You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
IMO its certainly possible. the tensions between the right and left of the party and the gradualists V independence now folk have been simmering away for a while. Sturgeon going and the leadership hustings have rather brought that into the open. Sturgeon took the party to the left and this is resented by a lot of the old guard. There is also an urban v rural split as well which is close to the right / left split.
There is also the way that all political parties in power seem to run out of steam after 10 years or so and also they then get folk who do not believe in the core tenets of the party joining the party to gain power or to push their hobby horse thru.
I think there certainly is potential for a split especially if Forbes wins the election. I just do not see how the lefty socially liberal members and activists could stay in the party under her and I think that is a significant part of their base and their activists.
I suspect that the SNP will lose seats after the next holyrood election - and will be replaced in government by a labour / tory coaltion Neither labour or tories have a snowflakes chance of a majority and if there is no majority as is likely they will do this to freeze out the SNP as they have done on multiple councils.
Medium term I don't think it would do the SNP harm to spend some time in opposition especially to a labour / tory cioaltion
However the longer we wait for independence the worse it is for the country and a labour / tory coalition running holyrood would be a disaster
the interests of the SNP do not always align with the interests of the country
Obviously there is no reasonable chance of a vote for independence in the short or medium term.
I don't know if that's true. The world has seen wackier and faster change recently - see Trump and Brexit. The Scottish independence movement has been around in its modern form for 40-50 years, and is a mainstream (if not majority) political position in Scotland. It wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen.
So with the central tenet of the SNP not a realistic target, will the party splinter into its factions?
I doubt it. Parties always have factions. The SNP stuck together when it was much less popular than it was now. And the SNP is a modern, European, social democratic party - it has a full policy platform beyond independence. It's not just a single issue party or pressure group.
But then again, not long ago you'd have said "well of course Labour will be the first or second party in Scotland" or "the Lib Dems will be the swing party for the UK", and what happened to them...?
I wouldn't like to predict the outcome. In TJs view a Forbes/Regan leadership would see an exodus of activists. Another view is that the 50,000 who've left the party are the activists and they might be tempted to return.
Perfectly possible. 50 000 is a lot of members to lose.
I'm clearly only guessing from limited knowledge.
Hang on - Forbes is a "gradualist" as well is she not. I seem to remember an "Independence is years away" quote
I don't think its just activists who would leave. I think a Forbes leadership would kill the coalition with the greens and MSPs and MPs would leave.
But obviously its just my view from where I sit and thats not particularly close to what is going on in the SNP
A couple of my SNP voting friends have said the would never vote SNP while Forbes was leader
really
Yes, really.
The key word I used was 'significant'. Now, if you viewed the SNP as a single issue (independence) party I guess you could make the case that the stuff she is out of step with is not 'significant'. But I'd cast the SNP of the best part of a generation as also a progressive party. And I'd say her conflictions with party policy are 'significantly' at odds with those of a progressive party.
"However the longer we wait for independence the worse it is for the country"
I disagree...I'd like to see if a Labour led Scottish Parliament could deliver ferries on time, on budget and without corruption. I'd like to see improvements in the NHS, schools, crime, health statistics etc. I have a begrudging respect for Sturgeon but she turned Scotland into a binary state of yes/no on independence. Too little scrutiny on the SNP performance on these and other issues. And as soon as the dictatorship is gone there are some truths spoken by Forbes on the SNP performance on such issues. Not that I'm a fan of her or beliefs. So I'd like to see Labour (coalition or not, definitely not with the Tories!) make a better fist of actually running the country!
Err, you really don’t get this “faith” thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It’s not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
I get faith. It's delegating your opinions to a higher power.
However, if you want to be FM, you can't delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, 'Because my religion says...'
If you want to be FM, you are responsible for your opinions. Not your church.
The only way I can see labour getting to run it is in coalition with the tories, I believe thats the most likely option after the next holyrood election
I do not see labour getting enough seats even to be the biggest party or rule in coaltion with the lib dems
Err, you really don’t get this “faith” thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It’s not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
[s]I get faith. It’s delegating your opinions to a higher power.[/s]
[s]However, if you want to be FM, you can’t delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, ‘Because my religion says…’[/s]
[s]If you want to be FM, you are responsible for your opinions. [/s]No[s]t your church.[/s]
It's her opinion, informed by her beliefs.
