Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
With the possible court cases and scandals ahead I wonder if this was perhaps a pretty good result for Forbes. This way she doesn't get tarred with the Sturgeon family scandal brush. Maybe another SNP election in a year or so?
Edit - also the SNP are bound to lose votes in the post Sturgeon era and now that will all be blamed on Yousaf
Whether justified or not, Forbe's supporters will claim "she was robbed". For Youseless's authority to unravel, all it needs is one whistle-blower saying there was abuse of membership information.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
Sturgeon wins again - drove out juuuust enough Members so that in a Members vote enough loyalists remain to defeat Ash 'Loony Tunes' Regan and Kate 'Thou shalt burn in the fires of hell' Forbes.
Moral: If you insist on shooting at the Queen, not only must you make sure that you don't miss, you also need to have a convincing Pretender lined up. Kate Forbes wasn't that Pretender. Maybe they don't exist.
If Yousaf really is that Useless, how long before la Sturge doesn't deny that she would be happy to serve again if asked nicely enough...
The non candidacy of Angus Robertson is the oddest thing. He would have walked it, surely
He could have steadied the post-Sturgeon ship, and prepared the ground for Forbes in five years or so
Why didn't he stand? Perhaps @malcolmg is right and there are too many scandals lurking
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
[Yousless] has proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Hard to imagine there is going to be much inward investment into Scotland until he has a proven track record. If that becomes a proven record of Youslessness, Scotland won't retain the investment it has. He may transform the economy. Just, not in a way that helps independence.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
JFK's legacy was significantly helped by being shot dead.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
And JFK comes under the other clause of the full version of the quotation;
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs
Part of being sucessful at politics is to hype the sucesses and sweep the failures under the carpet, so it's likely that electorally triumphant politicians (Blair, Sturgeon) are more prone to negative reassessment once they're gone.
Thatcher is the interesting one. There is space for a Conservative critique of her rule- partly that it failed on some of its own terms (she wanted a land fit for her father but created one safe for her son, that sort of thing) and partly that her shadow stopped (and maybe still stops) the party moving on. But if it is said, it's rather sotto voce.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
I understand the binary tribalism that drives nationalism. You want to be independent and criticism of what you have is either unfair, or the fault of the people holding you back.
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
JFK's legacy was significantly helped by being shot dead.
Similarly to how most artists' most successful periods are 50 years after they die.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
Was he a brilliant POTUS? He made some memorable speeches - but his tenure was so short that he was remembered for word rather than deed. Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand. He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
I think if you get killed while in office you get an exception. Same with Lincoln. Maybe Washington, who stepped aside having established the US, is the obvious exception I can think of. Even Churchill got booted out of office in 1945 and was disappointing when he came back in the 50s.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
I understand the binary tribalism that drives nationalism. You want to be independent and criticism of what you have is either unfair, or the fault of the people holding you back.
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Maybe Tory gains in Scotland as Sunak is more popular than Boris was in Scotland and Yousaf much less popular in Scotland than Sturgeon was
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Bit harsh to blame him for it though.
According to the brilliant Red Dwarf episode, it was suicide.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
We will see when the fraud cases etc come to trial
You've been quite prescient on all this, @malcolmg
Why do you think Sturgeon resigned when she did? Was it simply because she was exhausted and bored, as she suggested? Or do you think there were darker reasons - the threat of police action, the questions about her husband etc?
There are a few court cases almost certain. The 600K seems to be tip of iceberg and allegedly UK fraud squad are in and not involving the locals. The Inquiry where they managed to suppress the Salmond evidence of certain participants by saying they had nothing to do with it and someone else outside it was and no idea where it was etc , FOI commissioner has said ministers were less than truthful and they should ante up so looks like court for that one and the names may come out after all, allegedly establishment government/civil service/top legal people. So if any of these allegations are correct then who knows , plus who knows if the superinjunctions and other things may come out. Many snippets online but people have to be very careful or they would end up in jail , hopefully we will get the full story one day
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
I would absolutely say that of Margaret Thatcher. Brilliant PM with an outstanding legacy. And Keir Starmer agrees with me, even if you don't
Abroad, there are plenty of examples. eg I would say De Klerk, in ending apartheid peacefully (with Mandela, another titan), Lech Walesa for heroically steering Poland to democracy from communism, and so on
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
JFK's legacy was significantly helped by being shot dead.
Similarly to how most artists' most successful periods are 50 years after they die.
Or indeed 6 hours - as long as it takes the dealers to talk their paintings up as limited and irreplaceable assets.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Bit harsh to blame him for it though.
According to the brilliant Red Dwarf episode, it was suicide.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Sturgeon wins again - drove out juuuust enough Members so that in a Members vote enough loyalists remain to defeat Ash 'Loony Tunes' Regan and Kate 'Thou shalt burn in the fires of hell' Forbes.
Moral: If you insist on shooting at the Queen, not only must you make sure that you don't miss, you also need to have a convincing Pretender lined up. Kate Forbes wasn't that Pretender. Maybe they don't exist.
If Yousaf really is that Useless, how long before la Sturge doesn't deny that she would be happy to serve again if asked nicely enough...
