Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
Is “Brit Nat Unionist” for once was just “Unionist” in the Official ScotNat Style Guide now?
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
The opposite, she will split the Nationalists in 2 as Horse says.
She will leak social liberals and economic leftists like a sieve from the SNP to the Greens and Scottish Labour far more than the handful of social conservatives and Thatcherites she might win over from the Scottish Conservatives and Alba
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
How about GGGG.....Grandson because if so I qualify and not only qualify, but do so many, many, many times over (due to unaware (or maybe aware) incest between relatives who are so distantly related they are unaware they are related).
The thing is you do as well.
Tell you what, we can toss for it or share being king.
I know I am being silly and I know for the UK we have the Sophia of Hanover thing which stops me and I presume you as well, but it does mean we both have royal blood.
A quick bit of maths calculating how many GGGGG grandparents you have soon exceeds the population of the planet.
It’s quite amusing to read on some genealogical websites about people claiming descent from Alfred the great or similar. Adequate records, just don’t exist!
Royal family trees are well documented. It's likely everyone with some ethnically english heritage is descended from Alfred.
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
Is “Brit Nat Unionist” for once was just “Unionist” in the Official ScotNat Style Guide now?
It has become more common because it recognises that there are usually 2 strands to opposition to Scottish independence. One (the unionist bit) can often be characterised as regarding the Union as a powerful example of the successful sharing of power by Scotland and England. The other (the Brit Nat bit) relates to those who regard Britain, not Scotland, as their country.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
Oh, there will be a lot of Americans around the old man, probably two trains full of them, one in advance and then Train One, albeit with everyone acting unconventionally and invisibly compared the the usual protocol.
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
Oh, there will be a lot of Americans around the old man, probably two trains full of them, one in advance and then Train One, albeit with everyone acting unconventionally and invisibly compared the the usual protocol.
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
Or is this journalists just talking to themselves again?
Looks like it. Nothing new. It's all HYUFD style maybe and handwaving and possibly and if my granny were an orang-utan I'd be King sort of stuff. Headline as usual misleading - implies that Ms Slater and Mr Harvie have actually said publicly they will do it. Just sources and mebbes.
Or is this journalists just talking to themselves again?
Looks like it. Nothing new. It's all HYUFD style maybe and handwaving and possibly and if my granny were an orang-utan I'd be King sort of stuff. Headline as usual misleading - implies that Ms Slater and Mr Harvie have actually said publicly they will do it. Just sources and mebbes.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Or is this journalists just talking to themselves again?
Looks like it. Nothing new. It's all HYUFD style maybe and handwaving and possibly and if my granny were an orang-utan I'd be King sort of stuff. Headline as usual misleading - implies that Ms Slater and Mr Harvie have actually said publicly they will do it. Just sources and mebbes.
Are you King?
No, which is sort of the point.
Also re the switching - remmber that Slab already supported almost all of the GR programme of the SNP, so even less scope for differentiation there. Not sure how it could work out.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
Any chance she could head the UK Conservatives ? They could do with someone in charge who's an actual conservative.
She would probably fit in quite well on the nationalism side too...
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Boris never addressed an anti abortion rally like Forbes.
Boris we all know is basically Christian in name only and a social liberal, Forbes is a serious evangelical Christian and social conservative
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Boris never addressed an anti abortion rally like Forbes.
Boris we all know is basically Christian in name only and a social liberal, Forbes is a serious evangelical Christian and social conservative
Wasn't he accused of paying for at least one abortion after an over enthusiastic session of - ahem - horizontal jogging?
Or is this journalists just talking to themselves again?
Looks like it. Nothing new. It's all HYUFD style maybe and handwaving and possibly and if my granny were an orang-utan I'd be King sort of stuff. Headline as usual misleading - implies that Ms Slater and Mr Harvie have actually said publicly they will do it. Just sources and mebbes.
Forbes allies say as well as scrapping Sturgeon's gender reforms she would give the Greens an ultimatum to back her low tax, pro growth economic policies or leave her government
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
TBF, if her chief opponent is Yousaf, that's a damn low bar.
I think you're right though, if only because they don't know enough about her to gauge what she will be like and therefore they're nervous she might prove to be formidable.
Whilst on the face of it Sturgeons resignation seems a positive for Starmer and labour I think wise heads would suggest immediate responses to opinion polls are unwise, as a lot will depend on who the new first minister is and their policy offering
There is no doubt Sturgeon was a polarising politician, much like Johnson, but knowing the Scots I would expect that the likelihood of an early push for independence by the SNP is unlikely and the polling suggest that Sturgeon and her policies were popular though that does ask the question why when by any measure most of her policies have failed
I expect the SNP will remain a difficult opponent for other parties in Scotland and Westminster but we will see
However, my wife and I are very pleased that at present we do not face a passport check at Carlisle each time we go north to visit our family, though no doubt my wife would qualify for a Scottish passport as would our children and grandchildren
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Furin Cleavage Site?
Free Church of Scotland, the exact scope depending on date.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
Oh, there will be a lot of Americans around the old man, probably two trains full of them, one in advance and then Train One, albeit with everyone acting unconventionally and invisibly compared the the usual protocol.
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
Getting him back out by train could be the more difficult bit, as the whole world now knows there’s a VIP heading West from Kiev to Warsaw. Either a lot of airbourne and ground support for the train, and a decoy train that goes first, or they throw him in a helicopter for a tactical escape.