Eh up
this thread has the lot. Politics, religion and sexual equality. Should be banned 🙂
if you want to be FM, you can’t delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, ‘Because my religion says…’
Her religious opinions are completely stupid imo. However, if her answer to your question is "because God said so", then it's up to you not to vote for her. It's not for her to scrape together a secular justification for her religous views.
Im interested in this On what basis? ( not questioning your judgement – looking for information)
On the basis that I've yet to hear/see any Unionist media/shill have a pop at her, unlike what I've heard/seen about Yousaf and Regan.
The key to independence is that at the next GE for Scotland the SNP keeps it's MP numbers, irrelevant what occurs south of the border - otherwise it's a lost cause and TBH we might as well get rid of Holyrood as it'll be further undermined whenever the UK Govt decides it wants to. Therefore electing someone who's "safe" is the better option.
Ta
It’s her opinion, informed by her beliefs.
Yes, and that's fine of she wants to bore people in the pub about how she would fix all Scotland's problems if only she was in charge.
But she's not running for local pub bore. She's running for FM and ideally the standards should be a bit higher.
They should be. People shouldn't vote for her.
Obviously there is no reasonable chance of a vote for independence in the short to medium term
I don't accept your premise
I suspect that the SNP will lose seats after the next holyrood election – and will be replaced in government by a labour / tory coaltion Neither labour or tories have a snowflakes chance of a majority and if there is no majority as is likely they will do this to freeze out the SNP as they have done on multiple councils.
it’s always struck me as odd to do at a council but it would be thoroughly bizarre if Labour got in bed with the tories at holyrood. If you think SNP members will leave and not vote SNP because Forbes is too conservative (with a small C) for the lefties can you imagine how Labour voters would feel if they put the tories in power and Douglas Ross as FM? Vote Labour get Tory would be an SNP dream for the next round of elections! Even on an informal supply and confidence basis it’s hard to imagine if not doing a LibDems to an already weakened Labour Party. Also how would Starmer cope if he needed snp votes to prop the Labour Party in the HOC.
I think for every saltire waving, yes car sticker SNP voter they lose (who presumably hop to another pro-Indy party?so is not even a fundamental blow to Indy) if Forbes wins they might pick back up a voter who had had enough of the Murrell Show or didn’t like the GRR etc. more importantly is can she persuade people aren’t traditional SNP voters that the party is the least worst option. I think she might. And for all her social conservatism that the media make a noise about - I’ve not noticed anything being suggested that she would actually do that would upset the socially liberal. There’s even people who do vote SNP and are fairly liberal who will be saying, I really want Indy, but I want it in a country that has real momentum for it and is well prepared for it so a gradualist approach is a good thing. Forbes seems to have a pragmatic view about that - and only when all the candidates got asked “in 5 yrs” did I see anything different (it was a stupid question - he should have asked in which year will Scotland be independent under your leadership - it’s still a short punchy answer but would have got more value and probably differentiation)
the irony is the Greens should be loving this as the best home for the socially liberal pro Indy voter, but the faces of the party have been so poor that they make Humza look competent that I’m not sure it makes sense.
The other alternative is a rerun of the 2007 result. SNP the largest party but nowhere near a majority. Having to govern by getting agreement for legislation on a case by case basis. Indy off the table for 5 years obviously. I don't recall that first Salmond govt as being all that bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Scottish_Parliament_election
The Greens are threatening to tear up the Bute House Agreement if the challenge to the Section 35 on GRR doesn't go ahead. We know that neither Regan nor Forbes are going to court on it and Yousaf has said he will follow the legal advice (something the Scottish Govt doesn't have a good review of) so it's fairly clear that the coalition is over. That probably signals a delay of the DRS and a massive scaling back of the HPMA proposals too.
Lots of chatter on Scottish Political Twitter about Yousaf saying he's currently ahead in the voting, despite members being told that no-one in the party has live access to the count. Rather than conspiracy I'm just seeing it as Yousaf being a clumsy idiot (again).
I don't have a vote, but my heart says Regan, my head says Forbes.
