Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scary Bear

#BothVotesSNP

Recommended Posts

Willie posting his myopic pish once again, big surprise.

I reckon the Greens would have supported Sturgeon for FM if their vote was vital, it was not.

I reckon during the course of this Parliament the Greens will support progressive policies put forward by the SNP government and will not support policies that are not progressive. As someone who voted SNP/Green that is what I hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie posting his myopic pish once again, big surprise.

I reckon the Greens would have supported Sturgeon for FM if their vote was vital, it was not.

I reckon during the course of this Parliament the Greens will support progressive policies put forward by the SNP government and will not support policies that are not progressive. As someone who voted SNP/Green that is what I hope for.

I think that is the point he is trying to make. 

 

If push came to shove and you were ready to back her as FM, why not do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the point he is trying to make.

If push came to shove and you were ready to back her as FM, why not do it anyway.

They would only back her if they received some concessions. Sturgeon indicated there would be no coalition and not even a supply and demand deal, so they weren't going to back her. If the SNP needed the Greens votes then they would have to offer them something in return.

Too many people here think the Greens are just a faction of the SNP and expect them to blindly back the SNP all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would only back her if they received some concessions. Sturgeon indicated there would be no coalition and not even a supply and demand deal, so they weren't going to back her. If the SNP needed the Greens votes then they would have to offer them something in return.

Too many people here think the Greens are just a faction of the SNP and expect them to blindly back the SNP all the time.

Why would they receive concessions?  If they thought that she was the best candidate for FM then they should vote for her, if not then they should have either stood someone against her as the Lib Dems did or vote for an alternative candidate.

 

I am having a go at the Greens specifically, it is the idea that abstaining from a vote is in someway a responsible action.

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNP will not cater for the Greens on this matter, why would they?

The SNP are in a position with Labour, LibDems and the Greens that they can turn and say basically 3 options - us, the Tories or Abstain. 99% of the time if they're smart they're going to do either the first or the third.

Although on this matter it's common practice to vote in house or abstain.

Edited by Antiochas III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie posting his myopic pish once again, big surprise.

I reckon the Greens would have supported Sturgeon for FM if their vote was vital, it was not.

I reckon during the course of this Parliament the Greens will support progressive policies put forward by the SNP government and will not support policies that are not progressive. As someone who voted SNP/Green that is what I hope for.

If their vote was vital then Nicola would have had to at least toss them a bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look at previous first ministers to see if this abstention thing is new

In 2003 everyone apart from the Liberals stood a candidate and there were no abstentions

Denis Canavan voted for Margo MacDonald and she voted for him

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=4442&i=31979&c=0&s=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Three parties voted (?) to abstain and they were Tories, Slab & Greens.

In my book that's called siding with the opposition.

 

What if it had been the Tories

Like it or no I would have said the same.

 

There's an internally consistent logic here, but one which relies on basically failing to understand what in the fucking universe is actually going on.

 

Why would they receive concessions?

 

Horse-trading. Minority governments in the parliamentary system are perceived as weak. Having an ostensible majority in advance of proposing legislation is a very handy thing. An agreement to vote with the SNP on specific policies would potentially save the SNP face later on. Otherwise anything that the government proposes is subject to ad-hoc agreements on the day.

Edited by Thumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ermmm

That's the point.

Independence is just another policy to the greens, it's not their raison d'être . They would get precisely nowhere if they backed a party that supported lower air passenger duty for the sake of independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Independence is just another policy to the greens, it's not their raison d'être . They would get precisely nowhere if they backed a party that supported lower air passenger duty for the sake of independence.

Well done on repeating an established truism. It has nothing to do with my point though.

Maybe the 1.5 trillion SNP voters who "wasted" their votes don't believe in early decommissioning of north sea oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horse-trading. Minority governments in the parliamentary system are perceived as weak. Having an ostensible majority in advance of proposing legislation is a very handy thing. An agreement to vote with the SNP on specific policies would potentially save the SNP face later on. Otherwise anything that the government proposes is subject to ad-hoc agreements on the day.

The question and answer were purely on the vote for FM, nothing to do with policies.  In this context why would the Greens not vote for a FM if they don't bother standing their own candidate.  As Topcat has posted above, this can not even be claimed to be the historical norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question and answer were purely on the vote for FM, nothing to do with policies.  In this context why would the Greens not vote for a FM if they don't bother standing their own candidate.  As Topcat has posted above, this can not even be claimed to be the historical norm.

 

And the answer is the same: it's a potential bargaining chip. The Greens don't gain anything by voting for Nicola without any concessions. Once again, the Greens are not some sort of SNP proxy - they want to be considered as a standalone party with the prospect of governing themselves one day.

 

Comparisons to 2003 are a red herring. In 2003 no party held a working majority and so there was theoretically a chance that the FM wouldn't be from the party with the most seats. Since 2007 there have been plenty of abstentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the answer is the same: it's a potential bargaining chip. The Greens don't gain anything by voting for Nicola without any concessions. Once again, the Greens are not some sort of SNP proxy - they want to be considered as a standalone party with the prospect of governing themselves one day.

