Inevitable - I heard it being pushed by the Times Radio to a German defence think-tanker the other day, who told them it was baseless.
Oh for a media that attached priority to checking a story before they repeat it.
(TBF around Ukraine I can't say much more for the German media, even the official DW. They have been pushing "NATO ammunition crisis", which is accurate for Germany and maybe parts of Western Europe - not Spain or a couple of Scandis, but was shown to be a political/confidence crisis not an ammunition crisis by Perun back in December.
Germany is suffering from a need for other people to take responsibility for them.
"The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of ammunition," Stoltenberg said. "The current rate of Ukraine's ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current production rates. This puts our defense industries under strain. (...) So we need to ramp up new production and invest in our production capacities."
also widely reported in UK media, I think. I might have missed something else.
btw, why have only Poland, Germany, Norway and Portugal (and Canada?) promised Leopard 2 tanks so far?
Lots of non-runners in the inventories?
It is much cheaper to park tanks in a shed. Unless it is done carefully, with frequent checks, the result is, rapidly, a non-functional system. Mothballing equipment is a bit of an art.
The American government is funding some pretty massive increases in ammunition production. Thales Belfast (where a number of UK weapons are manufactured) is working all the hours - limit there is sub-components, I believe.
I'm sure that's true, but the reports yesterday that the Netherlands and Denmark have decided to not to send Leopard 2 tanks after all are a a bit strange. Even Pistorius said that he was "a bit disappointed" with how long other European countries are taking to commit to supplying Leopards. No doubt JosiasJessop will have something to say about this!
Kremlin shill John Helmer has a very interesting interview with an Indian general on the status of the SMO on his website.
The Ukrainian Home Guard (WFH battalion) have no need to get triggered over this as Gen. Shankar is quite critical of the Russian Army and makes some insightful points.
If those of us who favour Ukraine in this awful war are the "Ukrainian Home Guard (WFH battalion)", are you part of the "Russian Absent Mobniks (Putin's Arselickers Rifles)" ?
It seems the game has moved on since Congress told Australia they could fucking whistle for Virginias. Now the plan is evolved Astute with an American reactor and combat control system. It doesn't sound like a swift and cheap route to SSN ownership but it's probably the only feasible option at this point if they want to build most of it in Australia. I certainly won't live long enough to see how it all turns out.
Oh god, 'Aukus'. I well recall the damp eyes and chest puffs around that.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
I see that they don't plan to call an Election, which is the exact opposite of what Ms Sturgeon was demanding for the UK Government when the Tories changed leader.
Rank hypocrites.
Wrong parliament. Wrong procedures.
The way it happens, is for the SNP to pick a leader and then Holyrood votes, including SGs, to nominate the FM. Only then ratified by HMtK. And SNP is a minority party.
This did not happen in Westminster ...
Think he was talking about Westminster Cranyx, just a bit confused
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
Which of Sturgeon’s achievements of substance would you like to highlight?
When did any politician in these islands last have an achievement?
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
Boris. Delivered Brexit
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Also worth observing that it doesn't have the Tory Party at Prayer/state church baggage that the C of E does precisely because it is Established.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
Means not the end? Sabotaging the economy? Encouraging strikes?
What's not for a lefty to love? That's tickling their g-spot right there, if they were interested in the end and growing the economy they wouldn't be lefties.
The Little Englanders are in a panic, getting their panties in a bunch big time. Not used to a politician being honourable and having principles, too well used to the non-principalled , lying , crooks, grifters and ne'er do wells down south. Suck it up losers.
Kate Forbes, a member of the evangelical, hardline anti homosexual marriage, anti gender fluidity marriage Free Church of Scotland is early favourite to succeed Sturgeon as leader of the SNP
Offtopic, can the church refuse to marry two people born the same sex, where one has a GRC, so they are officially opposite gender? In principle, they're not even allowed to ask about that, are they?
Although I think I had to produce a baptism certificate before I got married, to prove my Christian faith, which could be a stumbling block (no requirement, as far as I know, to produce an updated baptism certificate after a GRC)
As always it will depend which church, in which jurisdiction. Churches are not all the same. England and Scotland not all the same either. NB you do not have to be baptised to be married in CoE in England.
Indeed, as the established church anyone can be married or buried in their local Parish Church of England church.
You only need to be baptised or confirmed in or have regularly attended a Church of England church for 6 months to be married there if it is not your local Parish church
Some questions, not intended pedantically but for enlightenment:
case 1: your local parish church * this applies when it's local for at least one half of the couple, meaning at least one of them resides in the parish?
* the universal right that applies regardless of anybody's religious denomination (or absence thereof) - is this a right to be married in the church building, by a clergyman who acts as a state official and not in a religious capacity, or does it involve the right to take part in a religious ritual administered by clergy?
case 2: not your local parish church * is the interpretation of "regular attendance" left up to local clergy?
It seems the game has moved on since Congress told Australia they could fucking whistle for Virginias. Now the plan is evolved Astute with an American reactor and combat control system. It doesn't sound like a swift and cheap route to SSN ownership but it's probably the only feasible option at this point if they want to build most of it in Australia. I certainly won't live long enough to see how it all turns out.
Oh god, 'Aukus'. I well recall the damp eyes and chest puffs around that.
The funniest bit was how the Remaniacs were crowing about Boris being shunned in Cornwall by Macron et al while he, the US and Australia were cementing the deal behind their backs…
Anti-independentists previously: Sturgeon is an idiot, a complete imbecile, damaging her cause by her simple presence.
Anti-independentists now: she was a titan, a powerful and effective politician, independence will be set back by her absence.
She was very effective at turning Scotland into a one party state, but no nearer her "dream" than she was in 2014.