The non candidacy of Angus Robertson is the oddest thing. He would have walked it, surely
He could have steadied the post-Sturgeon ship, and prepared the ground for Forbes in five years or so
Why didn't he stand? Perhaps @malcolmg is right and there are too many scandals lurking
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Bit harsh to blame him for it though.
According to the brilliant Red Dwarf episode, it was suicide.
It'll drive the conspiracy nuts crazy, but they'll never figure it out.
Sturgeon wins again - drove out juuuust enough Members so that in a Members vote enough loyalists remain to defeat Ash 'Loony Tunes' Regan and Kate 'Thou shalt burn in the fires of hell' Forbes.
Moral: If you insist on shooting at the Queen, not only must you make sure that you don't miss, you also need to have a convincing Pretender lined up. Kate Forbes wasn't that Pretender. Maybe they don't exist.
If Yousaf really is that Useless, how long before la Sturge doesn't deny that she would be happy to serve again if asked nicely enough...
The non candidacy of Angus Robertson is the oddest thing. He would have walked it, surely
He could have steadied the post-Sturgeon ship, and prepared the ground for Forbes in five years or so
Why didn't he stand? Perhaps @malcolmg is right and there are too many scandals lurking
Just think Macbeth
Reigned quite a long time,AIUI. Especially for a Scottish king.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
Arguably getting assassinated is a fairly major failure.
Bit harsh to blame him for it though.
True.
Though I suppose so much of a political legacy is down to matters outside that politician's control.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
There is the not wholly explicable factor of religion. When religion is involved it for some reason allows people to say and do things that otherwise they would not (be able) to say or do.
Edit: I mean religion is wholly explicable as a phenomenon; just that it allows people inexplicably to say and do things...
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
Was he a brilliant POTUS? He made some memorable speeches - but his tenure was so short that he was remembered for word rather than deed. Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand. He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
I think out of anyone else in history he (together with Krushchev) can claim to be person who most managed to keep us out of a nuclear war, so there is that.
Of course it is convenient to disregard the Bay of Pigs and everything else that led up to that point….
With the SNP bound to support Lab at Westminster, seats switching from SNP to Lab makes no difference to the chances of Starmer becoming PM - though it does of course improve the chances of an actual Lab majority.
Any seats switching from SNP to Con improves chances of Con clinging to power - even if more seats switch from SNP to Lab.
On the contrary, the SNP is not "bound to support Lab at Westminster". In a situation where the SNP's votes counted, it would make the UK ungovernable if it's constitutional demands were not satisfied, and Starmer has already made it crystal clear that there is no deal to be done. The last time the SNP was in that position, it brought down a Labour minority government.
A few more political careers that didn’t end in failure: Reagan, Clinton (William Jefferson), Mitterand, Charles Kennedy, Betty Boothroyd, several backbenchers (likely Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman etc), Lee Kuan Yeeuw, various dictators who died of natural causes.
Excluding death in service, the secret is either to be somewhere with fixed term limits, or be an effective backbencher.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
JFK is the only exception that springs to mind.
I think if you get killed while in office you get an exception. Same with Lincoln. Maybe Washington, who stepped aside having established the US, is the obvious exception I can think of. Even Churchill got booted out of office in 1945 and was disappointing when he came back in the 50s.
Churchill, as a politician, never did particularly well, EXCEPT during WWII. And by 1951 he was almost senile.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
I thought you were a swashbuckling swordsman who attended all the coolest parties. This one sounds very dull.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
Was he a brilliant POTUS? He made some memorable speeches - but his tenure was so short that he was remembered for word rather than deed. Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand. He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
Possibly Americans harked back to what they saw as a golden age when the US was indisputably master of the world and before all the mess of Vietnam.
Even though Kennedy was largely the author of the Vietnam mess, which LBJ struggled to deal with.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
A few more political careers that didn’t end in failure: Reagan, Clinton (William Jefferson), Mitterand, Charles Kennedy, Betty Boothroyd, several backbenchers (likely Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman etc), Lee Kuan Yeeuw, various dictators who died of natural causes.
Excluding death in service, the secret is either to be somewhere with fixed term limits, or be an effective backbencher.
Don’t agree about Charles Kennedy. First of all drink did for him, then he lost his seat, and looked like that broke his heart.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
No, the magical thinking aspect is twofold; that (i) any single SNP politician (even the uber mega incredible Kate Forbes!) could have such an impact in just a few years and (ii) that if they could, which they couldn't, it would cause people to flock to the Sindy cause.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
So all of life ends in failure.
I mean I have a lot of sympathy for that view but it isn't one I would have thought a person of religion would hold.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
I understand the binary tribalism that drives nationalism. You want to be independent and criticism of what you have is either unfair, or the fault of the people holding you back.
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Maybe Tory gains in Scotland as Sunak is more popular than Boris was in Scotland and Yousaf much less popular in Scotland than Sturgeon was
Laughable. You are blinkered to just how despised your corrupt idiot government is.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
I care how my kids identify. I care that my older daughter's best friend at school is identifying as male and demanding surgery and drugs (at the age of 16) and this is tearing her family apart
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
We're all going to die (other than @kle4 obviously), so does that make us all - ultimately - failures?
