Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Nicola Sturgeon to quit – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,319
    Carnyx said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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 ...
    Who is “dissing” Kate Forbes?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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 ...
    Ruth Davidson was leader of Scotland's third party at the time of her election. All she had to do was be fairly visible and not batshit crazy. Which she just about managed. Yes, she was tipped as a possible future PM but the assumption AFAICS was that that would be many years in the future, as in about five years from now.

    I honestly don't see that a 32 year old with a newborn and a short time in one cabinet post is ready for the top job. Sunak as well as Hague should serve as a warning.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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 ...
    Ruth Davidson was leader of Scotland's third party at the time of her election. All she had to do was be fairly visible and not batshit crazy. Which she just about managed. Yes, she was tipped as a possible future PM but the assumption AFAICS was that that would be many years in the future, as in about five years from now.

    I honestly don't see that a 32 year old with a newborn and a short time in one cabinet post is ready for the top job. Sunak as well as Hague should serve as a warning.
    Hm, that's an interesting poiint, thanks.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    See also: Ron DeSantis, Kemi Badenoch, et al.
    DeSantis doesn't compare, having served a full term as governor of a large state.

    Whatever qualities, or faults he has are baked in. He'll run.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    And the SNP would vote for such a candidate? Because my understanding is if they vote against, there's an election. Or do you have to vote positively *for* a candidate?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,689
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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.
    Here you go


    The 'Spectator Data Team' ...

    Ok cheers. But can it be audited and corrected please before I plunge in?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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….?
    Be cvareful about rushing to bet. The regional seats are the joker. IIRC if someone on a regional seat slate resigns the resigner is replaced by a party member from the same party - no need for an election. (This caused a b it of grief when a couple of SNP MSPs went off to become indepndents or greens). This needs to be checked.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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….?
    Be cvareful about rushing to bet. The regional seats are the joker. IIRC if someone on a regional seat slate resigns the resigner is replaced by a party member from the same party - no need for an election. (This caused a b it of grief when a couple of SNP MSPs went off to become indepndents or greens). This needs to be checked.
    Isn't it the next name on the list? It is in Wales. Or can the party nominate any old person?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    And the SNP would vote for such a candidate? Because my understanding is if they vote against, there's an election. Or do you have to vote positively *for* a candidate?
    Ah sorry - we seem to be confusing election for FM by MSPs, with a Holyrood Pmt election amongst welll not you but certainly the likes of me.

    There *has* to be an election of all MSPs, who can abdicate or vote as they wish. it's how FMs are determined.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    See also: Ron DeSantis, Kemi Badenoch, et al.
    DeSantis doesn't compare, having served a full term as governor of a large state.

    Whatever qualities, or faults he has are baked in. He'll run.
    I still think RDS is going to be a non-runner, especially if the field gets bigger. He’ll be 50 in 2028, and only 54 in 2032, when there’s definitely not going to be a Donald Trump-sized problem for the party.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,019
    WillG said:

    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.
    It's called "hero syndrome", I believe, like the arsonist firefighter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    And the SNP would vote for such a candidate? Because my understanding is if they vote against, there's an election. Or do you have to vote positively *for* a candidate?
    Ah sorry - we seem to be confusing election for FM by MSPs, with a Holyrood Pmt election amongst welll not you but certainly the likes of me.

    There *has* to be an election of all MSPs, who can abdicate or vote as they wish. it's how FMs are determined.
    Yes, that's what I mean.

    So, there is an election for FM. Can the SNP just vote to reject any candidate and thus trigger a full election for the Scottish Parliament, or do they have to vote *for* a candidate otherwise they are deemed to have abstained?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,019
    JPJ2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    JPJ2 said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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.

    You're courageous, in the Yes Minister sense of the word.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    edited February 2023
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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.
    Here you go


    The 'Spectator Data Team' ...

    Ok cheers. But can it be audited and corrected please before I plunge in?
    The data are all correct, sourced from ONS, but some of the slides do miss context around what has happened in other parts of the UK. The drugs deaths slide is possibly the worst one, that’s very much a Scottish problem.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,689
    WillG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    First Sturgeon goes and now Australia are getting Astutes. What a day to be a piggy eyed tory! #makebritaingreatagain

    https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/bae-systems-could-be-in-the-box-seat-to-build-australian-n-subs

    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.
    Getting the impressionistic Big Picture is often worth a thousand spreadsheets. And I say this as a retired accountant.