I fully expect Yousaf to win first preferences, possibly by enough to avoid the need for a second count. If it does go to a second count I think he'll shade that too. Alternatively, my predictions could be as good as TJs rugby ones. 😂
the irony is the Greens should be loving this as the best home for the socially liberal pro Indy voter
Yeah, but it quickly falls apart because Green parties everywhere suffer from a lack of decisiveness. There's also the problem that a fair minority of Scot Nats have a delusion that independent Scotland would be a nuclear-armed petrostate, and the Greens are completely opposed to that.
a fair minority of Scot Nats have a delusion that independent Scotland would be a nuclear-armed petrostate
I don't think they really capture much of the socially liberal crowd though do they? I mean, I'm sure there will be a vanishingly small amount but there can't be enough overlap for anyone to lose sleep over surely?
Yes, sorry, you're right, I was thinking more broadly about why the Greens wouldn't pick up a lot of the SNP vote, but I appreciate that wasn't what was being discussed.
Having said that, I wouldn't have thought the voting bloc of "people who are socially liberal enough that they wouldn't vote for the SNP but still interested enough in independence that they wouldn't vote for Labour or the Lib Dems" is relatively small. But then again, what do I know?
Labour makes sense in terms of policies, but this is outweighed by the independence argument, so labour won't side with the SNP.
It's the same with the tories and Lib-Dems.
The Greens are the opposite, they are all for indy, but the flip side is that they are riskier to side with on some of their policies they want, you get the feeling a fair few aren't going to be democratically driven, which always ends in pain, such as the Deposit Return Scheme problems we see just now.
For what it's worth I did have a vote.
I voted Regan first because she wants to separate the Indy campaign from the political parties and she offers the best chance of a thorough rebuild of the SNP internal democracy.
I voted Humza second because I support many of his policies other than his approach to independence.
I had a third option but despite Kate Forbes undoubted ability I cannot bring myself to vote for her as party leader and first minister even though I live in her constituency and have voted for her as an msp I think Kate Forbes will win on the second preference vote
Having said that, I wouldn’t have thought the voting bloc of “people who are socially liberal enough that they wouldn’t vote for the SNP but still interested enough in independence that they wouldn’t vote for Labour or the Lib Dems” is relatively small. But then again, what do I know?
I don't think it's a small number either which is where the Greens come in. The ones left out are the previously discussed petro-friendly.
FWIW I'm a pro-nuclear green (small G) so can appreciate being in that small subset. Where the Greens let themselves down IMO is a favouring of activisim over objectivity, it would be nice to see more of a science led discussion with an acceptance that sometimes compromises can or have to be made. It's really quite sad how much utter drivel is lapped up just because it aligns with peoples opinions.
Unfortunately though that extends to the politics sphere on all fronts so I won't hold my breath that anyone is going to start acting like grown ups any time soon.
LabCon coalition would be the end of labour in Scotland. And
Starmer cope if he needed snp votes to prop the Labour Party in the HOC
He's already quoted as saying he won't talk with or work with the SNP.
I had a third option
In a 3-way STV contest the 3rd choice is irrelevant.
He’s already quoted as saying he won’t talk with or work with the SNP.
That's not correct. He said Labour won't form a coalition with the SNP in case of a hung parliament. That's different.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391.amp
Apologies, yes in the case if a hung parliament.
Yeah, we have the SGP tail trying to wag the SNP dog and a similar situation with SNP and Westminster Labour. TBH I can't help feeling that if the Greens want that amount of power then they need to consider how they could actually get their own majority. The SNP could, as already suggested above, run a minority government and let the SGP vote for policies as they see fit. Short of adopting their own version of the Labour "always vote against the SNP" doctrine they'd be pretty much aligned anyway.
The SNP could, as already suggested above, run a minority government and let the SGP vote for policies as they see fit. Short of adopting their own version of the Labour “always vote against the SNP” doctrine they’d be pretty much aligned anyway.
Indeed. To me it looks like the SNP gave the Greens a great deal of power without getting much in return. The Greens would always have voted in favour of any indy laws and the gender stuff anyway.
Indeed. To me it looks like the SNP gave the Greens a great deal of power without getting much in return. The Greens would always have voted in favour of any indy laws and the gender stuff anyway.
It certainly looks like that - but for the greens to agree collective responsibility with the SNP is also a big ask. It means dropping some green core policies, A previous attempt at a coalition ( Salmonds first government?) The talks collapsed because the greens wanted more than the SNP could give. the greens did support on a case by case basis tho.