The SNP are damaged by her going.
Less sure about Indy, but it's still not going to happen
Independence is no nearer than it was in 2014? It depends what we mean. It's undeniably further away than it was the day before the Referendum but it's probably closer than it was the day after. Sturgeon took over after the Referendum therefore I'd say she can truthfully claim the cause of independence has been advanced during her tenure.
It's a tricky one to call. Realistically they get 2 shots I think, so the question is how well placed are they for the second shot.
Let's use a golfing analogy. The Scottish election results, facilitated by Cameron granting a referendum, helped to chip the ball on to the green. A long putt, but doable at a push. Then in 2015 the ball veered fairly close to the hole but overshot by a few feet. There's one putt left to win the open. It's closer than the last one, but not a tap-in.
Actually then the question of timing comes in, plus whether they're allowed to make the shot in the first place. So the analogy kind of falls apart.
I was liking it - being a golfer - but best to abandon, I think.
The Brexit effect on Sindy is something I find interesting because it works both ways. It makes the emotional case for Sindy stronger - Scotland being yanked out of the EU against its will like that - but otoh it makes the practical process of separation a fair amount harder.
So, post Brexit, Sindy is an easier sell emotionally but a harder sell practically. And how this nets out depends on which 'mood' predominates amongst erstwhile floaters: "FFS, we have to escape England's clutches so this shit can't happen" vs "Oh god, the mess it'll cause if we do this, let's not".
This is the keyest of key questions imo - which mood wins out - but I won't try and answer it from Hampstead.
I said exactly this after Brexit itself
It simultaneously makes Scottish independence considerably more appealing, yet considerably harder to achieve
At the moment, the “harder to achieve” side of the paradox is winning out. And by the next time the Sindy ducks are in a row, the world will probably be run by AI Muskbots weidling penile laser-cannons, so it won’t really matter
You said exactly that too? Oh. Let me have a little think.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
Which of Sturgeon’s achievements of substance would you like to highlight?
When did any politician in these islands last have an achievement?
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
Boris. Delivered Brexit
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
He did what Sturgeon and Salmond failed to do
Johnson "delivered" something that the population overwhelmingly think is a mistake with a deal so bad that he himself rails against it.
Can you do better than that? At least Sturgeon hasn't been so damaging.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
Lufthansa airline having IT failures today - sounds like workers cut the fibre going into their data centre! They’re checking in flights using paper, sounds like they have about as good a backup system as BA did a few years ago.
I see that they don't plan to call an Election, which is the exact opposite of what Ms Sturgeon was demanding for the UK Government when the Tories changed leader.
Rank hypocrites.
Wrong parliament. Wrong procedures.
The way it happens, is for the SNP to pick a leader and then Holyrood votes, including SGs, to nominate the FM. Only then ratified by HMtK. And SNP is a minority party.
This did not happen in Westminster ...
The PM has to command the confidence of the house in order to be appointed by the monarch in the first place.
But that isn't formally determined in any sense. it's all nods and winks and backroom stuff.
Also, fixed term parliament. Can't call an election unless things really are deadlocked, as determined by actual vote.
Fixed term probably didn't stop demands for an election when May took over, but I'll leave someone else to hunt down if that was the case.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
I rather fancy giving the celebrating unionists a blast with both barrels of the gun (non violently of course) by electing the 2 most charismatic elected SNP MPs and MSPs, Stephen Flynn as SNP leader, and Kate Forbes as First Minister.
If Kate Forbes is elected FM the Scottish Labour posters write themselves with a few quotes from the anti homosexual marriage, anti abortion doctrine of her Free Church of Scotland church.
Social conservatives in Scotland are mostly Scottish Conservative anyway and won't switch to the SNP under Forbes as they are Unionists
Religion is not as significant an issue in Scotland as it once was. Such an approach from Labour would simply come across as that they are the bigoted ones. If you think Forbes could not be an effective First Minister and/or SNP leader you will be quite wrong.
It will be if the FM is anti gay marriage, as Forbes clearly is given the Church she is a member of!
It's more likely to be from her own side and journalists scenting blood, no? We saw what happened when a politician who believed gay relationships were sinful led a party that generally relies on progressive support and Tim Farron struggled badly as a significant chunk of his party's natural supporters thought that made him a bad person and thus missed a big opportunity. Now, the SNP arguably have more that holds it together (i.e. independence) but even a politician as skilled as Sturgeon struggled to prevent tensions boiling over with the GRA. Which Sturgeon has now turned into a key fight with Westminster. If Forbes becomes leader and pulls back from it because of her personal views, there'll be an almighty internal row. Labour probably won't do much other than sit there giggling and say would've written a better version of the law that couldn't fall foul of Section 35.
Sturgeon gave the independence movement an international plausibility that they will struggle to replicate with someone else. You can see it in little things like the NYT calling her "Scotland's leader" rather than just First Minister.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
She’s a very interesting politician. The Indian childhood, the fluency in Gaelic. Even the religious background. It’s all pleasingly heterodox.
But I agree that she shouldn’t go for it right now, and won’t, if she is clever.
Regarding Corbyn, todays announcement by Starmer only confirms what for has a long while now been an outcome that had already been universally assumed.
Corbyn's reaction will eventually be to announce that he will stand as an independent. The only question is whether he will announce that soon, or only after waiting until his attempts to contest Starmer's decision are dismissed.
At which point, the interesting thing will be the official reaction of Momentum. They could hardly fail to give Corbyn their support. Most likely they won't do so by an explicit official announcement, but I can't imagine that they'll be able to help themselves in making it blindingly obvious that that is where they stand. And if/when they do so, effectively backing a candidate standing against an official Labour Party candidate, does that not leave the door open to Momentum being treated as a proscribed organisation by the Labour Party? Once that happens, there will be all sorts of consequences for the rump of their "supporters" within the party, those who have not by that stage already left.