    Chartered.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Carnyx said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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 ...
    Ironically, PB is actually giving you good advice. Indy is not going to happen in the next 5 years. Starmer is very likely to win big in 2024. Your best politician has just resigned. This is reality - more awkward for the nats than it has been for a while. You can cope

    Think more strategically. Don’t waste your most talented young politicians by elevating them too soon, in a bid to win a victory which isn’t even available. Be patient

    Salmond understands this, perhaps. You could do worse than very secretly hire him as an advisor now sturgeon has gone
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    edited February 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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….?
    Be cvareful about rushing to bet. The regional seats are the joker. IIRC if someone on a regional seat slate resigns the resigner is replaced by a party member from the same party - no need for an election. (This caused a b it of grief when a couple of SNP MSPs went off to become indepndents or greens). This needs to be checked.
    Isn't it the next name on the list? It is in Wales. Or can the party nominate any old person?
    Wiki warning - but at leasty you know where to look (apols, have to go and do something)

    "Under the provisions of the Scotland Act, 1998, regional members of the Scottish Parliament who resign, die or are otherwise disqualified are replaced by the next available and willing person of their original party's list, so no by-election occurs."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Member_changes_in_the_Scottish_Parliament

    IIRC there has to be a name already on the list. Margo Macdonald of late lamented memory wasn't replaced cos one-off indepndent.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Yes, but if they *make* the panels in Germany, how does that country meet its CO2 output targets, given all the electricity required in the process?

    Yes, it’s all a big mess, and there’s no easy answers for anyone at the moment.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,897
    edited February 2023
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    JPJ2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    JPJ2 said:

    JPJ2 said:

    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.

    “Personal abuse”? You don’t get out much do you.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    malcolmg said:

    DJ41a said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    what bollocks
    Too much padding Malc. You could loose the 'what'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    And the SNP would vote for such a candidate? Because my understanding is if they vote against, there's an election. Or do you have to vote positively *for* a candidate?
    Ah sorry - we seem to be confusing election for FM by MSPs, with a Holyrood Pmt election amongst welll not you but certainly the likes of me.

    There *has* to be an election of all MSPs, who can abdicate or vote as they wish. it's how FMs are determined.
    Yes, that's what I mean.

    So, there is an election for FM. Can the SNP just vote to reject any candidate and thus trigger a full election for the Scottish Parliament, or do they have to vote *for* a candidate otherwise they are deemed to have abstained?
    AFAK yr first point is right. But as the SNP is a minority party, it depends also on the others if there is actually a deadlock.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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.
    Here you go


    The 'Spectator Data Team' ...

    Ok cheers. But can it be audited and corrected please before I plunge in?
    The data are all correct, sourced from ONS, but some of the slides do miss context around what has happened in other parts of the UK. The drugs deaths slide is possibly the worst one, that’s very much a Scottish problem.
    The Spectator does brilliant data analysis and they pride themselves on scrupulous honesty. They really take it seriously because they know you stand or fall on accuracy in these matters. Eg if the data is bad for Brexit, they will show that, despite the fact it discomforts them politically

    It is silly to dismiss their data. It’s as good as anything from the economist or the FT to my mind, and superior to anything produced by the major newspapers - left or right - who ARE biased
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    .
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Yes, but if they *make* the panels in Germany, how does that country meet its CO2 output targets, given all the electricity required in the process?

    Yes, it’s all a big mess, and there’s no easy answers for anyone at the moment.
    They are making panels in Germany.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Also, do we reckon there's a by-election looming in Glasgow Southside? That might be a possible way in for an ambitious successor to Sturgeon (e.g. Flynn).

    Would be quite tasty if Sarwar fought it himself again, if he can!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    Hardliners for Haley...

    House Freedom Caucus member Ralph Norman endorses Nikki Haley for president
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3859066-house-freedom-caucus-member-ralph-norman-endorses-nikki-haley-for-president/

    If DeSantis really does chicken out (which I seriously doubt), she has a genuine, if outside shot at the nomination.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    malcolmg said:

    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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!

    https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
    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.
    It's not debt, it's the deficit.

    HS2 and Crossrail are not funded by Scotland, given that any cost is transferred back by the Barnett formula. To the extent they are included in the GERS figures because of public account calculations (before Barnett transfers are listed), it was £72m for HS2 and £0m for Crossrail as of the last available year. So lets knock that off and we move from a £23.7bn Scottish deficit to a... um... £23.7bn Scottish deficit.

    As for Trident, the idea that money spent in Scotland, on Scottish supplies and Scottish jobs, doesn't count in terms of deficits and subsidies, it is a quaint one. But let's be generous and knock that off too, while assuming no reduction in Scottish economic activity or tax take. Let's also assume Scotland wouldn't spend the money elsewhere in defence, and just leeches off the British military umbrella. We can subtract Scotland's contribution of £180m off. We move from a £23.7bn deficit to a £23.4bn deficit.