 

Comparisons to 2003 are a red herring. In 2003 no party held a working majority and so there was theoretically a chance that the FM wouldn't be from the party with the most seats. Since 2007 there have been plenty of abstentions.

That is just utter nonesense.  There was a formal agreement with the LD and Lab in 2003 and there was no chance of anyone other than McConnell getting the nod.  The fact that there were multiple candidates only re-inforces this as there was never a serious challenge.  So again the question is if you think that someone is a good choice for FM then why not vote for them, if not then stand your own candidate.

 

If you want to play gesture politics then at least do it full-on and not in a half arsed way by abstaining.

 

ETA: As previously evidenced, the Greens actually put themselves forward as the party for the SNP voters to vote for with their list votes.  It is hardly surprising if those same people (for clarity not myself) expect a quid pro quo.

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: As previously evidenced, the Greens actually put themselves forward as the party for the SNP voters to vote for with their list votes.  It is hardly surprising if those same people (for clarity not myself) expect a quid pro quo.

 

It's hardly surprising if those people have the same defective / selective reading as you, whereby one stops reading any sentence at the word "but".

 

So again the question is if you think that someone is a good choice for FM then why not vote for them, if not then stand your own candidate.

 

I don't know why they didn't nominate a candidate. It's plausible that it's due to their co-convener system, whereby they didn't want to be seen favouring one over the other. I'm not privy to that discussion. But it's either ignorant or disingenuous to suggest that failing to nominate a candidate and abstaining from supporting someone else's was new or unusual when it's been exactly what everyone has done for the last thirteen years. f**k's sake, even the largest opposition party haven't nominated a candidate since 2007.

Edited by Thumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly surprising if those people have the same defective / selective reading as you, whereby one stops reading any sentence at the word "but".

 

I read past the word, however the context of the quote was to appeal to SNP voters that felt their list vote could be better utilised.  Only an ignorant fool would deny that is exactly the way the greens went after the SNP list votes.

 

I don't know why they didn't nominate a candidate

Then why not just say that rather than trying to portray everyone that questions this as some sort of SNP simpleton that doesn't realise the Greens their own party.  Your claim that this was a potential bargaining chip, in the context of the unionist parties abstianing is just not realistic.

 

As I previously stated, if you are going to partake in gesture politics then at least do it properly.

 

 

But it's either ignorant or disingenuous to suggest that failing to nominate a candidate and abstaining from supporting someone else's was new or unusual when it's been exactly what everyone has done for the last thirteen years. f**k's sake, even the largest opposition party haven't nominated a candidate since 2007.

 

Or to put it another way, since the SNP have not been the largest opposition party. 

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm astounded that folk on here are getting so animated about a non event. It's like the closed season in football.

I'll be grateful when the Parliament starts discussing policy and there's some real issues to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie posting his myopic pish once again, big surprise.

I reckon the Greens would have supported Sturgeon for FM if their vote was vital, it was not.

I reckon during the course of this Parliament the Greens will support progressive policies put forward by the SNP government and will not support policies that are not progressive. As someone who voted SNP/Green that is what I hope for.

I was wondering when you were going tae appear.

You and Thumper wid make a guid comedy duo.

 

I reckon during the course of this Parliament the Greens will support progressive policies put forward by the SNP government

and that has f**k all to do with what I asked.

Why did the Greens no endorse Nicola Sturgeon as FM?

That is all I said.

A procedure that occurred before Parliament got down tae business.

And you rabbit on about supporting policies in the future.

Can ye get it intae that thick heid of yours that ALL I asked was:

Why can't a party of 7 MSPs say that the leader of the party with 63 MSPs deserved tae be FM.

 

I think that is the point he is trying to make. 

 

If push came to shove and you were ready to back her as FM, why not do it anyway.

Almost right but I'm no asking about what happens in the future.

I'm just saying that irrespective of party loyalties the Greens could have and should have endorsed Nicola.

What harm would it do?

 

Why would they receive concessions?  If they thought that she was the best candidate for FM then they should vote for her, if not then they should have either stood someone against her as the Lib Dems did or vote for an alternative candidate.

 

I am having a go at the Greens specifically, it is the idea that abstaining from a vote is in someway a responsible action.

Spot on :thumsup2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they receive concessions? If they thought that she was the best candidate for FM then they should vote for her, if not then they should have either stood someone against her as the Lib Dems did or vote for an alternative candidate.

I am having a go at the Greens specifically, it is the idea that abstaining from a vote is in someway a responsible action.

If the greens are trying to be taken seriously then following the example of the Lib Dems might not be the best idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 May 2007 

First round of voting

Alex Salmond  (SNP) 49
Jack McConnell (Labour) 46
Annabel Goldie (Conservative) 16
Nicol Stephen (Liberal) 16
Abstentions 1
 
Goldie and Stephen were eliminated and their parties chose to abstain from the 2nd round of voting as opposed to electing the remaining Yoonionist candidate.
 
It's as if they didn't view their entire political identity through the prism of a single issue

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/16615.aspx
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...