Next permanent Scotland manager

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, Trogdor said:

This.

I really don't understand why Humza would lie about something like this where he gains so little advantage. He has been the same way as minister tbh, a lack of political judgement.

If I had a vote I would spoil my ballot.

Nail on the head. The issue is not really whether he voted - Forbes has also been dishonest about her stance to cling on to a ministerial position. The first issue is the clown running across a minefield attempts to justify/deny it ever happened, while trying to take the moral high ground in a leadership contest. 

The second issue is that his Continuity Sturgeon act is so devoid of ideas that this is the only point of significance in his campaign to date. Policies that were already turning Sturgeon into quite a divisive figure will stink the place out under a far less capable and ultimately spineless 'leader' like Yousaf. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by vikingTON

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

Yousaf must have thought no one would come out to contradict his false claim.

A gamble which evidently didn’t pay off.

[Suspect Device]

8 hours ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

Surely I can't be the only one sceptical of SleepyCuddles' recollection when i would imagine he is almost certainly going to be favouring Ash Regan in this binfire of a contest.

Like I said, I'm sceptical of both Salmond and Useless. I don't know which one to believe because I don't trust either of them.

Forbes has apparently been honest about something which she knew would get her flak so I would trust her (slightly) more.

 

And I don't think Salmond could believe that Regan is going to win. Does anyone think she has a chance?

Of the 3 very poor choices, I'd go for Forbes. A competent, honest 'bigot' over a couple of idiots who I wouldn't trust to organise a birthday party.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Suspect Device

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Like I said, I'm sceptical of both Salmond and Useless. I don't know which one to believe because I don't trust either of them.

Forbes has been honest about something which she knew would get her flak so I would trust her (slightly) more.

I think Forbes is getting too much credit for the "I was just being honest about my bigotry" stuff. I think it was more a case of naivety/political ineptitude.

I'd hope the next FM would be a reasonably smart political operator, so that was just stupid by Forbes. Unfortunately the other two are shite candidates as well. I suppose damningly for the opposition, whichever one of these clowns wins, they should still have enough about them to regularly get the better of Anas Sarwar and throw DRoss around the chamber like a gym towel. 

[Trogdor]

4 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Like I said, I'm sceptical of both Salmond and Useless. I don't know which one to believe because I don't trust either of them.

Forbes has been honest about something which she knew would get her flak so I would trust her (slightly) more.

I think its fairly clear that Humza has been caught here.

He has been decidedly shifty when asked about it. Giving it the "I don't recollect a meeting" and "it was 9 years ago...". He hasn't said that Alex Neil or Alex Salmond are lying. I certainly would have if I knew I was right.

Moreover, I would have thought some big hitters would have come out to bat for him if he was telling the truth. The Deputy First Minster (NS) at the time for one. To date he has Joe Fitzpatrick who *checks notes* was the Minster sacked for the drug deaths debacle (before the parliament voted on a motion of no confidence in him) and whose contributions in parliament have been utter word salad.

It is political naivety from Humza here. He had no reason to lie. Just tell the truth, I scheduled a ministerial appointment at the time as I was under immense pressure from Muslim leaders in Scotland. In hindsight and with my experience now I wouldn't have done the same. Done and move one.

He is very likely to be the next First Minster as well and as VT highlighted his policies amount to continuity Sturgeon. Which wasn't working out too well at the end. No chance of a reset or change of direction, I'm not even sure he has the political vision for that. 

[Suspect Device]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

I think Forbes is getting too much credit for the "I was just being honest about my bigotry" stuff. I think it was more a case of naivety/political ineptitude.

I'd hope the next FM would be a reasonably smart political operator, so that was just stupid by Forbes. Unfortunately the other two are shite candidates as well. I suppose damningly for the opposition, whichever one of these clowns wins, they should still have enough about them to regularly get the better of Anas Sarwar and throw DRoss around the chamber like a gym towel. 

It's possible but I prefer to think she was sticking her views out there because she knew it would be an issue and aiming for the reaction that I am having. 

9 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I think its fairly clear that Humza has been caught here.

He has been decidedly shifty when asked about it. Giving it the "I don't recollect a meeting" and "it was 9 years ago...". He hasn't said that Alex Neil or Alex Salmond are lying. I certainly would have if I knew I was right.

Moreover, I would have thought some big hitters would have come out to bat for him if he was telling the truth. The Deputy First Minster (NS) at the time for one. To date he has Joe Fitzpatrick who *checks notes* was the Minster sacked for the drug deaths debacle (before the parliament voted on a motion of no confidence in him) and whose contributions in parliament have been utter word salad.

It is political naivety from Humza here. He had no reason to lie. Just tell the truth, I scheduled a ministerial appointment at the time as I was under immense pressure from Muslim leaders in Scotland. In hindsight and with my experience now I wouldn't have done the same. Done and move one.

He is very likely to be the next First Minster as well and as VT highlighted his policies amount to continuity Sturgeon. Which wasn't working out too well at the end. No chance of a reset or change of direction, I'm not even sure he has the political vision for that. 

The poor memory angle has been overused recently. Sturgeon did it to death. For a smart political operator who normally was all over the facts, her memory lapses had me calling bullshit quite a lot.