Anyone who backs putting up candidates against official Labour or Conservative candidates would be expelled from the party
Oh, so rural independents who are really Tories don't count?
If the Tories don't put up candidates against them no.
If the Tories do put up candidates in a ward and you stand as or back Independent candidates against them, then that is grounds for expulsion from the party
We've discussed this before - examples of this not happening in Scotland, people moving between the two categories at will. It's certainly not a rule that they take seriously.
It certainly is round here, anyone who is a party member or councillor who stands as an Independent against official Conservative candidates is automatically expelled from the party.
Even the cases you showed still meant the members concerned left the party, even if eventually let back in at a later stage if they managed to get elected as Independents
But that is surely significant? They would get expelled, but it's not as though the party definitely wont take them back, if it was felt to be in the party's interests.
I am curious if there is a formal criteria to apply so that they can exclude such a person, but have wiggle room if desired
I see that they don't plan to call an Election, which is the exact opposite of what Ms Sturgeon was demanding for the UK Government when the Tories changed leader.
Rank hypocrites.
Wrong parliament. Wrong procedures.
The way it happens, is for the SNP to pick a leader and then Holyrood votes, including SGs, to nominate the FM. Only then ratified by HMtK. And SNP is a minority party.
This did not happen in Westminster ...
The PM has to command the confidence of the house in order to be appointed by the monarch in the first place.
But that isn't formally determined in any sense. it's all nods and winks and backroom stuff.
Also, fixed term parliament. Can't call an election unless things really are deadlocked, as determined by actual vote.
Fixed term probably didn't stop demands for an election when May took over, but I'll leave someone else to hunt down if that was the case.
Different, though, as there is a formal ratification by MSPs anyway, whatever happens - even if there is no doubt about the outcome.
Also, much harder to get a majority in Holyrood anyway.
Anti-independentists previously: Sturgeon is an idiot, a complete imbecile, damaging her cause by her simple presence.
Anti-independentists now: she was a titan, a powerful and effective politician, independence will be set back by her absence.
She was very effective at turning Scotland into a one party state, but no nearer her "dream" than she was in 2014.
The SNP are damaged by her going.
Less sure about Indy, but it's still not going to happen
Independence is no nearer than it was in 2014? It depends what we mean. It's undeniably further away than it was the day before the Referendum but it's probably closer than it was the day after. Sturgeon took over after the Referendum therefore I'd say she can truthfully claim the cause of independence has been advanced during her tenure.
It's a tricky one to call. Realistically they get 2 shots I think, so the question is how well placed are they for the second shot.
Let's use a golfing analogy. The Scottish election results, facilitated by Cameron granting a referendum, helped to chip the ball on to the green. A long putt, but doable at a push. Then in 2015 the ball veered fairly close to the hole but overshot by a few feet. There's one putt left to win the open. It's closer than the last one, but not a tap-in.
Actually then the question of timing comes in, plus whether they're allowed to make the shot in the first place. So the analogy kind of falls apart.
I was liking it - being a golfer - but best to abandon, I think.
The Brexit effect on Sindy is something I find interesting because it works both ways. It makes the emotional case for Sindy stronger - Scotland being yanked out of the EU against its will like that - but otoh it makes the practical process of separation a fair amount harder.
So, post Brexit, Sindy is an easier sell emotionally but a harder sell practically. And how this nets out depends on which 'mood' predominates amongst erstwhile floaters: "FFS, we have to escape England's clutches so this shit can't happen" vs "Oh god, the mess it'll cause if we do this, let's not".
This is the keyest of key questions imo - which mood wins out - but I won't try and answer it from Hampstead.
I said exactly this after Brexit itself
It simultaneously makes Scottish independence considerably more appealing, yet considerably harder to achieve
At the moment, the “harder to achieve” side of the paradox is winning out. And by the next time the Sindy ducks are in a row, the world will probably be run by AI Muskbots weidling penile laser-cannons, so it won’t really matter
You said exactly that too? Oh. Let me have a little think.
Please do. I also said it about 6 years ago
You probably said it in a gloating colonialist way though.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
Which of Sturgeon’s achievements of substance would you like to highlight?
When did any politician in these islands last have an achievement?
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
Boris. Delivered Brexit
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
He did what Sturgeon and Salmond failed to do
Johnson "delivered" something that the population overwhelmingly think is a mistake with a deal so bad that he himself rails against it.
Can you do better than that? At least Sturgeon hasn't been so damaging.
It's a place in history, and even if you-know-what is reversed, that can't be taken away from him.
Whether it's a good place in history remains to be seen. Pontius Pilate has gone down in history, for example.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
Scotland has fared about 5%-10% better than other UK “regions” since devolution. Not enough to be very noticeable, but detectable in the data.
I don’t think Sturgeon had anything to do with this, really, it’s a kind of devolution “bonus”. A similar effect can be detected in Wales, despite Welsh Labour’s obvious uselessness.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
Means not the end? Sabotaging the economy? Encouraging strikes?
What's not for a lefty to love? That's tickling their g-spot right there, if they were interested in the end and growing the economy they wouldn't be lefties.
The Little Englanders are in a panic, getting their panties in a bunch big time. Not used to a politician being honourable and having principles, too well used to the non-principalled , lying , crooks, grifters and ne'er do wells down south. Suck it up losers.
Feck me - you think Nicola "I don't recall" Sturgeon is honorable?
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
Which of Sturgeon’s achievements of substance would you like to highlight?
When did any politician in these islands last have an achievement?