A few more political careers that didn’t end in failure: Reagan, Clinton (William Jefferson), Mitterand, Charles Kennedy, Betty Boothroyd, several backbenchers (likely Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman etc), Lee Kuan Yeeuw, various dictators who died of natural causes.
Excluding death in service, the secret is either to be somewhere with fixed term limits, or be an effective backbencher.
Problem is though that given enough time there will be enough repercussions from anyones actions that they can be labelled failures…
Reagan and Thatcher, for instance, can be considered hugely successful leaders but how much responsibility do they bear for the challenges of the globalised, free wheeling, free market economy that they helped create?
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Yes, that's why I'm disappointed in this result. I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
I understand the binary tribalism that drives nationalism. You want to be independent and criticism of what you have is either unfair, or the fault of the people holding you back.
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Maybe Tory gains in Scotland as Sunak is more popular than Boris was in Scotland and Yousaf much less popular in Scotland than Sturgeon was
Laughable. You are blinkered to just how despised your corrupt idiot government is.
Yousaf has a net favourability rating of -20% with Scots and just a 22% favourability rating.
Seats like Gordon and Aberdeen South and Perth could well be gained by the Conservatives from the SNP as a result, Sunak is also more popular in Scotland than Boris was in 2019
Given all the drug taking around and about I'd have thought that laughing gas is just a deckchair move by the govt.
In Israel I've not been following save to see that there are demonstrations in London about it. What has Netanyahu done? Is he saying that the courts can't strike down government legislation? In which case is this something we have touched on previously whereby a democratically-elected government is trying to abolish elections?
As for the demonstrations in London about it it's interesting that these are presumably British Jews vociferously protesting about Israel and hence it is easy to see the complications of trying to separate out Israel and the Jews.
The laughing gas move is a joke, appropriately. Yet again the government overrules the scientists in a populist authoritarian knee-jerk response. For a government that is supposedly so anti cancel culture, they certainly seem to like banning things and telling people what they can and can't do.
The politicians absolutely should be able to "overrule" scientists. We've just seen what happens when they give into the Cult of the Expert.
No one's arguing they shouldn't be able to.
OLB seems to be.
As, indeed, did most of the country in 2020-1.
Not really. You've simply extrapolated what I have said with respect to one issue, applied it to a different issue, and in addition made out that I've said something I haven't. I didn't say government shouldn't be able to overrule scientific advice, and indeed this isn't my position. I said that in this case they've gone against the advice of their scientists in order to chase tabloid headlines. It's stupid policymaking and will cost the taxpayer more money, further waste police time and gum up the legal system, strengthen criminal gangs and quite possibly kill people. I've offered no opinion on lockdown policy but I would say that while scientific advice should be absolutely front and centre during a global pandemic ultimately it is for our political leaders to decide how to proceed. So I don't think I hold the views you're trying to ascribe to me.
Essentially you're criticising them for weighing up expert advice against what they think will be popular and pluimping for the latter option.
Of course they've done that - they're politicians!
Good politicians get out in front of public opinion, do what they think will be best for the whole country and try to shape opinion through action and argument. The fact that this government operates as you suggest is why this country is becoming more of a shithole every day.
Well, never let it be said that you're not an optimist.
By your standards, we have no good politicians. Sir Keir has had, for at least the last year, the perfect opportunity to act as you say a good politician does. Instead, cheered on by his party's supporters, he has deliberately done and said as little as possible, focusing on trying to win the next election by default.
That's fair. He is overly cautious. I didn't vote for him as leader. The Tories need to go but I don't hold out great hopes for the next Labour government, or indeed for the long term future of this country. We seem to be permanently in thrall to ill-informed voters and their worst prejudices, with our politicians never missing an opportunity to make a stupid, short-sighted decision. As you might gather, I don't think I am an optimist.
That's the problem with democracy - ill-informed voters.
There is merit in the Shell, Unilever and other multinationals method. The top management emerge, promoted by their peers. Employees and customers can't vote for them. Though shareholders in theory could remove them, in practice they don't. China has a similar system. It competes with democracy. There are pros and cons.
I still think democracy is the best system both morally and in terms of outcomes, but it needs to be combined with well informed voters and enlightened political leadership to deliver the best results. Right now this country seems to be caught in a downwards spiral of angry, ill informed voters, pandering and opportunistic politicians and stupid policies. It is very depressing.
Morally - I prefer democracy, but that's the way I've been brought up. On outcomes It's not clear that democracy wins: Economic GDP Life expectancy China 59 in 1970, 77 now and growing. USA 71 in 1970, 79 now and flat.
On gdp per head both the US and Japan are well ahead of China, the Chinese birthrate is also lower even than most western Nations and China has fewer immigrants percentage wise too
GDP per head is growing much faster in China than US or Japan. Birthrate is an odd measure. Is a low birthrate good or bad? Depends on the context.
Well course it is because it starts from a much lower level.
If you want to grow gdp overall significantly relative to other nations rather than just gdp per capita then you need a well above replacement level birthrate.
Democratic India will likely thus have overtaken China in terms of gdp by 2050 as it has a much higher birthrate. Nigeria is also rapidly advancing up the gdp rankings because of its high birthrate
What metrics would you use to measure the relative outcomes of democrat nations versus the Chinese (and multinational company) approach?
