xbl Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 Well, since they are the opposition, it's a large part of their job description to gnash and scream about government decisions, the sidelines being about the only place they can occupy. And in any case, they may have a point here, I previously posted on why I thought it would be more constructive for all concerned if the presiding officer did not come from the SNP. I did kind of agree with you, but what were the SNP expected to do, it was a free vote, did Labour expect it to be a whipped vote? Oh, and I was reminded today that in 2007, when it could have been Labour's turn, they flat out refused to put up a presiding officer candidate. Edited, to add, and I was also reminded that when Labour were in a majority in Westminster, they voted for a Labour Speaker. I think it would have made sense to go for one from a different party, but Labour's position on this was a bit silly tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Well, since they are the opposition, it's a large part of their job description to gnash and scream about government decisions, the sidelines being about the only place they can occupy. And in any case, they may have a point here, I previously posted on why I thought it would be more constructive for all concerned if the presiding officer did not come from the SNP. They might have a point but making it sensibly and constructively would surely be the best thing for the Labour Party. Hasn't the last 4 years proved that being b*****ds in opposition, simply on principle, doesn't get you anywhere? The problem with Labour is that they only see things in terms of what's good for the Labour Party. Just been shafted by the public at an election? Their answer, change ourselves about a bit to make the public like us. The Labour party were beaten because they have absolutely no vision or message for Scotland. Why is that and if it is the case, why should people vote for them. You can't manufacture a vision in a focus group meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I did kind of agree with you, but what were the SNP expected to do, it was a free vote, did Labour expect it to be a whipped vote? Oh, and I was reminded today that in 2007, when it could have been Labour's turn, they flat out refused to put up a presiding officer candidate. Edited, to add, and I was also reminded that when Labour were in a majority in Westminster, they voted for a Labour Speaker. I think it would have made sense to go for one from a different party, but Labour's position on this was a bit silly tbh. well, 2007 is hardly the same thing, on the narrow margins in the parliaments then, it would have been political lunacy to voluntarily give up one vote. As for Westminster, no I agree Labour were bloody stupid then as well, however, bare in mind that the system does work differnet down there, so while the position laobur chose to take down there is something I disagree with, it's not necessarily a one for one conformance to Holyrood systems. They might have a point but making it sensibly and constructively would surely be the best thing for the Labour Party. Hasn't the last 4 years proved that being b*****ds in opposition, simply on principle, doesn't get you anywhere? The problem with Labour is that they only see things in terms of what's good for the Labour Party. Just been shafted by the public at an election? Their answer, change ourselves about a bit to make the public like us. The Labour party were beaten because they have absolutely no vision or message for Scotland. Why is that and if it is the case, why should people vote for them. You can't manufacture a vision in a focus group meeting. Again, all true. You have to remember as well though, that oppositions do find it far more difficult to articulate a position becuase they lack the apparatus of government to help them come to a reasoned position. For the most part, oppositions have to shoot from the hip regarding policy positions. They simply don't have the depth of researchers and policy wonks to help articulate a compex position. In my own opinion, one of the great opportunities for increased individualism of Holyrood from Westminster, is to move away from adverserial politics. As it stands oppositions will attack and governments will counter-attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Well, since they are the opposition, it's a large part of their job description to gnash and scream about government decisions, the sidelines being about the only place they can occupy. And in any case, they may have a point here, I previously posted on why I thought it would be more constructive for all concerned if the presiding officer did not come from the SNP. Can you link to that previous post? I'm struggling to think of a good reason beyond "Scottish NuLab comprises idiotic children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 Can you link to that previous post? I'm struggling to think of a good reason beyond "Scottish NuLab comprises idiotic children." The SNP have the majority in the chamber, the First Minister, will head the majority of committees, will have a majority on all committees, and there is no second chamber to scrutinise legislation, so I can see why there is an argument for letting the opposition have some means of securing balances, even if its just in a very minor way. The Parliament was supposed to work with the committees providing those checks and balances, but the SNP broke democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Can you link to that previous post? I'm struggling to think of a good reason beyond "Scottish NuLab comprises idiotic children." Sure: Personally I think it would be in the interest of the parliament to go for a non SNP presiding officer, the sheer dominance of the SNP at all levels is pretty much guarenteed, and bare in mind ours was a system built on the probability of no majority governments. With SNP majorities at committee level, I wonder if there is a danger of the SNP becoming sloppy in execution. Their last term was predicated on sound execution of policies in a principled way, and taking opposition views into account. They will need to demonstrate more of this in order to win over the Scottish people for independence. Majorities at commitee level could cause the SNP to ride roughshod over any and all objections. Which oculd lead to slip ups in policy execution.By giving the opposition the presiding officer role, you at least give someone else the job of arranging schedules and managing the delivery of various policy objectives through the various levels of government. It would be good to see the SNP not be too bullish over this point It may, or may not be all that relevant - but those were my initial thoughts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I don't think the presiding officer role will be the difference between sloppy and