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
Boris. Delivered Brexit
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
He did what Sturgeon and Salmond failed to do
The notion that Boris has some great claim on delivering Brexit is a bit silly. It was going to happen the moment Theresa did the Article 50 thing. Perhaps some counter-factual government might have legally revoked it later and kept us in the EU, but the chances of that ever happening were pretty fantastic. We'd have left the EU by now Boris or no Boris.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
SLab have far more socially liberal voters to gain from the SNP if the anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage Forbes becomes SNP leader than if a few socially conservative Roman Catholics and Wee Frees and evangelicals still voting Scottish Labour switch to the SNP.
Most Church of Scotland and SEC members in Scotland vote Scottish Conservative now anyway
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
My hotel does the most sublime beef in black pepper sauce. Because they are using Kampot peppercorns, the best pepper in the world (from the Cambodian coast)
Price? £6
Also 200 Valium 10mg will cost you £14, JFYI
I was due a delivery of some kampot pepper today and the postie fecked off before I had a chance to get to the door. Must have given me a good 10 seconds before scarpering. If I get a 'you need to come to the depot' card tomorrow I'll be quite peeved.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
She’s a very interesting politician. The Indian childhood, the fluency in Gaelic. Even the religious background. It’s all pleasingly heterodox.
But I agree that she shouldn’t go for it right now, and won’t, if she is clever.
Her religion - inter alia - makes her highly family oriented and I imagine the idea of largely abandoning a newborn child - as that is what it would take to be a good First Minister - will be anathema to her. And rightly so
She will sensibly turn down the opportunity. She can’t get Indy now anyway. HMG is saying no and Starmer will say no as well, and will likely have a big majority to back him up
The SNP should regroup, think to the medium term, govern better, come back with fresh proposals under Forbes in say 2033-7. By then the generation argument will be exhausted and London will be forced to yield another vote if Scots demand
It seems the game has moved on since Congress told Australia they could fucking whistle for Virginias. Now the plan is evolved Astute with an American reactor and combat control system. It doesn't sound like a swift and cheap route to SSN ownership but it's probably the only feasible option at this point if they want to build most of it in Australia. I certainly won't live long enough to see how it all turns out.
Oh god, 'Aukus'. I well recall the damp eyes and chest puffs around that.
Many boxes of man sized tissues were worked through over that one, for sure.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
"NICOLA Sturgeon is prepared to take a second swing at resigning if this first attempt does not pan out, she has announced.
In the unlikely event that her countrymen do not allow her to step down, the Scottish first minister has confirmed she will ignore their opinion and plough on with a second resignation regardless."
My hotel does the most sublime beef in black pepper sauce. Because they are using Kampot peppercorns, the best pepper in the world (from the Cambodian coast)
Price? £6
Also 200 Valium 10mg will cost you £14, JFYI
I was due a delivery of some kampot pepper today and the postie fecked off before I had a chance to get to the door. Must have given me a good 10 seconds before scarpering. If I get a 'you need to come to the depot' card tomorrow I'll be quite peeved.
Once you’ve had kampot pepper there’s no going back to the ordinary stuff. It’s incroyable
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
Which of Sturgeon’s achievements of substance would you like to highlight?
When did any politician in these islands last have an achievement?
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
Boris. Delivered Brexit
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
He did what Sturgeon and Salmond failed to do
The notion that Boris has some great claim on delivering Brexit is a bit silly. It was going to happen the moment Theresa did the Article 50 thing. Perhaps some counter-factual government might have legally revoked it later and kept us in the EU, but the chances of that ever happening were pretty fantastic. We'd have left the EU by now Boris or no Boris.
Kate Forbes, a member of the evangelical, hardline anti homosexual marriage, anti gender fluidity marriage Free Church of Scotland is early favourite to succeed Sturgeon as leader of the SNP
Offtopic, can the church refuse to marry two people born the same sex, where one has a GRC, so they are officially opposite gender? In principle, they're not even allowed to ask about that, are they?
Although I think I had to produce a baptism certificate before I got married, to prove my Christian faith, which could be a stumbling block (no requirement, as far as I know, to produce an updated baptism certificate after a GRC)
As always it will depend which church, in which jurisdiction. Churches are not all the same. England and Scotland not all the same either. NB you do not have to be baptised to be married in CoE in England.
Indeed, as the established church anyone can be married or buried in their local Parish Church of England church.
You only need to be baptised or confirmed in or have regularly attended a Church of England church for 6 months to be married there if it is not your local Parish church
Some questions, not intended pedantically but for enlightenment:
case 1: your local parish church * this applies when it's local for at least one half of the couple, meaning at least one of them resides in the parish?
* the universal right that applies regardless of anybody's religious denomination (or absence thereof) - is this a right to be married in the church building, by a clergyman who acts as a state official and not in a religious capacity, or does it involve the right to take part in a religious ritual administered by clergy?
case 2: not your local parish church * is the interpretation of "regular attendance" left up to local clergy?
1. Yes only one half of the couple need to be born there or live there to be married in the local Parish Church. It gives a right to be married in the Church in a standard C of E wedding service (if you don't want that go to a Registry Office).
2. Yes as local clergy get the final say on whether you have attended church enough for your kids to go to the oversubscribed rated Outstanding nearest Church of England secondary school
It seems the game has moved on since Congress told Australia they could fucking whistle for Virginias. Now the plan is evolved Astute with an American reactor and combat control system. It doesn't sound like a swift and cheap route to SSN ownership but it's probably the only feasible option at this point if they want to build most of it in Australia. I certainly won't live long enough to see how it all turns out.