Scottish greens have had to make a painful transition form protest group to grown up politician. They have on occasion made a horlicks of it.
I think for every saltire waving, yes car sticker SNP voter they lose (who presumably hop to another pro-Indy party?so is not even a fundamental blow to Indy) if Forbes wins they might pick back up a voter who had had enough of the Murrell Show or didn’t like the GRR etc. more importantly is can she persuade people aren’t traditional SNP voters that the party is the least worst option. I think she might.
Its not just those SNP supporters - its also the socially liberal ones. there are people for whom Forbes lack of support for equality and her support for " gay conversion therapy" is an absolute red line
I had not really thought thru the implications of the huge number of missing members. Its certainly plausible that a shift to the right especially on social issues could bring back disenchanted members ( edit: as could a more assertive stance on independence )
Its not just supporters and voters that I think the SNP will lose if Forbes wins tho. I think there are MSPs and MPs who would find that very difficult.
However its certainly time for a refresh and a period out of office may do the SNP some good or perhaps this contest will provide that refresh and find some clear direction. I don't see Yousaf being able to do that tho. He has diminished thru the contest with weak statements and flopping about. A weathervane politician
We will see - there are folk on here closer to this than me
Let's say it's Forbes. The SGP are saying they won't vote for her to be FM. If they abstain, it makes no difference. If they vote against, then the likelihood is that we'd have a Holyrood GE. As a Green voter, would you rather have the SNP in government or a Lab/Con coalition?
Well the former obviously but despite SLab's shenanigans over the years I still think a Lab/Con coalition is the stuff of fantasy. Neither are that stupid (though they do aspire).
As a Green voter, would you rather have the SNP in government or a Lab/Con coalition?
You're assuming that some sort of coalition (Green/Nat or Tory/Lab) is inevitable. There could be a minority government. I don't think either Lab or Con would want a coalition for Scottish Parliament as it would prejudice the "clear blue water" between the parties across the UK.
But my political predictions have been terrible in the past.
As a Green voter, would you rather have the SNP in government or a Lab/Con coalition?
Obviously SNP but a good question
More likely is the government does not collapse and rules as a minority with green abstaining . The question then is who will play ball with the SNP ? Clearly the greens would on some issues. Who else would dare to make holyrood work by consensus as intended? Salmonds first government only the tories would talk at all as a result had some fairly benign influence.
Would labour or the lib dems ever support a vote for an SNP motion? Could they behave like adults?
I'd hope (as an LD party member) that a party which openly talks up consensus based politics would be willing to vote for an SNP motion that fits LD values, but then that's from the vantage point of the other side of the border.
Not so sure about Scottish Labour. Wasn't it somewhere in Aberdeenshire that Lab & Con were effectively in coalition in a Stockport stylee, and on the same basis (my enemy's enemy...)?
Lib dems only have 4 MSPs so hardly enough to wield influence and labour / lib dem between them are a long long way from a majority at the moment. Its possible they could wield a balance of power after the next election but IMO unlikely. They did have an earlier coalition with labour IIRC.
https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-party-balance
Wasn’t it somewhere in Aberdeenshire that Lab & Con were effectively in coalition in a Stockport stylee, and on the same basis (my enemy’s enemy…)?
Its happened on a few councils including Edinburgh where labour counselors were disciplined for refusing to join a coalition with torys
The tribal hatred of the SNP from many in the labour ranks is very evident.
The tribal hatred of the SNP from many in the labour ranks is very evident.
Would labour or the lib dems ever support a vote for an SNP motion? Could they behave like adults?
lol!
I'm with Tjagain on the LabTory coalition or maybe a supply and confidence agreement. They're both anti independence and both have an Orange tinge.
Nah, Head Office wouldn't allow it. Christ, they couldn't even work together on the Brexit referendum.
You can get away with dicking about in either local elections or marginal seats but the press can only bury so much, that's why I think it would never happen.
They did have an earlier coalition with labour IIRC.
Who ended uni tuition fees as one of their deals.
If the Libs started taking themselves seriously up here and dropped opposition for an independence referendum they might actually start recovering. As it is they only ever seem to be also-rans that turn up to make up numbers, the last few candidates we had didn't even have photos.