effective policy execution. In fact I think that's a laughable suggestion. It's concern trolling. Even if it was true, the opposition would love to see the SNP overplay their hand and fail. The SNP ran a free vote on it, how is that being "bullish"? As I suspected, the main argument seems to be that the opposition are such brittle children that they need to be given a gold star despite being utterly rejected by the electorate. It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I don't think the presiding officer role will be the difference between sloppy and effective policy execution. In fact I think that's a laughable suggestion. It's concern trolling. Even if it was true, the opposition would love to see the SNP overplay their hand and fail. The SNP ran a free vote on it, how is that being "bullish"? As I suspected, the main argument seems to be that the opposition are such brittle children that they need to be given a gold star despite being utterly rejected by the electorate. It's nonsense. It's not actually 'concern trolling', I do want the independence referendum and more importantly I want a 'yes' vote in it. As for the bullish comment, that was written before the vote, and before I knew it was going to be a free vote rather than whipped one way or the other, although I still suspect that the party body could ahve been persuaded by the SNP leadership one way or the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I can see the point in voting in a non-SNPer, form the SNPs point of view. Only if this 'bulldozer' and bullying talk actually resonates with a number of voters (which I doubt it will). As Swampy says though, the presiding officer is a non-political position. There's never been a complaint about any previous ones, as far as I know, and I see no reason why Tricia Marwick will be any different. John McTernan and the other Labour twats probably shot their chances of getting PO by encouraging them to stop the referendum at that stag, on legal grounds. A preposterous suggestion but the SNP don't have to give concessions and don't have to take that risk, with their numbers, so why bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It's not actually 'concern trolling', I do want the independence referendum and more importantly I want a 'yes' vote in it. As for the bullish comment, that was written before the vote, and before I knew it was going to be a free vote rather than whipped one way or the other, although I still suspect that the party body could ahve been persuaded by the SNP leadership one way or the other Can I ask you two yes or no questions: 1) Do you really, honestly think the Presiding Officer position will be the tipping point for the SNP legislating in a slipshod and lazy fashion? 2) Do you think the SNP leadership should have backed a *specific* non-SNP candidate for the position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Can I ask you two yes or no questions: 1) Do you really, honestly think the Presiding Officer position will be the tipping point for the SNP legislating in a slipshod and lazy fashion? 2) Do you think the SNP leadership should have backed a *specific* non-SNP candidate for the position? 1) The control of scheduling in parliament would at least offer some small block to legislation passing through parliament quickly, and might at least open up more debate. In terms of SNP legislation, well the checks and balance system is pretty well shot through at the moment. I don't think the presiding officer will make the biggest contribution one way or another, no. There are some rpesentaitonal issues as well, as Gordon EF pointed out. 2) To be quite honest, having seen who put their names into the hat for it, no. Had the opposition candidates put up a better candidate, then I might have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 1) The control of scheduling in parliament would at least offer some small block to legislation passing through parliament quickly, and might at least open up more debate. In terms of SNP legislation, well the checks and balance system is pretty well shot through at the moment. I don't think the presiding officer will make the biggest contribution one way or another, no. There are some rpesentaitonal issues as well, as Gordon EF pointed out. 2) To be quite honest, having seen who put their names into the hat for it, no. Had the opposition candidates put up a better candidate, then I might have done. But there aren't representational issues. It was a free vote, and the peoples' representatives have voted in accordance with their consciences. Honestly, the institutional defects of the Scottish Parliament - which are few and I don't think are really worth worrying about - do not begin and end with the Presiding Officer position in any case, and I maintain that wringing one's hands over this is concern trolling. It's a massive non-issue that an SNP member got the position. In fact the converse *would* be an issue. As someone else brought up, give the scheduling powers to a CDUist and it'll f**k with the independence referendum. The CDU bloc showed during campaigning that they can't deal with the independence question in a mature and rational fashion, and thus there's no compelling reason to give them access to the levers of power and plenty of reasons not to do so. The SNP would never say so publicly but I imagine that the leadership feels much the same way. We're in for five years of attempted sabotage as it is - why bother helping with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Bump. What's happened to Reynard? And can this be moved to the politics forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Bump. What's happened to Reynard? Think he finally disappeared up his own arsehole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 my favourite bit is all the britnats pretending they are delighted with the night's events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Bump. What's happened to Reynard? And can this be moved to the politics forum? He is over on twitter having a complete meltdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 He is over on twitter having a complete meltdown Reynard the Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Whoever said was right, it was quite a thread. Wasn't on P & B at the time, but wondrous scenes. Above everything else I have now found this wondrous piece of footage Please let some of the Labour gadgies have breakdowns like this in 6 weeks time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Whoever said was right, it was quite a thread. Wasn't on P & B at the time, but wondrous scenes. Above everything else I have now found this wondrous piece of footage Please let some of the Labour gadgies have breakdowns like this in 6 weeks time What a fucking zoomer. The snp guy has a right greggy Wallace coupon there at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.