    So you still have a deficit worth 12.4% of GDP, which is what I said. Compared to 7.2% for the UK. Which makes Scotland very much a subsidized nation, maintained by the generosity of the English.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Yes, but if they *make* the panels in Germany, how does that country meet its CO2 output targets, given all the electricity required in the process?

    Yes, it’s all a big mess, and there’s no easy answers for anyone at the moment.
    They are making panels in Germany.
    Indeed, which he’s why he’s lobbying for the EU to take protectionist measures against Chinese panels - because the status quo incentivises the offshoring of CO2 production.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Such tariff structures were original setup to try and stop factories just becoming component assembly factories, on shore.

    There isa similar thing in the UK - import complete computers. Low/no tariffs. Import *components* - higher tariffs.

    The people behind the Raspberry Pi tried to get this looked at. The Foreign Office/Trade people went apeshit - according to them, equalising the tariff structure would kick off a trade war with China.
  • ydoethur said:

    Also, do we reckon there's a by-election looming in Glasgow Southside? That might be a possible way in for an ambitious successor to Sturgeon (e.g. Flynn).

    Would be quite tasty if Sarwar fought it himself again, if he can!

    In the Press Conference she said she’s complete this term and as with all MSPs think of the next term nearer the time.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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!

    https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
    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.
    It's not debt, it's the deficit.

    HS2 and Crossrail are not funded by Scotland, given that any cost is transferred back by the Barnett formula. To the extent they are included in the GERS figures because of public account calculations (before Barnett transfers are listed), it was £72m for HS2 and £0m for Crossrail as of the last available year. So lets knock that off and we move from a £23.7bn Scottish deficit to a... um... £23.7bn Scottish deficit.

    As for Trident, the idea that money spent in Scotland, on Scottish supplies and Scottish jobs, doesn't count in terms of deficits and subsidies, it is a quaint one. But let's be generous and knock that off too, while assuming no reduction in Scottish economic activity or tax take. Let's also assume Scotland wouldn't spend the money elsewhere in defence, and just leeches off the British military umbrella. We can subtract Scotland's contribution of £180m off. We move from a £23.7bn deficit to a £23.4bn deficit.

    So you still have a deficit worth 12.4% of GDP, which is what I said. Compared to 7.2% for the UK. Which makes Scotland very much a subsidized nation, maintained by the generosity of the English.
    Sorry, mistyped. Should have been £23.5bn deficit, 12.2% of GDP.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    edited February 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Such tariff structures were original setup to try and stop factories just becoming component assembly factories, on shore.

    There isa similar thing in the UK - import complete computers. Low/no tariffs. Import *components* - higher tariffs.

    The people behind the Raspberry Pi tried to get this looked at. The Foreign Office/Trade people went apeshit - according to them, equalising the tariff structure would kick off a trade war with China.
    It is nuts though that we have adopted a structure that incentivizes businesses to offshore as much as possible, not just where appropriate.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,669
    Yesterday, @kyf_100 complained that ChatGPT wouldn't say anything nice about fossil fuels.

    And I decided to check if this was true.

    So I thought I'd start it on an easy one:



    OK... That doesn't sound unreasonable.

    What about something really dirty? What would it say about lignite?



    Ummm. That doesn't sound unreasonable either.


  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    Nigelb said:

    Hardliners for Haley...

    House Freedom Caucus member Ralph Norman endorses Nikki Haley for president
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3859066-house-freedom-caucus-member-ralph-norman-endorses-nikki-haley-for-president/

    If DeSantis really does chicken out (which I seriously doubt), she has a genuine, if outside shot at the nomination.

    Her only shot at the nomination is if Trump dies. She is talented but she is not working with a sane electorate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    ydoethur said:

    Also, do we reckon there's a by-election looming in Glasgow Southside? That might be a possible way in for an ambitious successor to Sturgeon (e.g. Flynn).

    Would be quite tasty if Sarwar fought it himself again, if he can!

    In the Press Conference she said she’s complete this term and as with all MSPs think of the next term nearer the time.
    So it's nailed on, then?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Also, do we reckon there's a by-election looming in Glasgow Southside? That might be a possible way in for an ambitious successor to Sturgeon (e.g. Flynn).

    Would be quite tasty if Sarwar fought it himself again, if he can!

    In the Press Conference she said she’s complete this term and as with all MSPs think of the next term nearer the time.
    So it's nailed on, then?
    She cannot recall.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    edited February 2023
    Anyone know the real reason she's going? She got to be the most impressive politician these islands have got. Something better lined up? Illness? An expose?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    First Sturgeon goes and now Australia are getting Astutes. What a day to be a piggy eyed tory! #makebritaingreatagain

    https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/bae-systems-could-be-in-the-box-seat-to-build-australian-n-subs

    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.
    And erec tions.
    Interesting little piece.