Oh god, 'Aukus'. I well recall the damp eyes and chest puffs around that.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
The SNP wasn't going to hold on indefinitely to its share of the uneducated Roman Catholic working class vote in Glasgow. Which it never deserved to win in the first place, given how SNP Huns in places like Edinburgh but also in Glasgow itself really perceive those voters - as useful thicko subhumans, cackle cackle. And most of them when they stop voting for the SNP won't be voting for anyone else but Scottish Labour.
Visible Scottish Politics was, for a long time, Donald Dewar, Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon (with due deference to Jack McConnell whose only real impact was to preside over SLab's demise while Salmond and Sturgeon fought over the SNP).
That's a whole generation who have known nothing but the struggles between these people. It is no surprise that there is now a vacuum.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
I don't get the hate for Sturgeon from righties from England. I mean you don't live in Scotland for a start and her governance has fuck all effect on you, unlike the pricks you impose upon us. I can only assume it's a distraction from the burning dog shit bin that you've repeatedly voted into being.
It's because she led the SNP to success, of course that merits dislike from those who don't want that. Not everyone will go the grudging respect route.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
The SNP wasn't going to hold on indefinitely to its share of the uneducated Roman Catholic working class vote in Glasgow. Which it never deserved to win in the first place, given how SNP Huns in places like Edinburgh but also in Glasgow itself really perceive those voters - as useful thicko subhumans, cackle cackle. And most of them when they stop voting for the SNP won't be voting for anyone else but Scottish Labour.
My dad, who died last month, was a freelance camera man. He shot interviews with many celebrities—the Dalai Lama, Monica Lewinsky, Gorbachev, Ludacris, Jane Goodall, many more. Exactly one took the time to learn his name, strike up a yearslong relationship. Deeply appreciate this https://twitter.com/drewhinshaw/status/1625597862649143298
An example to follow on enhancing ones reputation post office?
So, what are the mechanics of an SNP leadership election? We haven’t had one in a while.
What’s the nomination criteria, and how does voting work? Is this written out in a constitution already, or does there need to be a meeting to decide the details once there’s been a formal resignation?
Are there any betting advantages to understanding this as quickly as possible, for example to lay Joanna Cherry who isn’t an MSP? Can the party leader and First Minister be different people?
Visible Scottish Politics was, for a long time, Donald Dewar, Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon (with due deference to Jack McConnell whose only real impact was to preside over SLab's demise while Salmond and Sturgeon fought over the SNP).
That's a whole generation who have known nothing but the struggles between these people. It is no surprise that there is now a vacuum.
Interesting you've forgotten the LDs so soon. Mr Wallace, too, should be added. But I suppose that reflects the situation now.
And I sometimes wonder how Wendy Alexander would have been as FM. Ironic that Mr Alexander D. is trying to get back up the ladder.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
The SNP wasn't going to hold on indefinitely to its share of the uneducated Roman Catholic working class vote in Glasgow. Which it never deserved to win in the first place, given how SNP Huns in places like Edinburgh but also in Glasgow itself really perceive those voters - as useful thicko subhumans, cackle cackle. And most of them when they stop voting for the SNP won't be voting for anyone else but Scottish Labour.
Your ChatGPT isn't working very well today.
(They should at least ask it to lay off the sectarian slurs in this place, perhaps.)
Visible Scottish Politics was, for a long time, Donald Dewar, Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon (with due deference to Jack McConnell whose only real impact was to preside over SLab's demise while Salmond and Sturgeon fought over the SNP).
That's a whole generation who have known nothing but the struggles between these people. It is no surprise that there is now a vacuum.
Interesting you've forgotten the LDs so soon. Mr Wallace, too, should be added. But I suppose that reflects the situation now.
And I sometimes wonder how Wendy Alexander would have been as FM. Ironic that Mr Alexander D. is trying to get back up the ladder.
I hadn't - and I should call out Mr Wallace as an important figure, especially after Donald Dewar's untimely death. But he was absolutely "the great deputy" rather than "the great leader".
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
So, what are the mechanics of an SNP leadership election? We haven’t had one in a while.
What’s the nomination criteria, and how does voting work? Is this written out in a constitution already, or does there need to be a meeting to decide the details once there’s been a formal resignation?
Are there any betting advantages to understanding this as quickly as possible, for example to lay Joanna Cherry who isn’t an MSP? Can the party leader and First Minister be different people?
Don't rule out Ms Cherry. AFAIK quite possible to be a MP and leader. Mr Salmond was as I recall.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
Not for Scottish Labour it won't be, they will look to tie Forbes closely to the Wee Frees to win over social liberals from the SNP
Slab have *huge* problems with religion, particularly RC vs Unionist Protestant. It's a minefield for them.
The SNP wasn't going to hold on indefinitely to its share of the uneducated Roman Catholic working class vote in Glasgow. Which it never deserved to win in the first place, given how SNP Huns in places like Edinburgh but also in Glasgow itself really perceive those voters - as useful thicko subhumans, cackle cackle. And most of them when they stop voting for the SNP won't be voting for anyone else but Scottish Labour.
Visible Scottish Politics was, for a long time, Donald Dewar, Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon (with due deference to Jack McConnell whose only real impact was to preside over SLab's demise while Salmond and Sturgeon fought over the SNP).
That's a whole generation who have known nothing but the struggles between these people. It is no surprise that there is now a vacuum.
Interesting you've forgotten the LDs so soon. Mr Wallace, too, should be added. But I suppose that reflects the situation now.
And I sometimes wonder how Wendy Alexander would have been as FM. Ironic that Mr Alexander D. is trying to get back up the ladder.
I hadn't - and I should call out Mr Wallace as an important figure, especially after Donald Dewar's untimely death. But he was absolutely "the great deputy" rather than "the great leader".
Indeed, and inevitable; he and Dewar gerrymandered the voting system precisely to lead to that setup.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
Means not the end? Sabotaging the economy? Encouraging strikes?