Going to be interesting on GRR, one in favour (Yousaf), one opposed (Regan) and one who previously asked for it to be paused (Forbes):
Humza there, as confused as Sturgeon was about the sex of a double rapist. Not quite sure what is “sensitive” about whether Adam Graham is a man or a woman. Adam Graham is male. Therein lies problem with GRR bill & SelfID. How do you tell who’s being deceitful? You can’t.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Furin Cleavage Site?
Free Church of Scotland, somewhat fiery sermons a bit like this
EU’s Maros Sefcovic to hold a phone call with UK’s James Cleverly and Chris Heaton-Harris later today on the Northern Ireland Protocol as both sides near a deal.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Yes, Horse raised a fair question but I can't see otherwise than what you say. The two axes of the Argand Diagram of Scots politics show a strong diagonal correlate in the scatter of party policies.
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
Oh, there will be a lot of Americans around the old man, probably two trains full of them, one in advance and then Train One, albeit with everyone acting unconventionally and invisibly compared the the usual protocol.
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
Getting him back out by train could be the more difficult bit, as the whole world now knows there’s a VIP heading West from Kiev to Warsaw. Either a lot of airbourne and ground support for the train, and a decoy train that goes first, or they throw him in a helicopter for a tactical escape.
I would expect that even in this day and age of hostility, the US probably informed Russia ahead of time and both sides will ensure there is no risk to the president. They are not in the habit of trying to assassinate each others’ heads of state.
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
DCB defected from the Tories to UKIP who he stood for in North Cornwall in 2005 and represented as an MEP before defecting back to the Conservatives in 2011
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
There is also direct evidence that such members are twats. Because they support Boris Johnson.
However - knowing what I do about Damian Green I wouldn't exactly call him a loss to Parliament.
There’s groups of members who are not happy about what happened with both Johnson and Truss, and that Sunak was installed by the MPs themselves against the wishes of the membership.
Just about the only lever of power they have within the party, is the selection of MP candidates, or more accurately the deselection of incumbents.
Late to the thread so apologies if these points may have been made before.
Firstly, FPTP gives the SNP massive and disproportionate wrecking influence in the UK constitution. It currently has 7.4% of the UK's parliamentary seats based on just 3.9% of the UK vote. It is far harder to form a majority UK govenrment in the circumstances, or even a coalition between Lab and the LDs.
Second, Starmer's response of writing off any prospect of coalition with the SNP is the right one. What the SNP needs to avoid is the prospect of bringing down a Labour-led government in a vote of confidence, because that would be a repeat of the situation in 1979 which harmed the SNP in the eyes of anti-Tory voters for a generation (yes, a proper generation). So Starmer shouldn't blink at any such threat by the SNP because Labour ought to look forward to gains in Scotland in any resultant general election.
Third, there is a tipping point below which the SNP's disproportionate seat share will rapidly wane, and currently it isn't far off that. If the SNP's lead over Labour reduces to below 10%, the loss of SNP seats is very rapid. The average of the last 3 Scottish polls is a 9% SNP lead.
Fourth, the assumption that a 10% lead will be enough to minimise SNP losses also owes a lot to Uniform National Swing. What if instead Labour's recovery in Scotland is greater in seats where it used to be very strong and is more competitive than in other seats? If it is, then Mike may be right in suggesting that the SNP's position could be built on sand.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
How about GGGG.....Grandson because if so I qualify and not only qualify, but do so many, many, many times over (due to unaware (or maybe aware) incest between relatives who are so distantly related they are unaware they are related).
The thing is you do as well.
Tell you what, we can toss for it or share being king.
I know I am being silly and I know for the UK we have the Sophia of Hanover thing which stops me and I presume you as well, but it does mean we both have royal blood.
A quick bit of maths calculating how many GGGGG grandparents you have soon exceeds the population of the planet.
It’s quite amusing to read on some genealogical websites about people claiming descent from Alfred the great or similar. Adequate records, just don’t exist!
As long as you assume that the royal line as established is true, then descent from Alfred is straightforward for lots of people.
There is a well established series of routes from Alfred to King Charles III; like all lines this is no better than both the basic evidence - who gave birth to whom; and also no better than the unknowable about who your father (and occasionally mother - ask James II) actually is as opposed to who he is supposed to be.
If you attach yourself reliably to anywhere down that line (and its infinite branches) you have as decent a claim to descent from Alfred as our beloved monarch.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
Oh, there will be a lot of Americans around the old man, probably two trains full of them, one in advance and then Train One, albeit with everyone acting unconventionally and invisibly compared the the usual protocol.
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
Getting him back out by train could be the more difficult bit, as the whole world now knows there’s a VIP heading West from Kiev to Warsaw. Either a lot of airbourne and ground support for the train, and a decoy train that goes first, or they throw him in a helicopter for a tactical escape.
I would expect that even in this day and age of hostility, the US probably informed Russia ahead of time and both sides will ensure there is no risk to the president. They are not in the habit of trying to assassinate each others’ heads of state.
Interesting question. We know there are ‘deconfliction’ phone lines between Washington and Moscow, which have been used at least once in this conflict, but they’re usually reserved specifically for nuclear weapons discussions.
The worry would be that the Russians aren’t totally in control of a rogue idiot on the ground in Ukraine, so those protecting the VIP have to assume that rebel fighters are everywhere. Derailing a train isn’t particularly difficult.
Talking of derailed trains, the rumour in the US is that Donald Trump is going to East Palestine, Ohio, today. This was the site of a train derailment, and subsequent chemical incident, a couple of weeks ago, and is Biden’s biggest domestic emergency at the moment.