Gdp and wealth per head, education levels, personal freedom and liberty
A mere passing blip, I'm sure.
If we had Chinese levels of repression you would already be in prison for challenging the authority of the UK government on a public forum
Missed this one earlier, but whether a jest or serious the idea we should measure our own openness against that of China, rather than those who are more open and free, is pretty astonishing.
No doubt in China they take comfort that they are at least not North Korea.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
So all of life ends in failure.
I mean I have a lot of sympathy for that view but it isn't one I would have thought a person of religion would hold.
The eternal one after is the most important one, only the legacy we leave on earth matters
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
I thought you were a swashbuckling swordsman who attended all the coolest parties. This one sounds very dull.
Sadly, I have reached the stage where at parties with my peers the general sense is one of relief that we are still alive
But there is a certain joy in that. We all got very drunk and it was very jolly. Friends are such an important part of life and I've been friends with these people for nearly 40 years. A whole bunch of us from university/squatting years in the 1980s. Still friends, miraculously. We're like Calabrian pensioners now. Playing dominos in the sunlit plaza (OK drinking champagne on Lamb's Conduit Street but still) and gossiping about shit we did three decades back. I like it
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
I care how my kids identify. I care that my older daughter's best friend at school is identifying as male and demanding surgery and drugs (at the age of 16) and this is tearing her family apart
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
And so on
Sounds like everyone is worried apart from the people concerned. I have no doubt that not so long ago coming out as gay would have shocked parents, why not even that long ago, perhaps even today.
It's a sign of your great empathy and understanding that you should be so distraught at what the younger generation is up to these days.
And yes absolutely there are no doubt instances of regret and reversal, although I don't have the stats to hand.
Sturgeon wins again - drove out juuuust enough Members so that in a Members vote enough loyalists remain to defeat Ash 'Loony Tunes' Regan and Kate 'Thou shalt burn in the fires of hell' Forbes.
Moral: If you insist on shooting at the Queen, not only must you make sure that you don't miss, you also need to have a convincing Pretender lined up. Kate Forbes wasn't that Pretender. Maybe they don't exist.
If Yousaf really is that Useless, how long before la Sturge doesn't deny that she would be happy to serve again if asked nicely enough...
The non candidacy of Angus Robertson is the oddest thing. He would have walked it, surely
He could have steadied the post-Sturgeon ship, and prepared the ground for Forbes in five years or so
Why didn't he stand? Perhaps @malcolmg is right and there are too many scandals lurking
Just think Macbeth
Reigned quite a long time,AIUI. Especially for a Scottish king.
His reputation was unfairly tarnished by some brown-nosing hack called William Something-or-other, I believe.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
Although her favorables are still higher than her successor. (Although I grant you that isn't a high bar.)
A German friend of my wife suggested that Merkel pushed Scholz because he was such a duffer and would make her look better in retrospect. I think he may be right.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
I care how my kids identify. I care that my older daughter's best friend at school is identifying as male and demanding surgery and drugs (at the age of 16) and this is tearing her family apart
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
And so on
Sounds like everyone is worried apart from the people concerned. I have no doubt that not so long ago coming out as gay would have shocked parents, why not even that long ago, perhaps even today.
It's a sign of your great empathy and understanding that you should be so distraught at what the younger generation is up to these days.
And yes absolutely there are no doubt instances of regret and reversal, although I don't have the stats to hand.
You have a personal attachment to this issue, don't you? So I suggest we move on. I do not wish to dispute it with someone emotionally invested. And I mean that sincerely. Pax
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
What about a soldier, who dies to save a hundred compatriots?
Still a failure as they died but a success in legacy in terms of the soldiers they saved
So all of life ends in failure.
I mean I have a lot of sympathy for that view but it isn't one I would have thought a person of religion would hold.
The eternal one after is the most important one, only the legacy we leave on earth matters
Hold on. The eternal one is the most important one but only the legacy we leave on earth matters?
In which case how is death, as you determined, a failure when you will go on to lead an eternal life afterwards. Doesn't sound much of a failure, just a milestone along the journey.
Lots of the promised armoured vehicles have now arrived in Ukraine.
⚡️Media: Leopard 2 tanks from Germany arrive in Ukraine.
Ukraine has received the 18 Leopard 2 tanks pledged by Germany, der Spiegel reported on March 27. 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles also arrived in what der Spiegel’s sources said was a “large package” of weapons. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1640368431470968834
This video from UK MoD on the training of Ukrainians on the Challenger 2 says that it is all done and both men and tanks are now in Ukraine. Interesting and worth a watch.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
I wouldn't say that retirement represents failure! Can think of plenty of people who retire on a high after a long and successful career.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
QED wrt religion.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Well, yes, but [testing a thought out] marriage is to some extent religious. I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
No, the magical thinking aspect is twofold; that (i) any single SNP politician (even the uber mega incredible Kate Forbes!) could have such an impact in just a few years and (ii) that if they could, which they couldn't, it would cause people to flock to the Sindy cause.
You may be right - though if you are, that's quite a depressing truth for politicians to take on ("It'll take at least a decade for you to make any sort of difference, and even if you manage it no-one will thank you"). No wonder they obsess about stuff like GRA.