What's not for a lefty to love? That's tickling their g-spot right there, if they were interested in the end and growing the economy they wouldn't be lefties.
The Little Englanders are in a panic, getting their panties in a bunch big time. Not used to a politician being honourable and having principles, too well used to the non-principalled , lying , crooks, grifters and ne'er do wells down south. Suck it up losers.
Feck me - you think Nicola "I don't recall" Sturgeon is honorable?
Not while there are dogs in the street to your first part and NO I don't but a paragon of virtue in comparison to Westminster's Wormwood Scrubs mob.
Gordon Brown saved the world. Underrated PM, downhill since him and Blair.
We covered this yesterday. He was at fault for setting up the shoddy regulatory system that led to the UK crisis in the first place. And also overspent during the good times so that we got to brutal debt levels when we needed to spend in the bad.
So, what are the mechanics of an SNP leadership election? We haven’t had one in a while.
What’s the nomination criteria, and how does voting work? Is this written out in a constitution already, or does there need to be a meeting to decide the details once there’s been a formal resignation?
Are there any betting advantages to understanding this as quickly as possible, for example to lay Joanna Cherry who isn’t an MSP? Can the party leader and First Minister be different people?
Don't rule out Ms Cherry. AFAIK quite possible to be a MP and leader. Mr Salmond was as I recall.
So we could well see two different markets for two vacant positions.
From that piece, the nomination and election of the party leader is entirely a matter for the party membership, with no specific role for the MPs nor MSPs, either in nominating nor as a precondition for being nominated.
The FM position is elected by the Parliament, which will be presumably be the party leader if they sit there, else someone nominated by them.
Kate Forbes, a member of the evangelical, hardline anti homosexual marriage, anti gender fluidity marriage Free Church of Scotland is early favourite to succeed Sturgeon as leader of the SNP
Offtopic, can the church refuse to marry two people born the same sex, where one has a GRC, so they are officially opposite gender? In principle, they're not even allowed to ask about that, are they?
Although I think I had to produce a baptism certificate before I got married, to prove my Christian faith, which could be a stumbling block (no requirement, as far as I know, to produce an updated baptism certificate after a GRC)
As always it will depend which church, in which jurisdiction. Churches are not all the same. England and Scotland not all the same either. NB you do not have to be baptised to be married in CoE in England.
Indeed, as the established church anyone can be married or buried in their local Parish Church of England church.
You only need to be baptised or confirmed in or have regularly attended a Church of England church for 6 months to be married there if it is not your local Parish church
Some questions, not intended pedantically but for enlightenment:
case 1: your local parish church * this applies when it's local for at least one half of the couple, meaning at least one of them resides in the parish?
* the universal right that applies regardless of anybody's religious denomination (or absence thereof) - is this a right to be married in the church building, by a clergyman who acts as a state official and not in a religious capacity, or does it involve the right to take part in a religious ritual administered by clergy?
case 2: not your local parish church * is the interpretation of "regular attendance" left up to local clergy?
Case 1(a) Yes
Case 1(b) The right to be married in the parish church is the right to be married in totality (state and church requirements together) by an ordained minister of the Church of England licensed to do so, the ceremony containing both the civil legal steps and the authorised religious ceremonies of the Church of England.
Case 2 Yes. It would theoretically be open to legal challenge. No case law that I know of.
BTW There are a number of fairly new grounds for having the right to be married in particular parish church. These are called qualifying connections and are now commonly used. There are 37 pages of guidance here:
I rather fancy giving the celebrating unionists a blast with both barrels of the gun (non violently of course) by electing the 2 most charismatic elected SNP MPs and MSPs, Stephen Flynn as SNP leader, and Kate Forbes as First Minister.
You have a strange definition of charismatic.
Oh I don't think so. Who would you think of as charismatic among the SNP MSPs and MPs. I expect the answer is nobody (as you oppose the SNP and independence) and so have little to contribute to the debate.
So, you’re saying that if Person A opposes a proposition put forward by Person B then Person A has little to contribute to a debate over the proposition?
I’m not quite sure I follow that.
He’s just a cheap version of Stuart Dickson.
Only Nats know Scotland.
I think you have both proven that you have nothing useful to contribute to the debate. No actual reply from "Eagles", as I predicted, and a failed attempt at personal abuse from Doug. Better a cheap version version of the redoubtable Stuart Dickson than an costly version of yourself.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
It seems the game has moved on since Congress told Australia they could fucking whistle for Virginias. Now the plan is evolved Astute with an American reactor and combat control system. It doesn't sound like a swift and cheap route to SSN ownership but it's probably the only feasible option at this point if they want to build most of it in Australia. I certainly won't live long enough to see how it all turns out.
Oh god, 'Aukus'. I well recall the damp eyes and chest puffs around that.
Many boxes of man sized tissues were worked through over that one, for sure.
You can always tell when people don't have any good points of argument on a topic because they have to make entirely substance-free attacks like these last two.
So, what are the mechanics of an SNP leadership election? We haven’t had one in a while.
What’s the nomination criteria, and how does voting work? Is this written out in a constitution already, or does there need to be a meeting to decide the details once there’s been a formal resignation?
Are there any betting advantages to understanding this as quickly as possible, for example to lay Joanna Cherry who isn’t an MSP? Can the party leader and First Minister be different people?
Don't rule out Ms Cherry. AFAIK quite possible to be a MP and leader. Mr Salmond was as I recall.
So we could well see two different markets for two vacant positions.
From that piece, the nomination and election of the party leader is entirely a matter for the party membership, with no specific role for the MPs nor MSPs, either in nominating nor as a precondition for being nominated.