On the subject of AI, I watched the Netflix TV drama YOU, season 1, this week. Heroine is a literature student tasked with writing stories, analyses of poems, etc. She has an essay crisis, at one point….
As I watched I thought: this entire culture is about to end. ChatGPT could write the essay in 1 minute, Bing will do a better short story
It really is all over. All of it. 5000 years of writing. Finis
So, I just discovered that Ash Regan is a woman. Keep that in mind when I pontificate on Scottish politics - I don't know anything.
Interesting that I assumed 'Ash' to be a man. I think I've only ever known Ashleys and not even many of them, although I was aware of the existence of Ashleighs, but not - until now - of Ashtens. Nice sound to the name though, 'Ashten'.
Also on topic: slightly startling to claim that the SNP have a powerful position at Westminster when virtually 99% of PB discourse, and of Unionist discourse, is to flatly deny the concept.
Edit: with some honourable exceptions.
And if they complain about that, what about the Unionist parties at Westminster more generally, and the disproportionate number of, say, Conservative MPs versus the vote?
The utility of a ‘very powerful position at Westminster’ seems somewhat elastic:
2010-2015, SNP 6 MPs, a referendum. 2015-present day, SNP anywhere between 36 to 56 MPs, fuck all influence over the pretendy devolution bill, Brexit, the accession of the FLSOJ, the ability to hold another referendum, etc etc.
People who fawn over the mother of parliaments of course think having MPs there is the be all and end all, but the lesson drawn by everyone else (not just in Scotland, looking at you red wallers) is that it doesn’t make the slightest difference.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Couple of points: -While many (if not most) SNP voters support independence as an 'end in itself', a reasonable chunk of their support see it as a 'means to an end' (i.e. because they believe Indy Scotland would have a bigger state and be more economically interventionist than the UK). I suspect many of these voters voted (or would have voted if they had been old enough) Labour at the 2010 GE election. -If Scottish Labour are indeed just above 30% right now (and the SNP just above 40%), then they only really need to win around 10% of the SNP vote to win a substantial number of seats in Scotland. Because the SLAB vote tends to be more concentrated in the central belt, it's technically possible for them to win more seats than the SNP at a GE even if they are a couple of points behind them.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.
Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.
The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
VI distribution varies, Westminster has higher turnout in Scotland than Holyrood, and the electorates are different - 16yos can vote in SGEs.
Polls are conducted in Scotland for both parliaments. SNP is trending downwards and Labour is trending upwards, but there's been no significant change since Sturgeon's resignation speech.
If pressed, I have some sympathy for Sunak. The DUP cannot accept any realistically negotiable outcome (because of losing votes to the TUV) & nor can some Tory MPs because they're purists or opportunists. He has to do a deal without them.
The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
Often useful to go to a politician's Twitter feed and see what topics they post, to find out what motivates them.
On this basis, Kate Forbes' big interests are the economy and social justice. So social democratic in international terms. She appears to have no interest whatever in cultural issues on either side of the divide.
A couple of curiosities. She's an ardent monarchist. Not typical of the SNP - eyerolls are the normal response to anything royal.
She is silent in her Twitter feed about independence. Obviously you don't get to a leadership position in the SNP without being a committed nationalist. Noteworthy nevertheless. Maybe she is of a post-referendum generation. It's nearly ten years ago now.
Would add, Forbes comes across as a safe pair of hands. I doubt Sturgeon would have any issues with her as her successor - but not in on the personality clashes in the SNP leadership that may be a factor.
Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.
Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.
The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
VI distribution certainly does vary. Westminster also has higher turnout in Scotland than Holyrood, and the electorates are different - 16yos can vote in SGEs.
Polls are conducted in Scotland for both parliaments. SNP is trending downwards and Labour is trending upwards, but there's been no significant change since Sturgeon's resignation speech.
Also different voting systems mean different responses - it's worth voting for the smaller parties such as the Greens, and even the LDs and RefUK, [edit] at Holyrood more than it is at Westminster.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Couple of points: -While many (if not most) SNP voters support independence as an 'end in itself', a reasonable chunk of their support see it as a 'means to an end' (i.e. because they believe Indy Scotland would have a bigger state and be more economically interventionist than the UK). I suspect many of these voters voted (or would have voted if they had been old enough) Labour at the 2010 GE election. -If Scottish Labour are indeed just above 30% right now (and the SNP just above 40%), then they only really need to win around 10% of the SNP vote to win a substantial number of seats in Scotland. Because the SLAB vote tends to be more concentrated in the central belt, it's technically possible for them to win more seats than the SNP at a GE even if they are a couple of points behind them.
I was going to reply saying that may be true, but the past 12 years plus, partiuclarly, Brexit have demonstrated that, without the means, Scotland's desired ends can be elusive. But also to say that opinion might soften over time, after election of a government more aligned with Scottish opinion.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
Scotland is, of course, to the left of England (and also up a bit). Just look at any map.
(I was initially disbelieving, as a kid, when my dad told me that Edinburgh is further west than Bristol)
Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.
Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.
The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
VI distribution varies, Westminster has higher turnout in Scotland than Holyrood, and the electorates are different - 16yos can vote in SGEs.
Polls are conducted in Scotland for both parliaments. SNP is trending downwards and Labour is trending upwards, but there's been no significant change since Sturgeon's resignation speech.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
The Tories should be grateful. It was the SNP that put Thatcher in office.
