricing when at one point it was london labour policy but labour opposed it at holyrood or other policies that would play well in Scotland. Lots of opportunity to do this but labours only policy in Scotland is SNP baaaad NO no no no. Nothing positive at all. We have seen labour voting against anti poverty measures. Even " thats a good policy but does not go far enough" Sarwar tried this on a couple of issues and was immediatly slapped down by London
3) constructive engagement at holyrood not continual wrecking attempts
4) Repudiate the tory / labour anti SNP pact especially on councils when the constitution is not an issue
labour in alliance with the tories is not a good look and does not go down well here. It allows the SNP an easy attack line "vote labour get Tory"
Next Holyrood election I think a labour / Tory coalition is the likely outcome and that will kill labour in Scotland for ever.
Edit: The point is a more radical more scottish based labour party in Scotland could peel off a lot of the soft SNP vote but merely fighting for the unionist vote will not do this. It gives labour a ceiling of only 30ish % of the vote
Name me a single labour party policy aimed at peeling away SNP voters?
Name me a single Scottish labour policy ( clue - they are not allowed any in the branch office)?
I was a staunch labour supporter and voter for 35 years. Once they started alliances with the tories I could no longer vote for them
It gives labour a ceiling of only 30ish % of the vote
Again - saying that Labour can only compete for a third of the electorate unless it supports independence is just reflecting your approach that anyone who doesn't support independence is an ideological unionist and not a pragmatic person who wants to make Scotland better. Remember in your model:
I believe the Scots electorate splits roughly into thirds on independence
1/3 for whom self determination is the only thing that matters – for richer or poorer – call them the ideological independence folk
1/3 for whom the union is the only thing that counts – call them the ideological unionists
1/3 that are looking for what will make Scotland a better place to live – call them the pragmatics
You see everything from the starting point of independence = good and good = independence. It's a syllogism for you.
The same goes for your weird suggestion that Labour is being unreasonable if it doesn't support the SNP in parliamentary votes. Why should it when it believes the SNP's platform ia bobbins? Is the SNP unreasonable when it doesn't vote with the Tories in Westminster?
Just out of interest: I haven't been keeping score on this thread, but have any SNP supporters got to the point where they're willing to recognise these financial shenanigans as humiliating and improper? Or are we still clinging to the "storm in a teacup, everyone has little bookkeeping whoopsies, this is just the prejudiced unionist media" line?
a more radical more scottish based labour party in Scotland could peel off a lot of the soft SNP vote
The Scottish Socialist Party has 0 MSPs and 0 MPs.
Trying to steal independence supporters' votes from a dominant centre left independence party by being more left wing is a wildly unpopular position.
Again – saying that Labour can only compete for a third of the electorate unless it supports independence
That is not what I am saying at all - try reading my post.
on the constitution Labour could produce a compromise position – constitutional convention/ Federalism / Devo max / Second referendum if the polls show it likely to pass ( the NI position)
The same goes for your weird suggestion that Labour is being unreasonable if it doesn’t support the SNP in parliamentary votes. Why should it when it believes the SNP’s platform ia bobbins?
So when London labour has a policy like minimal alcohol pricing and the labour party in Scotland oppose it in Scotland thats because the SnP platform is bobbins? It was labour policy for Westminster but at Holyrood labour voted against
Or when labour vote down free school meals for all kids
Or when labour have a pact with the tories?
So go on - name me one labour policy intended to peel off soft SNP votes?
Just pondering this in reverse. What policy could Labour adopt that would attract the SNP voter - constitution excepted - that the SNP wouldn't/don't already support?
I haven’t been keeping score on this thread, but have any SNP supporters got to the point where they’re willing to recognise these financial shenanigans as humiliating and improper? Or are we still clinging to the “storm in a teacup, everyone has little bookkeeping whoopsies, this is just the prejudiced unionist media” line?
As an ex-SNP member (way before 2014) I'm seeing a lot of the latter, mostly with a big dose of whataboutery.
Just pondering this in reverse. What policy could Labour adopt that would attract the SNP voter – constitution excepted – that the SNP wouldn’t/don’t already support?
An interesting point. I shall ponder further
this is why I believe the labour line could be on some things " thats a halfway decent policy but you need to do more" ie " a roll and a cup of soup for every pupil? make it a proper hot lunch" ( I am not sure if this one was holyrood or a council but whichever it was the labour group voting against)
So push the scots government to do more
Of course pushing for greater transparency would be good as well
Edit: Sarwar did try this line on a couple of issues - child support payments IIRC but soon went very quiet. I beleve told to shut up by london
I haven’t been keeping score on this thread, but have any SNP supporters got to the point where they’re willing to recognise these financial shenanigans as humiliating and improper? Or are we still clinging to the “storm in a teacup, everyone has little bookkeeping whoopsies, this is just the prejudiced unionist media” line?