They all worked together in 2014. There's also been a number of coalitions as at council level since then. There's also been "informal agreement's" to give one party or the other a "clear run" at the SNP in both Holyrood and Westminster elections.
s it is they only ever seem to be also-rans that turn up to make up numbers, the last few candidates we had didn’t even have photos.
Really pisses me off you're supposed to give up your free time and walk miles campaigning for some Farquhar who didn't even know where your constituency is till a couple of days ago.
Let’s say it’s Forbes. The SGP are saying they won’t vote for her to be FM. If they abstain, it makes no difference. If they vote against, then the likelihood is that we’d have a Holyrood GE. As a Green voter, would you rather have the SNP in government or a Lab/Con coalition?
I do see a collapse and a GE as unlikely. Its really in no ones interests. I'd be surprised if the greens forced one and it would be a mistake. An election now I think would see the greens and SNP lose a handful of seats leading to a balanced parliament where its almost impossible for any one party to form an administration.
Another option if Forbes becomes leader of the SNP but cannot pass a vote as FM is she stands down to prevent paralysis and / or a GE? I seem to remember precedent elsewhere of similar. Usually in the fug of shady deals in smoke filled rooms and in the context of coaltions. 🙂 I don't know what the holyrood constitution says about that
I'm not saying its right or likely but its possible.
More likely over all I guess is that the Greens abstain and withdraw from the coaltion but will generally support including budgets. They would still have to talk to each other. SNP are only one short of majority. Thats what I hope anyway. You know - behave like adults,
Harvie is already back-pedalling on his "threat" to withdraw from government.😂
Another option if Forbes becomes leader of the SNP but cannot pass a vote as FM is she stands down to prevent paralysis and / or a GE?
I can't see that it's genuinely in anyone's interest to force a GE.* SNP would still be the largest party and why should they let any other parties decide who their leader should be? Plus, there's the possibility of another pro-indy majority/mandate.
(* which isn't ignoring the fact that some numpty might think it is)
48 : 52 !
Hardly a ringing endorsement but...a win's a win.
Jings,that will wind up aw the wee Scots racists 🙄
I think we might be doing this again in the not too distant future
So we appear to have a First/Prime Minister whose election is based on the vote of a few tens of thousands of people. Sounds familiar. Nice to see Scotland doing things better than Westminster.
I'm not an SNP voter, but out of the three I'm happy with that outcome. I guess time will tell how he does, but I'll still not be voting SNP while they continue to push for independence.
48 : 52
Excellent, the numbers everyone knows is as definitive as it gets...and never leads to bitter recriminations.
The obvious thing to do would be to bring her into government in a very senior position (like the one she already had/has).....but there was so much personal unpleasantness that will be a bitter pill to swallow. Minister for equality and inclusion maybe?
So we appear to have a First/Prime Minister whose election is based on the vote of a few tens of thousands of people
I'm not sure what else you were expecting.
I think we might be doing this again in the not too distant future
While I really hope we don't and he gets a fair run at things, I suspect you are right as a bunch in the SNP won't play nicely IMO.
From the pictures I have seen, Forbes at least has been able to "oscar runner up" her response and pretend to be pleased for Yousaf, whereas Regan has been unable to hide her outrage at not winning and looks ready to commit murder.
From the pictures I have seen, Forbes at least has been able to “oscar runner up” her response and pretend to be pleased for Yousaf, whereas Regan has been unable to hide her outrage at not winning and looks ready to commit murder
I was watching it live and this is exactly what I thought.
I think we might be doing this again in the not too distant future
after the next holyrood election?
I think we might be doing this again in the not too distant future
It's not a once in a generation vote then?
So we appear to have a First/Prime Minister whose election is based on the vote of a few tens of thousands of people.
No we have a leader of the SNP based on the votes of 24k people.
The position of First Minister is based on the votes of 1.2 million people.
No we have a leader of the SNP based on the votes of 24k people.
I seem to recall that Sunak was elected as the leader of the Conservative Party. There seem to be outrage on here & in other places about how undemocratic it all was. I haven’t noticed the same being mentioned in the SNP election.
Okay it's an outrage.
It doesn't change the fact that the post of First Minister, like the post of UK Prime Minister, is not an elected post.