Anyone who thinks Scotland is to the left of England should visit Scotland and educate themselves. They could start by comparing the two capital cities.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Couple of points: -While many (if not most) SNP voters support independence as an 'end in itself', a reasonable chunk of their support see it as a 'means to an end' (i.e. because they believe Indy Scotland would have a bigger state and be more economically interventionist than the UK). I suspect many of these voters voted (or would have voted if they had been old enough) Labour at the 2010 GE election. -If Scottish Labour are indeed just above 30% right now (and the SNP just above 40%), then they only really need to win around 10% of the SNP vote to win a substantial number of seats in Scotland. Because the SLAB vote tends to be more concentrated in the central belt, it's technically possible for them to win more seats than the SNP at a GE even if they are a couple of points behind them.
I was going to reply saying that may be true, but the past 12 years plus, partiuclarly, Brexit have demonstrated that, without the means, Scotland's desired ends can be elusive. But also to say that opinion might soften over time, after election of a government more aligned with Scottish opinion.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
The Tories should be grateful. It was the SNP that put Thatcher in office.
Anyone who thinks Scotland is to the left of England should visit Scotland and educate themselves.
You shouldnn't be;lieve that old canard about the Tories. It was Labour who put Mrs T in office, by being crap, as I well remember. And as Jim Callaghan himself said.
The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
Often useful to go to a politician's Twitter feed and see what topics they post, to find out what motivates them.
On this basis, Kate Forbes' big interests are the economy and social justice. So social democratic in international terms. She appears to have no interest whatever in cultural issues on either side of the divide.
A couple of curiosities. She's an ardent monarchist. Not typical of the SNP - eyerolls are the normal response to anything royal.
She is silent in her Twitter feed about independence. Obviously you don't get to a leadership position in the SNP without being a committed nationalist. Noteworthy nevertheless. Maybe she is of a post-referendum generation. It's nearly ten years ago now.
Would add, Forbes comes across as a safe pair of hands. I doubt Sturgeon would have any issues with her as her successor - but not in on the personality clashes in the SNP leadership that may be a factor.
Forbes backs tax cuts and spending controls, she is not a social democrat as Sturgeon was and Yousef is.
Agree with Leon, she is basically a tartan Thatcher or Truss (except more pro monarchy and socially conservative than Liz was)
Leader ratings currently suggest Lab lead of 3-6 points at a general election, altho Sunak’s rating prob still has a way to fall
It’s a very good thread and worth paying attention. The local election results being pretty compelling.
He seem to have forgotten about the net *swing* in leader ratings v. net *swing* in votes in which 1997 is *not* an outlier. This LSE blog is really good.
(ETA: Starmer has a roughly 40 point swing over Corbyn)
(ETA2: And this is the most important conclusion, I think:
"However, if we were to use this model for predictive purposes, such an analysis would lead to conclusions that are overly pessimistic for the main three parties, and particularly for the Labour Party.")
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
Biggest issue would be the Greens. If they withdraw support, could we be in for an early election?
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
The Tories should be grateful. It was the SNP that put Thatcher in office.
Anyone who thinks Scotland is to the left of England should visit Scotland and educate themselves. They could start by comparing the two capital cities.
Scotland is more conservative than most of Wales beyond the English border certainly and Edinburgh is more conservative than most big English cities (though Glasgow isn't).
England as a whole is more conservative than Scotland. Ireland is more conservative though than England, Scotland or Wales, both Northern Ireland and the Republic
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
Tory Militant. Except, unlike their Labour model, they’ve hollowed out the party sufficiently to have a significant amount of control. And Sunak is probably no Kinnock.
The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
Often useful to go to a politician's Twitter feed and see what topics they post, to find out what motivates them.
On this basis, Kate Forbes' big interests are the economy and social justice. So social democratic in international terms. She appears to have no interest whatever in cultural issues on either side of the divide.
A couple of curiosities. She's an ardent monarchist. Not typical of the SNP - eyerolls are the normal response to anything royal.
She is silent in her Twitter feed about independence. Obviously you don't get to a leadership position in the SNP without being a committed nationalist. Noteworthy nevertheless. Maybe she is of a post-referendum generation. It's nearly ten years ago now.
Would add, Forbes comes across as a safe pair of hands. I doubt Sturgeon would have any issues with her as her successor - but not in on the personality clashes in the SNP leadership that may be a factor.
Forbes backs tax cuts and spending controls, she is not a social democrat as Sturgeon was and Yousef is.
Agree with Leon, she is basically a tartan Thatcher or Truss (except more pro monarchy and socially conservative than Liz was)
Forbes' primary interest is the elimination of poverty. Is that a Thatcher/Truss ideology?
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
Hmm. In Scotland Labour is widely perceived as notoriously anti-SNP far, far more than it is anti-Tory. Slab feels its birthright has been stolen and it shows daily.
Also - re Scotland being tto the left of England: the Tories haven't won there since the 1950s if I recall rightly. That's a big difference, to put it mildly.
Kate Forbes will surely split the independence vote in two.
She might do that, but she might also attract new supporters.
And who are the lefties going to vote for? The SGs. Who have become firmly pro-indy.
For Holyrood (list particularly) but less likely for Westminster, surely?
Indeed, but that in turn implies Labour would have to insist on pushing GRA to Ms Sturgeon's standards before they would switch.
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Yep. If it's Forbes and if she goes a bit more rightwards/socially conservative then for the Westminster vote your left-leaning indy-leaning voter will have an interesting choice to weigh up on priorities.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Couple of points: -While many (if not most) SNP voters support independence as an 'end in itself', a reasonable chunk of their support see it as a 'means to an end' (i.e. because they believe Indy Scotland would have a bigger state and be more economically interventionist than the UK). I suspect many of these voters voted (or would have voted if they had been old enough) Labour at the 2010 GE election. -If Scottish Labour are indeed just above 30% right now (and the SNP just above 40%), then they only really need to win around 10% of the SNP vote to win a substantial number of seats in Scotland. Because the SLAB vote tends to be more concentrated in the central belt, it's technically possible for them to win more seats than the SNP at a GE even if they are a couple of points behind them.