I am slightly more optimistic - I think good government is both possible and rewarded. Though with the obvious caveat about not being able to please everyone. If THE MAGICAL KATE FORBES is truly as magical as we are all hoping a blank slate might be, I reckon she could do it within 6 years. Of course, there's always the possibility that we are simply projecting our hopes for good government onto someone on the basis that in contrast to her chief rival there is a mildly reassuring lack of evidence, yet, that she wouldn't be terrible.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
I wouldn't say that retirement represents failure! Can think of plenty of people who retire on a high after a long and successful career.
Why I can think of one right here on PB. Failure? How very dare you throw such an accusation at them.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
All political careers end in failure as I believe the saying goes. Certainly few exceptions to that rule.
All careers end in failure full stop as you either retire or are fired.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
I wouldn't say that retirement represents failure! Can think of plenty of people who retire on a high after a long and successful career.
In which case again only the legacy they leave behind is relevant after retirement
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
Was he a brilliant POTUS? He made some memorable speeches - but his tenure was so short that he was remembered for word rather than deed. Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand. He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
I think out of anyone else in history he (together with Krushchev) can claim to be person who most managed to keep us out of a nuclear war, so there is that.
Of course it is convenient to disregard the Bay of Pigs and everything else that led up to that point….
The moon landing was part of his legacy.
The civil rights stuff - pushed through by Johnson, after JFK died - was a watershed in US politics
His brother led the charge against the Mafia - which eventually resulted in the breaking of the stranglehold of organised crime in NY and Chicago for a start….
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
I care how my kids identify. I care that my older daughter's best friend at school is identifying as male and demanding surgery and drugs (at the age of 16) and this is tearing her family apart
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
And so on
Sounds like everyone is worried apart from the people concerned. I have no doubt that not so long ago coming out as gay would have shocked parents, why not even that long ago, perhaps even today.
It's a sign of your great empathy and understanding that you should be so distraught at what the younger generation is up to these days.
And yes absolutely there are no doubt instances of regret and reversal, although I don't have the stats to hand.
You have a personal attachment to this issue, don't you? So I suggest we move on. I do not wish to dispute it with someone emotionally invested. And I mean that sincerely. Pax
LOL grandad.
You truly are a great friend to be so worried about the youth of today. Some I believe are even dancing to the music of beat combos if you can believe that.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
I can't be done with you totalitarian, big-state, lefties interfering in the private affairs of the citizens. Live and let live. Government should mind its own business and serve the voters rather than dictate to them.
You seem to be the one demanding the state forces churches, synagogues, mosques and temples perform homosexual marriages. Religious bodies aren't seeking to deprive homosexual couples of civil unions and marriages they have in civil law in the UK
But if they want to get married, or whatever else they would like to do, and it has no negative effects on anyone else except some bigoted busybodies, why shouldn't they?
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
If you want someone critiquing Merkel who should in theory like Merkel, try some Euro-enthisiasts - perhaps for the way M ramrodded the Russia pipelines through in the teeth of EU opposition.
I wonder what UVDL will say eventually, now being EU Chair-of-Wotsit, and previously having been a creature of Merkel for years and years?
I can't say me, because I've been bitterly critical of Merkel's crazy 2014/15 "all come here, and we'll take the ones who don't drown in the Med" immigration policy.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Most people were also nice and sane back when they were opposed to all sorts of social reforms that are now taken for granted.
This is qualitatively different, though. Previous reforms, as kamski suggested upthread, didn't affect the rights of other "oppressed" groups. This one does.
Previous reforms were sometimes (incorrectly) feared to threaten other people and the same is true here. The GRR (a similar reform to that enacted successfully in several other countries and one which Mrs May wanted to do here in 2016) made the process of obtaining a GRC easier. That's all. No change to what possession of a GRC allows you to do. No change to the provisions of the Equality Act. Prisons, Refuges, Sports, are all free to set policy and safeguarding as deemed appropriate. True before the GRR, true after the GRR. There's a lot of misunderstanding and hypberbole around the bill.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
They care because it is part of the whole Extreme Trans Agenda which is fucking with their childrens' brains
Go on Mumsnet and see
I am asking you. Here. Do you care how people on PB identify? No you don't.
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
I care how my kids identify. I care that my older daughter's best friend at school is identifying as male and demanding surgery and drugs (at the age of 16) and this is tearing her family apart
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
And so on
Sounds like everyone is worried apart from the people concerned. I have no doubt that not so long ago coming out as gay would have shocked parents, why not even that long ago, perhaps even today.
It's a sign of your great empathy and understanding that you should be so distraught at what the younger generation is up to these days.
And yes absolutely there are no doubt instances of regret and reversal, although I don't have the stats to hand.
You have a personal attachment to this issue, don't you? So I suggest we move on. I do not wish to dispute it with someone emotionally invested. And I mean that sincerely. Pax
LOL grandad.
You truly are a great friend to be so worried about the youth of today. Some I believe are even dancing to the music of beat combos if you can believe that.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
But the critique of Merkel comes from her own party as much as her opponents
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
Although her favorables are still higher than her successor. (Although I grant you that isn't a high bar.)