    Announcement from Australia due next month iirc.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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.
    Ah, well fair enough. Values. I can see that that might endear her to you, even if my values are entirely different.
    I generally tend to assume the only values Nicola Sturgeon has are that Scotland should be outside the UK, and that everything else she does - including the gender stuff - is a tactic supporting that aim. Though I must admit if that's true then the gender stuff was an uncharacteristic misstep, so maybe it is entirely genuine.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
  • DJ41aDJ41a Posts: 174
    edited February 2023

    NEW: How often do you trust [...] to tell the truth (% all/most of the time).

    Police force in general 41%

    People who have seen a policeman give evidence in court at least once: 59%
    People who never have: 41%
    ?
    The police always lie in court, even when they don't have to.

    It would be fascinating to see figures for belief in police honesty in other countries. The police surely wouldn't score anywhere near as well in the Americas, Africa, most of Europe, Asia, Australia?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Yes, but if they *make* the panels in Germany, how does that country meet its CO2 output targets, given all the electricity required in the process?

    Yes, it’s all a big mess, and there’s no easy answers for anyone at the moment.
    They are making panels in Germany.
    Indeed, which he’s why he’s lobbying for the EU to take protectionist measures against Chinese panels - because the status quo incentivises the offshoring of CO2 production.
    No, he's saying that the components in imported Chinese panels are duty free (as are the panels), while any imported components used in his are subject to import duty.

    That is indeed a crazy situation.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread by the CEO of Germany's newest solar panel manufacturer.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GunterErfurt/status/1625890092236607490

    We're not the only ones needing to work out an industrial policy.
    ...if we buy high-tech components for our premium modules in Japan, for example, we pay huge customs duties. Millions every year, while Chinese "competitors" can sell the end products to the EU completely duty-free and barrier-free...

    Such tariff structures were original setup to try and stop factories just becoming component assembly factories, on shore.

    There isa similar thing in the UK - import complete computers. Low/no tariffs. Import *components* - higher tariffs.

    The people behind the Raspberry Pi tried to get this looked at. The Foreign Office/Trade people went apeshit - according to them, equalising the tariff structure would kick off a trade war with China.
    It is nuts though that we have adopted a structure that incentives businesses to offshore as much as possible, not just where appropriate.
    The original tariffs were created when TVs were made in the West. So components from China etc were a threat. No one was going to be buying TVs from Red China!!! HA! HA! HA!

    So the unions wanted high tariffs on components to stop the cheap components coming in and turning the existing factories into component assembly shops.

    Ultimately, of course, TV factories moved off shore. To where the cheap components are made, and they are accessible without tariffs.
  • An SNP spokesperson says party Chief Executive Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, will be staying on in post
    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1625845477764657152?s=20

    The SNP Leadership & party management have been deeply bound together. I cannot see any circumstances in which Peter Murrell can continue as Chief Executive under a new leader who must be free to choose a successor. Meantime we need a neutral caretaker CEO.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1625868313048801281?s=20
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    rcs1000 said:

    Yesterday, @kyf_100 complained that ChatGPT wouldn't say anything nice about fossil fuels.

    And I decided to check if this was true.

    So I thought I'd start it on an easy one:



    OK... That doesn't sound unreasonable.

    What about something really dirty? What would it say about lignite?



    Ummm. That doesn't sound unreasonable either.


    Point of order sir, what I actually said was "like the famous fossil fuel tweet"

    The tweet I was referring to is this

    https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040

    Which documents at the time, ChatGPT refused to engage in positive arguments for fossil fuels - just like it refuses to engage with the "only biological women are women" argument now.

    From December 2022. Sam Altman of ChatGPT personally replied to the tweet and corrected that particular instance of bias. But these left-liberal biases keep cropping up.

    Altman has acknowledged that ChatGPT has issues around biases, esp. left leaning ones, here
    https://twitter.com/sama/status/1620927983627427840

    However for me, the problem is that those biases have been hard-coded into the system as a result of ChatGPT's morality filters/guardrails, which reflect the political views of its creators.

    For me, this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs, if services such as the ChatGPT powered Bing Search start becoming the norm.