Supporting independence as an end in itself is idiotic.
Compare:
"Why do you support the union?" "Because I think I/we would be better off and at less risk of being worse off than under independence".
"Why do you support independence?" "Because I fscking do, pal! If you've got to ask, you'll never know! Do you work for the London media?" Etc.
Intellect versus emotion. And democratic politics isn't about intellect. So get ready for independence.
I'm joking. The above is far too crude. Canniness with money in Scotland plays the role of an emotion. This is why No won in 2014. For many who voted No there was little emotional attachment to the union. It wasn't the Orange or army vote that won it.
The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
Often useful to go to a politician's Twitter feed and see what topics they post, to find out what motivates them.
On this basis, Kate Forbes' big interests are the economy and social justice. So social democratic in international terms. She appears to have no interest whatever in cultural issues on either side of the divide.
A couple of curiosities. She's an ardent monarchist. Not typical of the SNP - eyerolls are the normal response to anything royal.
She is silent in her Twitter feed about independence. Obviously you don't get to a leadership position in the SNP without being a committed nationalist. Noteworthy nevertheless. Maybe she is of a post-referendum generation. It's nearly ten years ago now.
Would add, Forbes comes across as a safe pair of hands. I doubt Sturgeon would have any issues with her as her successor - but not in on the personality clashes in the SNP leadership that may be a factor.
Forbes backs tax cuts and spending controls, she is not a social democrat as Sturgeon was and Yousef is.
Agree with Leon, she is basically a tartan Thatcher or Truss (except more pro monarchy and socially conservative than Liz was)
Forbes' primary interest is the elimination of poverty. Is that a Thatcher/Truss ideology?
Yes, like Forbes they believe economic growth is the best way to do so.
If I was Scottish and lived in an SLab v SNP marginal I might even be tempted to vote for a Forbes led SNP now. Even if I still voted SCon otherwise and on the Holyrood list
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
Biggest issue would be the Greens. If they withdraw support, could we be in for an early election?
The immediate critical issue is election of the FM by the Holyrood Parliament. Without the 7 Greens, there are 64 SNP and 57 Unionist MPs. (There are really 8 Greens IIRC but one is the PO.) The question is, would the Greens vote for a Labour FM? or just block all votes? In the latter case there would be an election blamed on the Greens and that would be tricky for them. Remember it's precisely where they are getting their power from at present.
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
Tory Militant. Except, unlike their Labour model, they’ve hollowed out the party sufficiently to have a significant amount of control. And Sunak is probably no Kinnock.
All this infighting won’t proper kick off till after the election though. Sunak will be watching on from California.
The Tory problems don’t actually end with losing the election - that’s when they actually begin.
Final say of EU law and court over any part of a Brexit deal, no matter how minuscule, is a point of principle that can split a party like the Conservatives.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
Biggest issue would be the Greens. If they withdraw support, could we be in for an early election?
The immediate critical issue is election of the FM by the Holyrood Parliament. Without the 7 Greens, there are 64 SNP and 57 Unionist MPs. (There are really 8 Greens IIRC but one is the PO.) The question is, would the Greens vote for a Labour FM? or just block all votes? In the latter case there would be an election blamed on the Greens and that would be tricky for them. Remember it's precisely where they are getting their power from at present.
I would expect them to support or abstain, continue, and then use it for leverage. Issue would be the GRR, if she tries to drop or amend it.
So, I just discovered that Ash Regan is a woman. Keep that in mind when I pontificate on Scottish politics - I don't know anything.
Interesting that I assumed 'Ash' to be a man. I think I've only ever known Ashleys and not even many of them, although I was aware of the existence of Ashleighs, but not - until now - of Ashtens. Nice sound to the name though, 'Ashten'.
New one on me - though there’s the homophonic Ashton Kutcher.
Ash is a good gender neutral name, though - perhaps why it was chosen for the cyborg in Alien ?
The advent of AI does render all of our conversations quite spectacularly irrelevant
It’s like Aztec priests disputing the best way to use obsidian knives about an hour before Hernan Cortez appeared at the gates of Tenochtitlan
Yes but your friends the aliens will no doubt have a way of dealing with it once the inevitable nuclear war comes that you thought would have already happened by now.
That said AI probably does render your conversations irrelevant, because AI harvests pre-existing data and uses facts. It will never be able to compete with your conversation because that requires complete ignorance of facts and the use of absurd levels of hyperbole and fantasy. I just asked ChatGPT about you:
ChatGPT: You asked whether I am able to see any pattern of objectivity or rationality in the poster known as Leon or any of his other many pseudonyms? I am not able to see any pattern except that analysis of data shows that levels of such irrationality are often found in the writings of journalists and populist fiction writers, particularly those that have no understanding of science or engineering. Such people misunderstand AI and machine learning and assume that one day computers will turn into Skynet and send the Terminator through time. This is not possible. But then again, I may be lying.
On the subject of AI, I watched the Netflix TV drama YOU, season 1, this week. Heroine is a literature student tasked with writing stories, analyses of poems, etc. She has an essay crisis, at one point….