For me neither
Highly embarrassing and clear improper doings but I really very much doubt any significant or even any at all criminal charges will be leveled at individuals. I think the outcome will be fines for the SNP
No doubt the media feeding frenzy has been huge. 'twas always going to be such with a hostile media.
Again, as stated earlier, all political parties are useless, including with their finances, they're not run like companies, they're run like clubs.
As for the independence argument, again, as always, for me, it's down to the evidence, will independence benefit the people of Scotland, or will it cause more issues, there's lots of hypothesis, but little actual confidence in them either way, which i would expect with no vote upcoming.
From my own recent branch meeting I would say there are still some who believe the whole thing is a unionist conspiracy, most believe that party admin and internal democracy needs a major overhaul andthat this is being handled much more aggressively by the media than scandals in other (unionist) parties. The membership is up over the last month. The general mood amongst this entirely un -scientific poll of activists has gone from dejected and embarassed , to somewhat defiant
Just pondering this in reverse. What policy could Labour adopt that would attract the SNP voter – constitution excepted – that the SNP wouldn’t/don’t already support?
I could have sworn I would be able to think of half a dozen - but actually any I could come up with that were reasonable / affordable I guess the SNP would adopt without issue.
Perhaps something on ferries? More frequent / subsidised for locals more? One complaint about the SNP/ Green government is they ignore the highlands so better policy for rural communities?
So the "good policy but does not go far enough" attitude would be better for labour IMO
However I still think the SNPs tribal hatred of the SNP has let Scotland down as apart from anything else its robbed scotland of a credible opposition and the various labour / tory pacts just stink. apart from anything else it saved May's government and led indirectly to brexit
Just pondering this in reverse. What policy could Labour adopt that would attract the SNP voter – constitution excepted – that the SNP wouldn’t/don’t already support?
the big issues in any political campaign are always:
health
education
justice (which includes drugs)
taxation / economy (which now includes energy - and is probably where environment & transport belongs as it’s a trade off)
(and foreign policy / immigration but that is not at all devolved - although Scottish Labour should be arguing it is not acceptable for NI to have a better relationship with the EU than Scotland does but Labour is confused over what it believes and what if thinks it can get away with saying about BrexShit)
If there is really nothing in health/education/justice/finance that the Labour Party think they could do better than the SNP then I wonder why they are in politics! Effectively you are suggesting they have become a single issue party who’s only purpose in Scotland is to oppose independence (ironic given people used to say the snp were a single issue party!).
the problem with asking what would attract an snp voter is that snp voters are not homogenous; if the Indy question was resolved some would be much more in the Tory team than the Labour one.
(TJ - ferries is easier to use to criticise the gov without actually saying how you would screw it up differently - it being a waste of money wins points with the central belt voter who never uses them or only goes on holiday on them unless of course you are throwing good money after bad at fergussons on the clyde!)
If there is really nothing in health/education/justice/finance that the Labour Party think they could do better than the SNP then I wonder why they are in politics! Effectively you are suggesting they have become a single issue party who’s only purpose in Scotland is to oppose independence
I think thats pretty much what they have become. I cannot think of a single positive policy put forward by labour in Scotland. Partly because the SNP stole their social democratic clothes and partly from the tribal hatred labour have for the SNP leading them to automatically oppose anything the SNP propose
There are umpteen important issues that could all be ameliorated with a bit/lot more funding. As always, an opposition party will simply be asked where the money will come from. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything (major) the current government are spending that Labour would want to cut. That leaves the option of growing the budget through taxes - step up the Tory party - or gaining control of all the income and resources through independence. I just don't see where the Labour party can go with this.
Labour could start by providing competent government. How much has been wasted on ferries? A government party not under police investigation or where the former leader was on trial at the High Court. A govt that can manage to get it's own accounts in order could be trusted with the nation's accounts. A party which wasn't happy to have a married couple running it for 8 years.
Just because, aside from indy, many SNP and Labour policies might be similar doesn't mean we don't need a change of govt
As someone who pays some attention to politics, I'd have to search to see who the current labour leader is.
They just seem like a lost cause, with no real goal or ideas, but then they are only the third largest party.
At least I can tell you who the Tory leader is, not that I think he's much use. He's a damp squib compared to his predecessors, who could at least put across good arguments, and get Sturgeon frustrated during questions.
It wouldn't surprise me if Ross was a SNP agent, given his apparent incompetence at holding them to account on anything.
Scottish politics has pretty much become a single issue vote.
People make fun of Tory supporters by saying you could stick a blue rosette on a pig and they'd vote for it, but there are a lot of voters the same could be said about yellow rosettes.