Has the Scottish parliament even the power to call a snap election?
In which case you're not paying attention.
Has the Scottish parliament even the power to call a snap election?
In a roundabout way, yes.
In a roundabout way, yes
The Scottish Parliament has the power to call an election or the First Minister?
The UK PM can call an election by asking the King to dissolve parliament, how does it work for holyrood?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/3
Parliament votes - by a 2/3rd majority - to dissolve.
First Minister has to be elected by the parliament so at this point we are either FMless or we still have the old one.
I seem to recall that Sunak was elected as the leader of the Conservative Party. There seem to be outrage on here & in other places about how undemocratic it all was. I haven’t noticed the same being mentioned in the SNP election.
Bearing in mind that the Scottish Parliament still has to approve (and remember, SP isn't first past the post and absolute majorities are not supposed to be normal) then the FM has to be approved of by at least one other party. Hence why Forbes or Regan were going to be problematic.
So yes, the Scottish system is better than the Westminster system in terms of consensus.
MSP
Full MemberFrom the pictures I have seen, Forbes at least has been able to “oscar runner up” her response and pretend to be pleased for Yousaf, whereas Regan has been unable to hide her outrage at not winning and looks ready to commit murder.
That's because Regan ran on a divisive campaign that she thought was strong, got annihilated, and knows she just ended her meaningful political career. Also that her allies are all going to be absolutely raging. Whereas Forbes knows she's a close runner up with a fairly wobbly winner. She's just possibly got the best result out of the three of them.
THing is, politically Yousaf is the one I want leading, and he represents the parts of the party that I most wanted to win and that hopefully are the heart of the thing now. From that point of view, great.
But, he's not brilliant. He shouldn't have to be, except that the job of SNP leader is to withstand and deflect endless lies, brickbats, abuse, media bias, selective quoting and general *ery. I think he could be a decent leader without all that, I'm not at all convinced he can deal with all that stuff. It's basically two separate jobs and you have to be good at both.
I hope it works out OK. Of course anything other than a majority/near majority is going to be seen as a disaster, as if the SNP's achievements to date were just inevitable rather than incredibly unlikely, in a system specifically designed to prevent it. So if he merely leads the party to a victory in the next elections, rather than a ridiculous landslide, it'll be difficult for him. And his enemies in the party have the power to make him look terrible, in a Corbyn labour sort of a way- I predict the regressive wing of the party will snipe and niggle and work hard to create shit stories in the press for as long as they can then they'll * off into a Real SNP which will die without a trace after one election but will be treated by the entire media as being a real thing, like CHUK.
I'm just hoping that now Humza has won he can now direct an investigation into why rangers get so many penalties!
then they’ll **** off into a Real SNP which will die without a trace after one election but will be treated by the entire media as being a real thing,
or Alba northwind?
Dammit I was going to say Alba as well!
Sorry - regardless of how one feels things should be in 95% white country, you don't expect that kind of speech? That doesn't make sense. What he says is factually unobjectionable- the only thing left to dispute is how one feels about how things should be in a 95% white country.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-scotland-race-idUSL1N3531Q5
I found Yousaf’s speech about white people in senior positions in Scottish public life quite alarming:
I didn't find it alarming. What is alarming about it?
I don't feel that's an appropriate tone to take when speaking about any ethnic group. By regardless, I mean I'd expect people with different views on representation in public life, to agree that this isn't an appropriate tone to use when speaking about it.
I agree it's factual. The fact check tackles a misrepresentation that I did not make.
Some people find having white privilege pointed out to be alarming. I mean my god, if they take away our overwhelming control of all senior political posts, who knows what they'll take away next!
Wasn't careful enough with what I said... it was the way he said it that I found alarming.
it was the way he said it that I found alarming.
I still don't understand. You might not agree with him that the overwhelming dominance of white people in many senior public positions is a significant problem, perhaps it isn't, but why did you find the way he said it alarming?
If he had interspersed his speech with cries of "Allahu Akbar!" I might have found it alarming.
But as it is the only thing I found slightly alarming was the sight of a man with South Asian heritage speaking in a Scottish accent - it's not something that I see every day.
It's the delivery of a long list of negative things interspersed with "white". Sounds pretty vilifying, not good when it comes to race (or religion etc.).