A German friend of my wife suggested that Merkel pushed Scholz because he was such a duffer and would make her look better in retrospect. I think he may be right.
How much influence did Merkel (CDU) have over Scholz (SPD) becoming chancellor of an SPD/Green/FPD coalition?
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Is this where people make good use of distance and perspective to think deeply about her impact on Scotland, on Scottish politics, on the prospects for Independence, and come to a fair and balanced assessment thereof?
Or is it more where people who always hated her guts continue to slag her off now she's gone?
This would be an interesting and valid point, if it was just evil clever English intelligentsia Spectator types slagging her off, but it ain't. Lots of Scots, indeed lots of ardent Scot Nats, are looking at her with more skeptical eyes
She resigned at a really weird moment, and she left behind a mess. And that's without actually examining her record as FM - as in: the person governing Scotland - which is seriously "imperfect"
Ok maybe. But something I've noticed on here - eg with Mrs Merkel - is that whenever a poster talks about her legacy 'unravelling' I look at who's speaking and - lo - it's somebody with a track record of disliking Mrs Merkel. So it's as though 'legacy' analysis just means not liking now what you never did like.
Does any politician ever really retire leaving a legacy that stands up? I can't think of any modern leader that you can really say has left anything stellar. Things always tend to unravel overtime. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast?
Or the converse. I think all PMs leave a legacy in that the country is affected by their political ideology and is thereby set upon a path that is influenced by their time in office.
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
Yeah, I get that. I just can't think of any that you could say "They were a brilliant PM" in the way that Americans think JFK was as POTUS.
Was he a brilliant POTUS? He made some memorable speeches - but his tenure was so short that he was remembered for word rather than deed. Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand. He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
I think out of anyone else in history he (together with Krushchev) can claim to be person who most managed to keep us out of a nuclear war, so there is that.
Of course it is convenient to disregard the Bay of Pigs and everything else that led up to that point….
The moon landing was part of his legacy.
The civil rights stuff - pushed through by Johnson, after JFK died - was a watershed in US politics
His brother led the charge against the Mafia - which eventually resulted in the breaking of the stranglehold of organised crime in NY and Chicago for a start….
Johnson deserves a lot of credit for his Civil Rights legislation.
I just don't see that Yousaf has the ability to justify to Scottish voters any situation in which the SNP aids the Tories to bring down a minority Labour government at Westminster. Sturgeon in her prime might have pulled it off, but Yousaf is nowhere near her in political skill or capital. I never bought into a formal Labour/SNP pact. It's now completely off the table.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
I thought you were a swashbuckling swordsman who attended all the coolest parties. This one sounds very dull.
Sadly, I have reached the stage where at parties with my peers the general sense is one of relief that we are still alive
But there is a certain joy in that. We all got very drunk and it was very jolly. Friends are such an important part of life and I've been friends with these people for nearly 40 years. A whole bunch of us from university/squatting years in the 1980s. Still friends, miraculously. We're like Calabrian pensioners now. Playing dominos in the sunlit plaza (OK drinking champagne on Lamb's Conduit Street but still) and gossiping about shit we did three decades back. I like it
I used to hang with friends from UCL, they were all bonkers, figuratively and literally. What happened to you? Shape up man!
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
You know, there is a reasonable middle course between these extremes, and it is also the place where maybe 80% of British voters - who are generally kind decent people - happily reside. They rightly dislike and abhor homophobia, everyone should be free to express their sexuality as they see fit, with other consenting adults. Good luck to them. Live and let live. Same goes for trans people. Live and let live
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
Not quite.
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
How do people on PB identify? No idea? Of course you don't. No one cares and it doesn't matter.
There's a disconnect on this question because to liberal-minded people of a certain age, it feels like a repeat of the debates over gay rights that they remember from their youth. They take the 'progressive' side without too much thought, and are suspicious of anyone who seems to care about it. Unfortunately, this is a completely mistaken assessment of the issues at stake.
How is it completely mistaken? It is a stage in the progress of society, love it or hate it.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I suspect the vast majority of parents of kids in the 7-21 bracket care quite a lot, for the reasons Leon says. The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
Can you let me know in a couple of sentences what this result means pls.
TIA
Smart arse response: Humza is now leader of the SNP. He's also very strong odds on to be next FM.
Less smartarse, he will really have to grow on the job (which unlike that weirdo Truss I think he may be capable of doing) or there'll be another leadership election after a bad result, eg the next UK GE.
Thanks but what does it mean for the independence aspirations of the SNP and the balance of Scottish politics?
What about a header, while we're at it?!
They have not being trying for 8 years , with a useless Sturgeon sockpuppet now installed, why would chances improve. I can forecast now we will not see it for a long time.
But what's the route to Indy apart from -
(i) Win a Holyrood election on a SindyRef2 ticket. (ii) Pressurize SW1 to honour the mandate and grant the vote. (iii) Win the vote.
Am I missing something else that could do the trick?
There are two other routes
One is the de facto referendum. Call a Holyrood election on an explicit indy mandate. Extremely risky, but with a charismatic and powerful leader it might just have worked. If the Nats had got an outright majority of all votes, in that election, that WOULD have put quite intense pressure on Westminster
However winning that majority would have been very hard for anyone, and the backfiring potential would be enormous. A defeat would have been the end of indy for decades, and the election might have been boycotted by unionists, leading to a total mess. But it WAS an option.