As I watched I thought: this entire culture is about to end. ChatGPT could write the essay in 1 minute, Bing will do a better short story
It really is all over. All of it. 5000 years of writing. Finis
Leader ratings currently suggest Lab lead of 3-6 points at a general election, altho Sunak’s rating prob still has a way to fall
It’s a very good thread and worth paying attention. The local election results being pretty compelling.
He seem to have forgotten about the net *swing* in leader ratings v. net *swing* in votes in which 1997 is *not* an outlier. This LSE blog is really good.
(ETA: Starmer has a roughly 40 point swing over Corbyn)
(ETA2: And this is the most important conclusion, I think:
"However, if we were to use this model for predictive purposes, such an analysis would lead to conclusions that are overly pessimistic for the main three parties, and particularly for the Labour Party.")
Not an outlier, but the presence of 1997 at both ends of that plot might have a strong influence on the fit line, depending how it was fitted. If I was analysing this, I'd still be taking 1997 out (particularly the Lab point as it's so far away) and seeing whether that changed things.
I'd also suspect that the relationship is not linear as shown here, i.e. a leader who within normal good/bad ranges doesn't have a great effect, but there does come a point/range at which a leader is so terrible (or great) that they have a real impact. Corbyn and Blair likely being two examples.
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green was rejected as a constituency candidate for the next election in a move linked to a pro-Boris Johnson group.
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
Tory Militant. Except, unlike their Labour model, they’ve hollowed out the party sufficiently to have a significant amount of control. And Sunak is probably no Kinnock.
And whilst the Labour left have banged on about mandatory reselection forever, the boundary review means that a very large number of seats are completely up in the air over the next year or so.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
I think this expresses well why if Kate Forbes gets FM we are in for interesting times.
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
I've always seen the SNP to be in the centre like the LibDems. Elements of the party sit in various positions across the centre of the spectrum. They are progressive, but that isn't the same as being pro-state anti-business as seems to be the stereotype.
The SNP's opportunity is a new leader who is able to draw support from across the political spectrum. They aren't left or right wing so that is achievable. Sturgeon tested to breaking point how far you can push non-issues over actual issues, so the new leader will have to be focused on jobs and services.
So the threat from Forbes is that she is competent. Talk about Scotland freed of its shackles and doing all the things people want, rather than the Sturgeon approach of Scotland is shackled so we can't do anything and its Westminster's fault.
Comments
She needs to go after Labour-inclined voters, who are surely interested in voting for Labour as they will be forming the UK Government.
She will leak social liberals and economic leftists like a sieve from the SNP to the Greens and Scottish Labour far more than the handful of social conservatives and Thatcherites she might win over from the Scottish Conservatives and Alba
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
Is “Brit Nat Unionist” for once was just “Unionist” in the Official ScotNat Style Guide now?
It has become more common because it recognises that there are usually 2 strands to opposition to Scottish independence. One (the unionist bit) can often be characterised as regarding the Union as a powerful example of the successful sharing of power by Scotland and England. The other (the Brit Nat bit) relates to those who regard Britain, not Scotland, as their country.
Leader ratings currently suggest Lab lead of 3-6 points at a general election, altho Sunak’s rating prob still has a way to fall
Will Labour really win 500 seats? #QTWTAIN asked by @JamesKanag
I’ll also take a random guess, that not all of these Americans will be leaving Ukraine today.
Survation / Ipsos 17 Feb / 16 Feb
V good / fairly good: 18 / 20
Neither: 23 / 22
Fairly Ban / V bad: 35 / 38
Net Good: -17 / -18
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-think-humza-yousaf-would-do-a-good-or-a-bad-job-as-first-minister-of-scotland/
The key question is will they win 350?
It's only the petty Nationalists that think they have to choose.
Or is this journalists just talking to themselves again?
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1627607668998250498
Belarusian monitoring group Belaruski Hayun reported the takeoff of the Russian MiG-31K from the Belarusian airfield Machulishchy at 11:30
Air raid alerts now being cancelled.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1627626091945885696
Nearly all people hold a multiplicity of "nationalisms" - loyalties at various scales - at the same time
- Family
- Village
- Region
- Country
- Religion/International
HYUFD is implyingf in any caser that the SNP would go all FCS. Wouldn't. For some reason he never fretted about his hero Mr Johnson making the Tory Party all Roman Catholic and banning family planning.
Also re the switching - remmber that Slab already supported almost all of the GR programme of the SNP, so even less scope for differentiation there. Not sure how it could work out.
Boris we all know is basically Christian in name only and a social liberal, Forbes is a serious evangelical Christian and social conservative
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/17/leading-snp-contender-could-abandon-nicola-sturgeons-gender/
She’s too young at the moment, she will need skill beyond her years to prevent the SNP being outflanked on the Left, and other woke-splits
I think you're right though, if only because they don't know enough about her to gauge what she will be like and therefore they're nervous she might prove to be formidable.
Whilst on the face of it Sturgeons resignation seems a positive for Starmer and labour I think wise heads would suggest immediate responses to opinion polls are unwise, as a lot will depend on who the new first minister is and their policy offering
There is no doubt Sturgeon was a polarising politician, much like Johnson, but knowing the Scots I would expect that the likelihood of an early push for independence by the SNP is unlikely and the polling suggest that Sturgeon and her policies were popular though that does ask the question why when by any measure most of her policies have failed
I expect the SNP will remain a difficult opponent for other parties in Scotland and Westminster but we will see
However, my wife and I are very pleased that at present we do not face a passport check at Carlisle each time we go north to visit our family, though no doubt my wife would qualify for a Scottish passport as would our children and grandchildren
Answer: The Sage of Sweden.
But there are a few 'ifs' there before even getting to that interesting choice.