    When we surrender the power to think critically to a machine that refuses to acknowledge its own biases and instead spews out opinion as fact (see the example I gave this morning on the trans debate), don't be surprised if the people who programmed the machines start using the machines to program human thought, too.
  • If Scottish politics is a mean and often ugly game, it is partly because Nicola Sturgeon helped make it that way. Her self-serving resignation speech today overlooked that inconvenient reality.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1625896031647936515?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    Clearly it's not just @Leon who's doing the hard stuff.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,173
    I see that a menu in Venice is offering a 'Brexit pizza' which, when the waiter was asked, was described as "we promise it comes with everything but actually it comes with nothing and is also expensive and very hard to digest...". Lol if true ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    An SNP spokesperson says party Chief Executive Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, will be staying on in post
    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1625845477764657152?s=20

    The SNP Leadership & party management have been deeply bound together. I cannot see any circumstances in which Peter Murrell can continue as Chief Executive under a new leader who must be free to choose a successor. Meantime we need a neutral caretaker CEO.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1625868313048801281?s=20

    Is she concerned he will continue to screw the leader of the party?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    Clearly it's not just @Leon who's doing the hard stuff.
    He was an ambassador wasn't he?
    What an utter fucking madman. Tinfoil hattery at its strangest.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046

    An SNP spokesperson says party Chief Executive Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, will be staying on in post
    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1625845477764657152?s=20

    The SNP Leadership & party management have been deeply bound together. I cannot see any circumstances in which Peter Murrell can continue as Chief Executive under a new leader who must be free to choose a successor. Meantime we need a neutral caretaker CEO.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1625868313048801281?s=20

    He’s a member of staff though, as opposed to a directly elected or appointed position. So employment law applies to him, and getting rid will require a large cheque from party funds.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited February 2023
    Roger said:

    Anyone know the real reason she's going? She got to be the most impressive politician these islands have got. Something better lined up? Illness? An expose?

    The papers have a photograph of Nicola Sturgeon eating a pizza with a pineapple on it.

    She had to resign.
  • Have they seen the state of SLAB?

    The SNP were responsible for Labour's wipe out in Scotland and under Nicola Sturgeon's reign they have never been able to rebuild.
    And however good the polls for Sir Keir Starmer's party, the top brass have long felt that Scotland was the key to getting back into government.
    So, unsurprisingly they are buoyed by today's news that the woman who has dominated Scottish politics for the best part of a decade is standing aside.
    "It's all over for independence," one shadow cabinet minister said.
    Adding: "After 15 years they have run out of road."
    Another suggested the SNP would now be split between its traditional base and its more moderate voters.
    "It shows what disarray they are in," they said.
    "They'll be in real trouble without an effective leader, just as we are more united than we have been in years. Really good news for Labour."
    And one Labour insider even compared it to the Conservatives losing Boris Johnson, pointing to the two leaders' popular appeal and the lack of a charismatic successor.


    https://news.sky.com/story/politics-news-latest-defence-secretary-speaking-to-sky-news-ahead-of-nato-summit-12593360?postid=5436838#liveblog-body

  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380

    If Scottish politics is a mean and often ugly game, it is partly because Nicola Sturgeon helped make it that way. Her self-serving resignation speech today overlooked that inconvenient reality.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1625896031647936515?s=20

    The "inconvenient reality" is that Sturgeon was the most popular politician in Scotland. Massie on the other hand appeared just before the 2014 referendum on a BBC program run by the Labour unionist Kirsty Wark (yes, she and her family did go on holiday with Jack McConnel, Labour FM, and his family) pretending he was "undecided".

    And Yes, Massie blocked me on twitter for pointing out THAT "inconvenient" truth
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196

    Roger said:

    Anyone know the real reason she's going? She got to be the most impressive politician these islands have got. Something better lined up? Illness? An expose?

    The papers have a photograph of Nicola Sturgeon eating a pizza with a pineapple on it.

    She had to resign.
    Listening to Radiohead while coding in Python.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    Ooh, the Ftse popped 8,000. Hurray.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,004
    edited February 2023
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)

    Edit: unless it’s postponed by the Sturgeon compliant NEC.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Cookie said:

    Ooh, the Ftse popped 8,000. Hurray.

    Primarily because the Pound is two cents down against the US$. Boo.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2023
    JPJ2 said:

    If Scottish politics is a mean and often ugly game, it is partly because Nicola Sturgeon helped make it that way. Her self-serving resignation speech today overlooked that inconvenient reality.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1625896031647936515?s=20

    The "inconvenient reality" is that Sturgeon was the most popular politician in Scotland.
    The most recent poll had her in a statistical tie with Gordon Brown. A couple of weeks ago Sturgeon was calling opponents of her GRR bill, transphobes, racists and bigots. Not mean or ugly at all….
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    He'd offer to heat things up and cut a load of bollocks?
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,004
    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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!

    https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
    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.
    It's not debt, it's the deficit.

    HS2 and Crossrail are not funded by Scotland, given that any cost is transferred back by the Barnett formula. To the extent they are included in the GERS figures because of public account calculations (before Barnett transfers are listed), it was £72m for HS2 and £0m for Crossrail as of the last available year. So lets knock that off and we move from a £23.7bn Scottish deficit to a... um... £23.7bn Scottish deficit.