Not now. Not with Yousless
The second route is what Forbes might have provided. Simply govern Scotland well. Make Scotland prosperous. Sort out the health service, increase investment, make Scotland richer than England (without any need for subsidy). Five years or more of that might have taken the YES polling consistently to 60% and at that point London would probably have had to yield
That too will not happen under Yousless. He's proved to be an inept minister, there is no reason to believe he can transform the economy. He wants to fight Trans-TERF wars FFS
Neither of those options are likely to succeed imo. The 1st is pretty much the current approach but with more downside risk. The 2nd requires magical thinking.
Governing Scotland well and making Scotland prosperous requires magical thinking?
No, the magical thinking aspect is twofold; that (i) any single SNP politician (even the uber mega incredible Kate Forbes!) could have such an impact in just a few years and (ii) that if they could, which they couldn't, it would cause people to flock to the Sindy cause.
A key measure of leadership success is hanging on to the people you are supposed to lead.
Pissing them all off to the extent that they can only work for you if they delete half their Twitter feeds bitching about how impossible you are to work with, isn't conducive to that leadership goal.
Of those who voted "Yes" to independence in 2014, the number currently having a favourable opinion of Yousless is just 2% more than those with an unfavourable opinion of him.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
We've had this debate before. The crucial point is whether you have kids going through school right now, especially age 10-18. Many of these kids will be encountering the Trans agenda and that brings it home to their parents
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive
Comments
Even Truss made people think about a low tax, high growth path. In fact all (!) Truss failed to do was to provide forecasts for how it would all be paid for. Perhaps they thought it would scare the horses and perhaps it was indeed "unaffordable" but people wanted to know. The political ideology now informs today's PM and his policies.
Thatcher and Blair of course have the most obvious legacies.
But these same voters also regard instant gender self ID as a step too far, and they don't like seeing Trans Activists beating up feminists, and they have really serious doubts about gender swap surgery/medication being dished out to confused people under 18, and they do not like being told they cannot even question this, because it makes them "bigots"
There. That's what most people think. Because most people are nice, and sane. You're welcome
I'd like Scotland to prosper. Aside from one caveat*, I'm not greatly exercised about whether it does so within or outside a union with England. To my eyes, this was much more likely to come about with Forbes running the show.
*One caveat is that I have some misgivings about the impact of Sindy on British defence capabilities, in particular the ability of England/Scotland to effectively police the GIUK gap.
"Why is Germany now brutally re-evaluating Angela Merkel’s legacy?"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-is-germany-now-brutally-re-evaluating-angela-merkels-legacy-ptbnr7922
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs
Part of being sucessful at politics is to hype the sucesses and sweep the failures under the carpet, so it's likely that electorally triumphant politicians (Blair, Sturgeon) are more prone to negative reassessment once they're gone.
Thatcher is the interesting one. There is space for a Conservative critique of her rule- partly that it failed on some of its own terms (she wanted a land fit for her father but created one safe for her son, that sort of thing) and partly that her shadow stopped (and maybe still stops) the party moving on. But if it is said, it's rather sotto voce.
It is the legacy you leave behind that matters
Except that with the SNP, that isn't the case. Again, Scotland is a better place to live with regards to services than England. But with the bar set so low that doesn't mean that Scotland is good, just better.
The Scottish government have some serious policy fuckups to their name. Forbes - despite being their Finance Minister - was able to say what those were and how she would do things differently. Yousaf sounds to be in utter denial that anything is wrong, and anything that you may think is wrong isn't their fault blame Westminster.
Whether you want independence or not surely wanting Scotland to prosper has to be a goal. And if the Yousaf government is going to disengage even further from voters then we really are in trouble.
So I now think that the 2024 General Election will be a double kicking. A massive one for the Tories for being malevolent and incompetent, and a smaller one for the SNP for being berks. What that means in seats like my own which is an SNP / Tory battleground remains to be seen.
Although I suppose the job of a POTUS is to a much greater extent than a Prime Minister as a figurehead, and to make the country feel positive about itself. He did that pretty well, as far as I understand.
He also reputedly slept with Marilyn Monroe, and died before there were any repercussions from it. So I suppose that was a success too.
Many snippets online but people have to be very careful or they would end up in jail , hopefully we will get the full story one day
Abroad, there are plenty of examples. eg I would say De Klerk, in ending apartheid peacefully (with Mandela, another titan), Lech Walesa for heroically steering Poland to democracy from communism, and so on
Most people don't mind about gender self ID. They don't think it a step too far; they couldn't care less and aren't about to stand guard at the nation's public lavatories to see who is and isn't allowed in.
But most people absolutely think there should be some modification for women's spaces such as prisons and refuges, and also that there should be modification in sports.
Otherwise as you say, no one cares. Gender self ID per se no one could give a damn about.
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
Though I suppose so much of a political legacy is down to matters outside that politician's control.
Edit: I mean religion is wholly explicable as a phenomenon; just that it allows people inexplicably to say and do things...