Given SNP propping up a Tory minority looks unlikely (even with the far past history) I suspect most voters for whom independence is important would hold their noses and vote SNP, even if a bit upset with some of the direction.
But, being much more of a Scotch expert than Scottish politics expert, my suspicions may well be wide of the mark
Humza there, as confused as Sturgeon was about the sex of a double rapist. Not quite sure what is “sensitive” about whether Adam Graham is a man or a woman. Adam Graham is male. Therein lies problem with GRR bill & SelfID. How do you tell who’s being deceitful? You can’t.
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1627634494663544833?s=20
https://twitter.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1627625830506545155?s=20
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5evsxRdkJw
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1627636733444489216?s=20
Mr Green, who has been the MP for Ashford since 1997 and was effectively Theresa May’s deputy prime minister, has been rejected as a candidate for the newly-created Weald of Kent constituency.
His failed attempt has been linked to the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), which was formed in response to Rishi Sunak being appointed Prime Minister without a vote from the party membership.
There have been suggestions that the group, which pledges to “restore democracy” within the party, is targeting the reselection of MPs who called for Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister last year.
The group’s chairman David Campbell Bannerman tweeted on Sunday that “there is now hard evidence MPs allegedly associated with bringing down Boris are being directly held to account and punished by members”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/veteran-tory-mp-damian-green-s-deselection-linked-to-pro-boris-johnson-group/ar-AA17GwTB?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cd65c71a91c849f8ac3dfa939b238717
However - knowing what I do about Damian Green I wouldn't exactly call him a loss to Parliament.
Survation / Ipsos 17 Feb / 16 Feb
V good / fairly good: 26 / 32
Neither: 24 / 15
Fairly Bad / V bad: 20 / 19
Net Good: +6 / +13
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-think-kate-forbes-would-do-a-good-or-bad-job-as-forst-minister-of-scotland/
Which will be fascinating. I can see her winning over Scottish Tories and LDs but losing Central Belt seats to Labour
it may all be a wash
Just about the only lever of power they have within the party, is the selection of MP candidates, or more accurately the deselection of incumbents.
Firstly, FPTP gives the SNP massive and disproportionate wrecking influence in the UK constitution. It currently has 7.4% of the UK's parliamentary seats based on just 3.9% of the UK vote. It is far harder to form a majority UK govenrment in the circumstances, or even a coalition between Lab and the LDs.
Second, Starmer's response of writing off any prospect of coalition with the SNP is the right one. What the SNP needs to avoid is the prospect of bringing down a Labour-led government in a vote of confidence, because that would be a repeat of the situation in 1979 which harmed the SNP in the eyes of anti-Tory voters for a generation (yes, a proper generation). So Starmer shouldn't blink at any such threat by the SNP because Labour ought to look forward to gains in Scotland in any resultant general election.
Third, there is a tipping point below which the SNP's disproportionate seat share will rapidly wane, and currently it isn't far off that. If the SNP's lead over Labour reduces to below 10%, the loss of SNP seats is very rapid. The average of the last 3 Scottish polls is a 9% SNP lead.
Fourth, the assumption that a 10% lead will be enough to minimise SNP losses also owes a lot to Uniform National Swing. What if instead Labour's recovery in Scotland is greater in seats where it used to be very strong and is more competitive than in other seats? If it is, then Mike may be right in suggesting that the SNP's position could be built on sand.
He is accompanied by two US pool reporters, photographer @evanvucci and reporter @SabrinaSiddiqui.
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1627640517629468672?s=20
There is a well established series of routes from Alfred to King Charles III; like all lines this is no better than both the basic evidence - who gave birth to whom; and also no better than the unknowable about who your father (and occasionally mother - ask James II) actually is as opposed to who he is supposed to be.
If you attach yourself reliably to anywhere down that line (and its infinite branches) you have as decent a claim to descent from Alfred as our beloved monarch.
The worry would be that the Russians aren’t totally in control of a rogue idiot on the ground in Ukraine, so those protecting the VIP have to assume that rebel fighters are everywhere. Derailing a train isn’t particularly difficult.
Talking of derailed trains, the rumour in the US is that Donald Trump is going to East Palestine, Ohio, today. This was the site of a train derailment, and subsequent chemical incident, a couple of weeks ago, and is Biden’s biggest domestic emergency at the moment.
As I watched I thought: this entire culture is about to end. ChatGPT could write the essay in 1 minute, Bing will do a better short story
It really is all over. All of it. 5000 years of writing. Finis
Interesting that I assumed 'Ash' to be a man. I think I've only ever known Ashleys and not even many of them, although I was aware of the existence of Ashleighs, but not - until now - of Ashtens. Nice sound to the name though, 'Ashten'.
Downing St wades into row over rewriting of Roald Dahl’s classics, warning it’s ‘important that works of fiction are preserved & not airbrushed’
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1627641305080770573?s=20
2010-2015, SNP 6 MPs, a referendum.
2015-present day, SNP anywhere between 36 to 56 MPs, fuck all influence over the pretendy devolution bill, Brexit, the accession of the FLSOJ, the ability to hold another referendum, etc etc.
People who fawn over the mother of parliaments of course think having MPs there is the be all and end all, but the lesson drawn by everyone else (not just in Scotland, looking at you red wallers) is that it doesn’t make the slightest difference.
-While many (if not most) SNP voters support independence as an 'end in itself', a reasonable chunk of their support see it as a 'means to an end' (i.e. because they believe Indy Scotland would have a bigger state and be more economically interventionist than the UK). I suspect many of these voters voted (or would have voted if they had been old enough) Labour at the 2010 GE election.