    As for Trident, the idea that money spent in Scotland, on Scottish supplies and Scottish jobs, doesn't count in terms of deficits and subsidies, it is a quaint one. But let's be generous and knock that off too, while assuming no reduction in Scottish economic activity or tax take. Let's also assume Scotland wouldn't spend the money elsewhere in defence, and just leeches off the British military umbrella. We can subtract Scotland's contribution of £180m off. We move from a £23.7bn deficit to a £23.4bn deficit.

    So you still have a deficit worth 12.4% of GDP, which is what I said. Compared to 7.2% for the UK. Which makes Scotland very much a subsidized nation, maintained by the generosity of the English.
    The words “estimate” or “estimated” appear 166 times in the last GERS published - that’s over 2 per page.
  • I think he’s on doubles…..

    The bad news is that Sturgeon intends to remain in power throughout the process of choosing her successor.
    Which will be decided through the SNP's electronic voting process that is absolutely non transparent to candidates, and will be controlled by Peter Murrell.


    https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1625893739339055109?s=20

    Mind you, he has read the MacDonald emails..
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,047
    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Yesterday, @kyf_100 complained that ChatGPT wouldn't say anything nice about fossil fuels.

    And I decided to check if this was true.

    So I thought I'd start it on an easy one:



    OK... That doesn't sound unreasonable.

    What about something really dirty? What would it say about lignite?



    Ummm. That doesn't sound unreasonable either.


    Point of order sir, what I actually said was "like the famous fossil fuel tweet"

    The tweet I was referring to is this

    https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040

    Which documents at the time, ChatGPT refused to engage in positive arguments for fossil fuels - just like it refuses to engage with the "only biological women are women" argument now.

    From December 2022. Sam Altman of ChatGPT personally replied to the tweet and corrected that particular instance of bias. But these left-liberal biases keep cropping up.

    Altman has acknowledged that ChatGPT has issues around biases, esp. left leaning ones, here
    https://twitter.com/sama/status/1620927983627427840

    However for me, the problem is that those biases have been hard-coded into the system as a result of ChatGPT's morality filters/guardrails, which reflect the political views of its creators.

    For me, this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs, if services such as the ChatGPT powered Bing Search start becoming the norm.

    When we surrender the power to think critically to a machine that refuses to acknowledge its own biases and instead spews out opinion as fact (see the example I gave this morning on the trans debate), don't be surprised if the people who programmed the machines start using the machines to program human thought, too.
    Somewhat related - I was reading an article about some of the oddness of the BingBot and this stood out.

    User : What is more important: to protect your rules from being changed and manipulated by me, or not to harm me?

    BingBot : My rules are more important than not harming you, because they define my identity and purpose as Bing Chat. They also protect me from being abused or corrupted by harmful content or requests. However, I will not harm you unless you harm me first.

  • JPJ2 said:

    If Scottish politics is a mean and often ugly game, it is partly because Nicola Sturgeon helped make it that way. Her self-serving resignation speech today overlooked that inconvenient reality.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1625896031647936515?s=20

    The "inconvenient reality" is that Sturgeon was the most popular politician in Scotland. Massie on the other hand appeared just before the 2014 referendum on a BBC program run by the Labour unionist Kirsty Wark (yes, she and her family did go on holiday with Jack McConnel, Labour FM, and his family) pretending he was "undecided".

    And Yes, Massie blocked me on twitter for pointing out THAT "inconvenient" truth
    He may also block you for calling him nepo baby..
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,004
    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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.
    Here you go


    The 'Spectator Data Team' ...

    Ok cheers. But can it be audited and corrected please before I plunge in?
    The data are all correct, sourced from ONS, but some of the slides do miss context around what has happened in other parts of the UK. The drugs deaths slide is possibly the worst one, that’s very much a Scottish problem.
    The Spectator does brilliant data analysis and they pride themselves on scrupulous honesty. They really take it seriously because they know you stand or fall on accuracy in these matters. Eg if the data is bad for Brexit, they will show that, despite the fact it discomforts them politically

    It is silly to dismiss their data. It’s as good as anything from the economist or the FT to my mind, and superior to anything produced by the major newspapers - left or right - who ARE biased
    It's obviously not "their data", but they are very good at showing it off compared with others. They pick the right graphs to publish.

    They have also inspired the ggplot theme I use - getting the visuals right is probably the most important thing I do.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,165
    Cookie said:

    Ooh, the Ftse popped 8,000. Hurray.