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Of course it is convenient to disregard the Bay of Pigs and everything else that led up to that point….
Excluding death in service, the secret is either to be somewhere with fixed term limits, or be an effective backbencher.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
Go on Mumsnet and see
Don't say go to "the internet" for the truth because it is far from the truth for the person (he/she/they) on the Clapham Omnibus.
People can say some strange shit and it's all ok, apparently.
Even though Kennedy was largely the author of the Vietnam mess, which LBJ struggled to deal with.
I mean I have a lot of sympathy for that view but it isn't one I would have thought a person of religion would hold.
I care that one of my best mate's daughters had these drugs and this surgery (via Mermaids and the Tavistock) and it destroyed a marriage, and much else, and I wonder if in a different era she would not have taken this traumatic path, encouraged by people whose motives I really question
And so on
I suspect very very few people who oppose gay marriage (and ISTR this was the majority of the population right up until the time it actually happened) opposed civil partnerships of same-sex couples. It's not the rights (I think?) they oppose, it is the changing the meaning of the thing they thought meant a thing and now means another thing.
Reagan and Thatcher, for instance, can be considered hugely successful leaders but how much responsibility do they bear for the challenges of the globalised, free wheeling, free market economy that they helped create?
All a matter of balance, I suppose.
Seats like Gordon and Aberdeen South and Perth could well be gained by the Conservatives from the SNP as a result, Sunak is also more popular in Scotland than Boris was in 2019
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/tight-race-between-yousaf-and-forbes-among-snp-voters-while-sturgeons-ratings-are-up
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-chinas-falling-population-means-for-the-countrys-future/2023/01/17/7bf1c044-964e-11ed-a173-61e055ec24ef_story.html#:~:text=As recently as 2019, the,the end of the century.
But there is a certain joy in that. We all got very drunk and it was very jolly. Friends are such an important part of life and I've been friends with these people for nearly 40 years. A whole bunch of us from university/squatting years in the 1980s. Still friends, miraculously. We're like Calabrian pensioners now. Playing dominos in the sunlit plaza (OK drinking champagne on Lamb's Conduit Street but still) and gossiping about shit we did three decades back. I like it
It's a sign of your great empathy and understanding that you should be so distraught at what the younger generation is up to these days.
And yes absolutely there are no doubt instances of regret and reversal, although I don't have the stats to hand.
In which case how is death, as you determined, a failure when you will go on to lead an eternal life afterwards. Doesn't sound much of a failure, just a milestone along the journey.
⚡️Media: Leopard 2 tanks from Germany arrive in Ukraine.
Ukraine has received the 18 Leopard 2 tanks pledged by Germany, der Spiegel reported on March 27. 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles also arrived in what der Spiegel’s sources said was a “large package” of weapons.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1640368431470968834
This video from UK MoD on the training of Ukrainians on the Challenger 2 says that it is all done and both men and tanks are now in Ukraine. Interesting and worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9-Eghtai3s
Clearly Ukraine must now be starting to organise the new gear to prepare for an offensive.
O Tempora, O Mores.
Who is to say what we will think of as a "woman" in years hence.
You are sounding a bit frog in the well/religious fundamental truthy here.
I am slightly more optimistic - I think good government is both possible and rewarded. Though with the obvious caveat about not being able to please everyone.
If THE MAGICAL KATE FORBES is truly as magical as we are all hoping a blank slate might be, I reckon she could do it within 6 years.
Of course, there's always the possibility that we are simply projecting our hopes for good government onto someone on the basis that in contrast to her chief rival there is a mildly reassuring lack of evidence, yet, that she wouldn't be terrible.
The civil rights stuff - pushed through by Johnson, after JFK died - was a watershed in US politics
His brother led the charge against the Mafia - which eventually resulted in the breaking of the stranglehold of organised crime in NY and Chicago for a start….
You truly are a great friend to be so worried about the youth of today. Some I believe are even dancing to the music of beat combos if you can believe that.
There are things I am uncomfortable with regarding this sort of subject mater, but my puritanical discomfort shouldn't impact on how other people live their lives within the bounds of reasonableness.
I wonder what UVDL will say eventually, now being EU Chair-of-Wotsit, and previously having been a creature of Merkel for years and years?
I can't say me, because I've been bitterly critical of Merkel's crazy 2014/15 "all come here, and we'll take the ones who don't drown in the Med" immigration policy.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
The schools like the one in the IoM which invite drag queens in to tell kids there are 73 genders are the exception rather than the rule - but they aren't so exceptional that we can comfortably point and laugh.
Pissing them all off to the extent that they can only work for you if they delete half their Twitter feeds bitching about how impossible you are to work with, isn't conducive to that leadership goal.
Of those who voted "Yes" to independence in 2014, the number currently having a favourable opinion of Yousless is just 2% more than those with an unfavourable opinion of him.
For Sturgeon, the equivalent net figure is +55%.
It's not something people bring up with strangers - eg like doorstepping politicians - partly because it is such a poisonous debate and people are scared of being labelled as "bigots" or getting the terminology wrong - see here on this thread. But with friends, fellow parents, yes absolutely people care - and they will debate it. Passionately.
I agree the way the SNP handled it was quite bizarre and self destructive