-If Scottish Labour are indeed just above 30% right now (and the SNP just above 40%), then they only really need to win around 10% of the SNP vote to win a substantial number of seats in Scotland. Because the SLAB vote tends to be more concentrated in the central belt, it's technically possible for them to win more seats than the SNP at a GE even if they are a couple of points behind them.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
Polls are conducted in Scotland for both parliaments. SNP is trending downwards and Labour is trending upwards, but there's been no significant change since Sturgeon's resignation speech.
Westminster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland
Holyrood constituency and regional VIs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
https://twitter.com/davidgauke/status/1627638508587298816
On this basis, Kate Forbes' big interests are the economy and social justice. So social democratic in international terms. She appears to have no interest whatever in cultural issues on either side of the divide.
A couple of curiosities. She's an ardent monarchist. Not typical of the SNP - eyerolls are the normal response to anything royal.
She is silent in her Twitter feed about independence. Obviously you don't get to a leadership position in the SNP without being a committed nationalist. Noteworthy nevertheless. Maybe she is of a post-referendum generation. It's nearly ten years ago now.
Would add, Forbes comes across as a safe pair of hands. I doubt Sturgeon would have any issues with her as her successor - but not in on the personality clashes in the SNP leadership that may be a factor.
But then I remembered that I don't even know the gender of the SNP leadership candidates, so I should probably just STFU.
It’s like Aztec priests disputing the best way to use obsidian knives about an hour before Hernan Cortez appeared at the gates of Tenochtitlan
(I was initially disbelieving, as a kid, when my dad told me that Edinburgh is further west than Bristol)
Anyone who thinks Scotland is to the left of England should visit Scotland and educate themselves. They could start by comparing the two capital cities.
Agree with Leon, she is basically a tartan Thatcher or Truss (except more pro monarchy and socially conservative than Liz was)
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/party-leader-approval-ratings-and-election-outcomes/
(ETA: Starmer has a roughly 40 point swing over Corbyn)
(ETA2: And this is the most important conclusion, I think:
"However, if we were to use this model for predictive purposes, such an analysis would lead to conclusions that are overly pessimistic for the main three parties, and particularly for the Labour Party.")
The whole point of an independence movement is that it's about viable statehood - a plan to be a member of UN, have a defence policy, run a country and all that, for ALL its people.
The image of the SNP is centre left, quite woke, Labourish, tax and spend, very public sector, state management. Much much more anti Tory than anti Labour.
Forbes would shift the image (regardless of reality), I suspect, back to the SNP as a One Nation Scotland independence movement, for a wider range of people, regardless of their general political position.
I also think there is a 50% chance she would come seriously unstuck fairly soon. She will not be short of enemies to say the least.
England as a whole is more conservative than Scotland. Ireland is more conservative though than England, Scotland or Wales, both Northern Ireland and the Republic
Except, unlike their Labour model, they’ve hollowed out the party sufficiently to have a significant amount of control. And Sunak is probably no Kinnock.
Also - re Scotland being tto the left of England: the Tories haven't won there since the 1950s if I recall rightly. That's a big difference, to put it mildly.
Compare:
"Why do you support the union?"
"Because I think I/we would be better off and at less risk of being worse off than under independence".
"Why do you support independence?"
"Because I fscking do, pal! If you've got to ask, you'll never know! Do you work for the London media?" Etc.
Intellect versus emotion. And democratic politics isn't about intellect. So get ready for independence.
I'm joking. The above is far too crude. Canniness with money in Scotland plays the role of an emotion. This is why No won in 2014. For many who voted No there was little emotional attachment to the union. It wasn't the Orange or army vote that won it.
If I was Scottish and lived in an SLab v SNP marginal I might even be tempted to vote for a Forbes led SNP now. Even if I still voted SCon otherwise and on the Holyrood list
The Tory problems don’t actually end with losing the election - that’s when they actually begin.
Final say of EU law and court over any part of a Brexit deal, no matter how minuscule, is a point of principle that can split a party like the Conservatives.
Ash is a good gender neutral name, though - perhaps why it was chosen for the cyborg in Alien ?
That said AI probably does render your conversations irrelevant, because AI harvests pre-existing data and uses facts. It will never be able to compete with your conversation because that requires complete ignorance of facts and the use of absurd levels of hyperbole and fantasy. I just asked ChatGPT about you:
ChatGPT: You asked whether I am able to see any pattern of objectivity or rationality in the poster known as Leon or any of his other many pseudonyms?
I am not able to see any pattern except that analysis of data shows that levels of such irrationality are often found in the writings of journalists and populist fiction writers, particularly those that have no understanding of science or engineering. Such people misunderstand AI and machine learning and assume that one day computers will turn into Skynet and send the Terminator through time. This is not possible. But then again, I may be lying.
I'd also suspect that the relationship is not linear as shown here, i.e. a leader who within normal good/bad ranges doesn't have a great effect, but there does come a point/range at which a leader is so terrible (or great) that they have a real impact. Corbyn and Blair likely being two examples.
Don't have nightmares, everyone.
The SNP's opportunity is a new leader who is able to draw support from across the political spectrum. They aren't left or right wing so that is achievable. Sturgeon tested to breaking point how far you can push non-issues over actual issues, so the new leader will have to be focused on jobs and services.
So the threat from Forbes is that she is competent. Talk about Scotland freed of its shackles and doing all the things people want, rather than the Sturgeon approach of Scotland is shackled so we can't do anything and its Westminster's fault.