The FM position is elected by the Parliament, which will be presumably be the party leader if they sit there, else someone nominated by them.
The first point seems to be correct but I am not 100% sure the copy of the constitutioon I am looking at is bang up to date.
Quite so re the latter, as I was saying earlier. In practice it is trickier as usually all parties are minorities. FM and Party Leader are much more decoupled than at Westminster, also because the PL could be at Westminster or indeed nowhere, so to speak.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
Incidentally ways to be completely wrong footed number 174b - be talking about our democratic system as a guest lecturer at a uni. Say the great thing about democracy is that we get rid of leaders who fail, like Truss, while leaders who are successful and popular, like Sturgeon, are kept.
Have somebody stick their hand up and say, 'Sturgeon's just resigned...'
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
Incidentally ways to be completely wrong footed number 174b - be talking about our democratic system as a guest lecturer at a uni. Say the great thing about democracy is that we get rid of leaders who fail, like Truss, while leaders who are successful and popular, like Sturgeon, are kept.
Have somebody stick their hand up and say, 'Sturgeon's just resigned...'
Incidentally ways to be completely wrong footed number 174b - be talking about our democratic system as a guest lecturer at a uni. Say the great thing about democracy is that we get rid of leaders who fail, like Truss, while leaders who are successful and popular, like Sturgeon, are kept.
Have somebody stick their hand up and say, 'Sturgeon's just resigned...'
That's what students are for.
And that's why we love 'em (and not in a creepy Chris Woodhead way).
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
I note that Ruth Davidson, the wildly overhyped one time leader of the Scottish Conservatives, was 32 when she became leader of the party. A significant number of people touted her as a soon-to-be Tory UK leader (have to say she would have been better than Truss). I am sure many would claim that is a more powerful position than FM of Scotland, so if Kate Forbes does not yet wish to be leader, she could set herself up as running mate for Angus Robertson with the understanding that she would be in a strong position to succeed him, just like Salmond and Sturgeon. .
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Hello, Malky. Looks as if it's been dreich over your way - not so much in the rain shadow over here ...
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
I think it's going to have to be Robertson. Flynn and Cherry are in Westminster (and Cherry is as likely to get it as I am anyway). Forbes is far too young, and I don't just say that because she's younger than I am. Swinney would make Gavin Williamson look talented. Humza Yusuf is like Rees-Mogg without the occasional charm.
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
Hague is a good analogy, went too early and missed his chance. It’s also way easier to be young and inexperienced when in Opposition, than when in Government.
Add to that the young family (she had her first baby six months ago!), and it’s probably best for her to sit out this time.
I note that Ruth Davidson, the wildly overhyped one time leader of the Scottish Conservatives, was 32 when she became leader of the party. A significant number of people touted her as a soon-to-be Tory UK leader (have to say she would have been better than Truss). I am sure many would claim that is a more powerful position than FM of Scotland, so if Kate Forbes does not yet wish to be leader, she could set herself up as running mate for Angus Robertson with the understanding that she would be in a strong position to succeed him, just like Salmond and Sturgeon. .
Anyone would have been better than Truss.
I think your idea of her being No. 2 de jure or de facto to Robertson has mileage though.
I note that Ruth Davidson, the wildly overhyped one time leader of the Scottish Conservatives, was 32 when she became leader of the party. A significant number of people touted her as a soon-to-be Tory UK leader (have to say she would have been better than Truss). I am sure many would claim that is a more powerful position than FM of Scotland, so if Kate Forbes does not yet wish to be leader, she could set herself up as running mate for Angus Robertson with the understanding that she would be in a strong position to succeed him, just like Salmond and Sturgeon. .
Curious that the PBTories are dissing Ms Forbes but spent years telling us that Ms D (complete, latterly, with child) was ...
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
I think it's going to have to be Robertson. Flynn and Cherry are in Westminster (and Cherry is as likely to get it as I am anyway). Forbes is far too young, and I don't just say that because she's younger than I am. Swinney would make Gavin Williamson look talented. Humza Yusuf is like Rees-Mogg without the occasional charm.
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
Doesn't work, re l ast point. You're thinking Westminster. Holyrood appoints the FM, not some Stuart descendant. SNP don't nominate, Labour or SG or whoever will do it instead.
I rather fancy giving the celebrating unionists a blast with both barrels of the gun (non violently of course) by electing the 2 most charismatic elected SNP MPs and MSPs, Stephen Flynn as SNP leader, and Kate Forbes as First Minister.
You have a strange definition of charismatic.
Oh I don't think so. Who would you think of as charismatic among the SNP MSPs and MPs. I expect the answer is nobody (as you oppose the SNP and independence) and so have little to contribute to the debate.
So, you’re saying that if Person A opposes a proposition put forward by Person B then Person A has little to contribute to a debate over the proposition?
I’m not quite sure I follow that.
He’s just a cheap version of Stuart Dickson.
Only Nats know Scotland.
I think you have both proven that you have nothing useful to contribute to the debate. No actual reply from "Eagles", as I predicted, and a failed attempt at personal abuse from Doug. Better a cheap version version of the redoubtable Stuart Dickson than an costly version of yourself.
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
I think it's going to have to be Robertson. Flynn and Cherry are in Westminster (and Cherry is as likely to get it as I am anyway). Forbes is far too young, and I don't just say that because she's younger than I am. Swinney would make Gavin Williamson look talented. Humza Yusuf is like Rees-Mogg without the occasional charm.
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
Next funky constitutional betting question - if the new party leader is not currently an MSP, could a by-election be technically engineered by a random MSP resignation, and the FM position kept open long enough….?