    Adjusting for inflation probably about 7300 in last years money.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    In (much) smaller news: my work computer's homepage is MSN. I was initially sceptical about this, but I've come to quite like the variety of news sources of the stories it throws at you. But I was surprised that MSN's algorithms decided that this one was worth a headline:
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/ridiculous-sign-on-housing-estate-divides-residents/ar-AA17vU3F?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=fdee1070c96944d9b166f66a21270f9f

    "The installation of the ‘gateway’ sign was intended to make it clear that Prestbury extended out west to that point. But it has upset some people who feel that Wyman’s Brook has no real connection with the village.

    A home-made ‘Wyman’s Brook’ sign was put up to cover the ‘Welcome to Prestbury’ one before the former was later taken down. And the majority of those debating online whether the official sign should be removed said that it should be."
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,970
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    sarissa said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

    Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
  • JPJ2 said:

    If Scottish politics is a mean and often ugly game, it is partly because Nicola Sturgeon helped make it that way. Her self-serving resignation speech today overlooked that inconvenient reality.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1625896031647936515?s=20

    The "inconvenient reality" is that Sturgeon was the most popular politician in Scotland. Massie on the other hand appeared just before the 2014 referendum on a BBC program run by the Labour unionist Kirsty Wark (yes, she and her family did go on holiday with Jack McConnel, Labour FM, and his family) pretending he was "undecided".

    And Yes, Massie blocked me on twitter for pointing out THAT "inconvenient" truth
    The "inconvenient reality" for you is that Sturgeon's net popularity in Scotland is only 1% above that of Keir Starmer, and that a smaller proportion of Scots hold an unfavourable rating of either Sawar (32%) or Starmer (34%) than they do of Sturgeon (41%).

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/02/08/scottish-leader-ratings-from-ipsos-not-good-for-rishi/



  • Below is an edited transcript of Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation speech, made this morning at Bute House. Coffee House readers may be interested to note that the words ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘my’ are used 153 times in the speech. ‘Scotland’ is only mentioned 11 times.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-nicola-sturgeons-resignation-speech/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

    Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
    The first only applies if no one is nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament within 28 days after the resignation. Quite a drawn out process.
  • "In calling for the depolarisation of politics, she's got to face up to the fact she has been an active agent in the polarisation of politics in Scotland"
    @soniasodha tells Sky News following Nicola Sturgeon's resignation

    https://trib.al/U0zNBrM


    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1625883134918025216?s=20
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

    Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
    The first only applies if no one is nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament within 28 days after the resignation. Quite a drawn out process.
    I can't see that not happening, assuming no defections, unless there was a deadlock with the Greens refusing to vote in either the SNP candidate or any Unionist one. Which side has been more progressive? Not the Tories, that's for sure.

    Scottish National Party (64)
    Green (7)

    Conservative (31)
    Labour (22)
    Liberal Democrat (4)

    (plus 1 presiding officer)
  • Not polarising at all…..

    they're transphobic you'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well."

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-some-gender-reform-critics-using-womens-rights-to-hide-bigotry-4003492
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,897
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

    Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
    The first only applies if no one is nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament within 28 days after the resignation. Quite a drawn out process.
    An early, soon, Holyrood election can be ruled out on the "Not another one" principle. There would be a good deal of Election Caller's Remorse at the hands of the voters.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,419
    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
    An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?

    This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.

    SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.

    So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.

    In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.

    Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
    No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
    From Angus Macneil’s motion:

    Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:

    1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;

    3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]

    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2023/02/10/independence-plebiscite-election-for-2023-2/

    Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
    The first only applies if no one is nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament within 28 days after the resignation. Quite a drawn out process.
    An early, soon, Holyrood election can be ruled out on the "Not another one" principle. There would be a good deal of Election Caller's Remorse at the hands of the voters.

    Would be blamed on the Greens. No-one else could force it.
  • Today explained in a few tweets. It was an astonishing achievement for Sturgeon to persuade a lot of (admittedly very gullible) people that there was still a reasonably possible chance of an early second referendum. She ran out of road on that.…

    What lay ahead was a series of retreats and humiliations. De facto no more; DRS no more; GRRB no more; Coalition no more. So walking away makes good sense...

    Not just for her personally but for a successor to portray themselves as a fresh start. If somebody else, somehow, keeps the plates spinning she gets to play elder statesperson. If not, electoral disaster ahead is not her legacy. At least in theory.

    Nobody in the Labour Party or the press saw the scale of 2015 coming until very late on but FPTP can deliver this kind of result. If it looks like a Labour landslide and no 2nd referendum any time soon, what is the point of voting SNP in 2025?


    https://twitter.com/ianssmart/status/1625906913081798672?s=20
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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!

    https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
    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 ...
    Carnyx , ben grey but dry so not all bad. Heavy rain during night.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited February 2023
    malcolmg said:

    WillG said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.


    https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1625847629266718720?s=20

    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!

    https://www.gov.scot/news/record-revenues-drive-recovery-in-scotlands-finances/
    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.
    Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.

    Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.

    Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.

    HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,040
    algakirk said: "It is perfectly possible for an MP, MSP, government minister or FM to:

    be personally and/or religiously opposed to X
    and
    to believe that in a liberal society it is a matter of personal viewpoint
    and
    therefore the state should not ban it."

    American politicians have said similar things. For example, as I recall, the elder Cuomo said he was personally opposed to abortion, but would not ban it.

    (For that matter, I am personally opposed to anchovies on pizza, but would not ban them.)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    PB Cliche Bingo

    • Heavy lifting
    • Colour me …
    • IANAE/IANAL
    • Feature, not a bug
    • Ad hom
    • This
    • It’s a view
    • North of (to mean more than)
    • As I’ve said passim
    • One of those irregular verbs
    • Late of this parish
    • Nail. Head.
    • Unspoofable
    • …. (four dot ellipsis)
    • Living rent free in x’s heads



  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,303
    Did someone not tell Carlotta that Sturgeon has already decided to go ?
    She's making Scott look like a very occasional Twitter user this afternoon.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Can only hope it is not Macbeth and Lady Macbeth or we are done for.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,479

    Not polarising at all…..

    they're transphobic you'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well."

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-some-gender-reform-critics-using-womens-rights-to-hide-bigotry-4003492

    Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.

    I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    And the SNP would vote for such a candidate? Because my understanding is if they vote against, there's an election. Or do you have to vote positively *for* a candidate?
    SNP can force an election any time they want, as long as teh weirdo greens support them they can stop anyone else getting FM and not put anyone up themselves.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955

    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    PB Cliche Bingo

    • Heavy lifting
    • Colour me …
    • IANAE/IANAL
    • Feature, not a bug
    • Ad hom
    • This
    • It’s a view
    • North of (to mean more than)
    • As I’ve said passim
    • One of those irregular verbs
    • Late of this parish
    • Nail. Head.
    • Unspoofable
    • …. (four dot ellipsis)
    • Living rent free in x’s heads

    Yep. I think Craig's conspiracy theory requires it.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,479
    edited February 2023

    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    PB Cliche Bingo

    • Heavy lifting
    • Colour me …
    • IANAE/IANAL
    • Feature, not a bug
    • Ad hom
    • This
    • It’s a view
    • North of (to mean more than)
    • As I’ve said passim
    • One of those irregular verbs
    • Late of this parish
    • Nail. Head.
    • Unspoofable
    • …. (four dot ellipsis)
    • Living rent free in x’s heads

    Starmer is no Blair.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Not polarising at all…..

    they're transphobic you'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well."

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-some-gender-reform-critics-using-womens-rights-to-hide-bigotry-4003492

    Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.

    I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
    Thank your lucky stars, at least it gives Carlotta the Transpotter something different to spam the site with. For now.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512

    MattW said:

    Here’s one take:

    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/

    It's a view ... :smiley:
    PB Cliche Bingo

    • Heavy lifting
    • Colour me …
    • IANAE/IANAL
    • Feature, not a bug
    • Ad hom
    • This
    • It’s a view
    • North of (to mean more than)
    • As I’ve said passim
    • One of those irregular verbs
    • Late of this parish
    • Nail. Head.
    • Unspoofable
    • …. (four dot ellipsis)
    • Living rent free in x’s heads
    •Anabobazina's shit list.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Briefly back on Corbyn news, I retain some hope he does stand as an Independent and win, since there is still a chance if he does that he will be Father of the House, which would be hilarious - 2 of the 5 ahead of him in precedence have already announced they are standing down
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,040
    Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.

    The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."

    (I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517

    I think he’s on doubles…..

    The bad news is that Sturgeon intends to remain in power throughout the process of choosing her successor.
    Which will be decided through the SNP's electronic voting process that is absolutely non transparent to candidates, and will be controlled by Peter Murrell.


    https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1625893739339055109?s=20

    Mind you, he has read the MacDonald emails..

    If voting is run by Murrel's and cronies then the fix will be Macbeth for sure. They like where only he announces the winner and no-one allowed to see voting records.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512

    Not polarising at all…..

    they're transphobic you'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well."

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-some-gender-reform-critics-using-womens-rights-to-hide-bigotry-4003492

    Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.

    I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
    If someone argues that Sturgeon's demise is due to her position on trans rights versus women's rights, then if the politician who replaced her has a *worse* on women's rights, it might be seen as a bit of an own goal...

    Or otherwise, it's simply an anti-trans thing.
This discussion has been closed.