Comments
Possibly Gordon Brown saving the economic system, but he doesn't get a lot of love on these pages, if that was indeed an achievement.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/
Whether you like it or not he changed the course of the UK, Europe and probably the world, and he did it twice over: by winning the referendum and then by winning the big majority which pushed Brexit over the line against the mad Remoaners
He did what Sturgeon and Salmond failed to do
case 1: your local parish church
* this applies when it's local for at least one half of the couple, meaning at least one of them resides in the parish?
* the universal right that applies regardless of anybody's religious denomination (or absence thereof) - is this a right to be married in the church building, by a clergyman who acts as a state official and not in a religious capacity, or does it involve the right to take part in a religious ritual administered by clergy?
case 2: not your local parish church
* is the interpretation of "regular attendance" left up to local clergy?
Can you do better than that? At least Sturgeon hasn't been so damaging.
They’re checking in flights using paper, sounds like they have about as good a backup system as BA did a few years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/lufthansa-it-failure-leaves-thousands-of-passengers-stranded
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
The Indian childhood, the fluency in Gaelic. Even the religious background. It’s all pleasingly heterodox.
But I agree that she shouldn’t go for it right now, and won’t, if she is clever.
I am curious if there is a formal criteria to apply so that they can exclude such a person, but have wiggle room if desired
Also, much harder to get a majority in Holyrood anyway.
Slooooooow hand clap
Whether it's a good place in history remains to be seen. Pontius Pilate has gone down in history, for example.
Kate Forbes: 7%
John Swinney: 6%
Angus Robertson: 5%
Stephen Flynn: 3%
Mhari McAllen: 3%
Keith Brown: 2%
Neil Gray: 1%
Other: 4%
Don’t Know: 69%
Via @PanelbaseMD, On 6-10 February.
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1625804437104087042?s=20
I don’t think Sturgeon had anything to do with this, really, it’s a kind of devolution “bonus”. A similar effect can be detected in Wales, despite Welsh Labour’s obvious uselessness.
Most Church of Scotland and SEC members in Scotland vote Scottish Conservative now anyway
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-used-and-discarded/
She will sensibly turn down the opportunity. She can’t get Indy now anyway. HMG is saying no and Starmer will say no as well, and will likely have a big majority to back him up
The SNP should regroup, think to the medium term, govern better, come back with fresh proposals under Forbes in say 2033-7. By then the generation argument will be exhausted and London will be forced to yield another vote if Scots demand
You can argue for the influence of Farage, Gove, Corbyn, and even Cameron. But it’s unthinkable without Boris.
That Brexit is a total clusterfuck is totally unsurprising, it’s inherent in any Boris project, and this was his biggest.
"NICOLA Sturgeon is prepared to take a second swing at resigning if this first attempt does not pan out, she has announced.
In the unlikely event that her countrymen do not allow her to step down, the Scottish first minister has confirmed she will ignore their opinion and plough on with a second resignation regardless."
2. Yes as local clergy get the final say on whether you have attended church enough for your kids to go to the oversubscribed rated Outstanding nearest Church of England secondary school
There’s no obvious successor to the Scottish first minister — but plenty of contenders and pretenders
https://www.politico.eu/article/nicola-sturgeon-kate-forbes-angus-robertson-runners-and-riders-to-replace-scotlands-leader/
That's a whole generation who have known nothing but the struggles between these people. It is no surprise that there is now a vacuum.
What’s the nomination criteria, and how does voting work? Is this written out in a constitution already, or does there need to be a meeting to decide the details once there’s been a formal resignation?
Are there any betting advantages to understanding this as quickly as possible, for example to lay Joanna Cherry who isn’t an MSP? Can the party leader and First Minister be different people?
And I sometimes wonder how Wendy Alexander would have been as FM. Ironic that Mr Alexander D. is trying to get back up the ladder.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23323655.snp-leadership-election-works-nicola-sturgeon-resigns/
(but we will no doubt see more detailed reports)
https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
So we could well see two different markets for two vacant positions.
From that piece, the nomination and election of the party leader is entirely a matter for the party membership, with no specific role for the MPs nor MSPs, either in nominating nor as a precondition for being nominated.
The FM position is elected by the Parliament, which will be presumably be the party leader if they sit there, else someone nominated by them.
Yes
Case 1(b)
The right to be married in the parish church is the right to be married in totality (state and church requirements together) by an ordained minister of the Church of England licensed to do so, the ceremony containing both the civil legal steps and the authorised religious ceremonies of the Church of England.
Case 2
Yes. It would theoretically be open to legal challenge. No case law that I know of.
BTW There are a number of fairly new grounds for having the right to be married in particular parish church. These are called qualifying connections and are now commonly used. There are 37 pages of guidance here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/marriage measure 2008 guidance.pdf
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
Sarwar was on 36 and Salmond 15. Unlike most of the others very low levels of “don’t know”.
Quite so re the latter, as I was saying earlier. In practice it is trickier as usually all parties are minorities. FM and Party Leader are much more decoupled than at Westminster, also because the PL could be at Westminster or indeed nowhere, so to speak.
Has a certain ring to it...
Incidentally ways to be completely wrong footed number 174b - be talking about our democratic system as a guest lecturer at a uni. Say the great thing about democracy is that we get rid of leaders who fail, like Truss, while leaders who are successful and popular, like Sturgeon, are kept.
Have somebody stick their hand up and say, 'Sturgeon's just resigned...'
https://twitter.com/juan_cambeiro/status/1625854733255868418
(OK, slight exaggeration. 30% longer.)
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
Add to that the young family (she had her first baby six months ago!), and it’s probably best for her to sit out this time.
See also: Ron DeSantis, Kemi Badenoch, et al.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dileeplearning/status/1625641930267987968
I think your idea of her being No. 2 de jure or de facto to Robertson has mileage though.
Clearly you cannot read.