I'm calling bullshit on Humza as well.

[vikingTON]

20 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Which is what worries me the most, I grew up as a Labour voter and if Starmer is a socialist, I am a 30 goal a season striker in the premiership.

The SNP should be a socialist alternative to (what passes for) Labour, not apeing them.

No it shouldn't, it should be a National Party for Scotland, whose consistent interest is to get 50%+ on board with policies that ultimately serve the cause of future independence. There should also be a viable Socialist Party that supports independence - the two can cooperate and diverge on each issue. 

The biggest failing in retrospect of the 2014 referendum campaign and the 2015 election was that it gave the Radical Independence mob and self-pitying 'Laebur left me' types the false sense that they are the integral interest that the SNP should serve or else. 

[Savage Henry]

7 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Not sure what he's supposed to have lied about. He had an important meeting at the time of the vote, nobody disputes this. Whether the timing was deliberately convenient is neither here nor there, and he voted for the bill twice before. Politics isn't always straightforward, sometimes people have to balance their own opinions with representing constituents, communities and party.

Yeah.  It’s funny.  The Salmond interview that brought this to light actually saw him make this precise point.  It was hardly the blistering attack Yer Da voters have it.   I have no horse in this race, but it screams contrived controversy.  
 

It’s all rather unbecoming - I guess it all boils down to whether you see the SNP as having independence as the ultimate end, or if independence is merely one mechanism in the process of creating a fairer society.  
 

The supporters of the former - and I see a few of them lamenting Sturgeon’s opposition to Brexit on the basis that allowing Brexit would have created national suffering which would have enhanced the independence movement: a particularly masochistic and egotistical outlook - will be more likely to support Regan.  

[betting competition]

Not really surprising that Salmond is trying to hurt Sturgeon/Murrell choice.

I can't vote for Ash Regan with her transgender views but I believe she is only in the party because Alba is very weak.

Can't vote for Kate Forbes with her bigoted views and think the party will lose a lot of LGBT members of the party if she wins. I do think Mhari Black was spot on with her thread on twitter.

Not been that impressed with Humza Yousaf in the past but I see how well Stephen Flynn is doing as Westminster leader then I'm willing to give him a chance. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by betting competition

[orfc]

8 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

The supporters of the former - and I see a few of them lamenting Sturgeon’s opposition to Brexit on the basis that allowing Brexit would have created national suffering which would have enhanced the independence movement: a particularly masochistic and egotistical outlook - will be more likely to support Regan.  

Aye, she tried her hardest for sure

https://archive.news.stv.tv/politics/1436644-sturgeon-pressed-on-why-snp-mps-abstained-on-customs-union.html

[Antlion]

30 minutes ago, orfc said:

Aye, she tried her hardest for sure

https://archive.news.stv.tv/politics/1436644-sturgeon-pressed-on-why-snp-mps-abstained-on-customs-union.html

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Antlion

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Such as?

Buffer zones around abortion clinics. She's been very careful to avoid saying she would go ahead with them, just that she's against intimidation and harassment. Same with LGBT+ conversion therapy, hasn't said she'd support a ban, just that nobody should be forced to undergo it.

[renton]

50 minutes ago, betting competition said:

Not really surprising that Salmond is trying to hurting Sturgeon/Murrell choice.

I can't vote for Ash Regan with her transgender views but I believe she is only in the party because Alba is very weak.

Can't vote for Kate Forbes with her bigoted views and think the party will lose a lot of LGBT members of the party if she wins. I do think Mhari Black was spot on with her thread on twitter.

Not been that impressed with Humza Yousaf in the past but I see how well Stephen Flynn is doing as Westminster leader then I'm willing to give him a chance. 

The other thing about Forbes is, she gets in and the Greens pull out of the Bute House agreement. So SNP running as a minority government - well, they've done that before. We're a year out from the next WM election with Labouf 20 points or more ahead. So Sarwar isn't going to be cutting any deals and the Greens aren't going to be in the mood either. Forbes is naturally less left wing inclined economically anyway.

That leaves us with the image of a Forbes government cutting deals with the Tories to pass centrist (at best) budgets with Starmer racing around the left flank.

Now, you could of course claim that WM elections make no real practical difference to Scotland but it would severely weaken the SNP from the get go if they then get hammered in that election, and suddenly all the momentum is with Sarwar while Forbes ekes out 3 more years of budget deals with the Tories and accepting the s35 hits on previously passed government business.

[welshbairn]

35 minutes ago, renton said:

The other thing about Forbes is, she gets in and the Greens pull out of the Bute House agreement. So SNP running as a minority government - well, they've done that before. We're a year out from the next WM election with Labouf 20 points or more ahead. So Sarwar isn't going to be cutting any deals and the Greens aren't going to be in the mood either. Forbes is naturally less left wing inclined economically anyway.

That leaves us with the image of a Forbes government cutting deals with the Tories to pass centrist (at best) budgets with Starmer racing around the left flank.

Now, you could of course claim that WM elections make no real practical difference to Scotland but it would severely weaken the SNP from the get go if they then get hammered in that election, and suddenly all the momentum is with Sarwar while Forbes ekes out 3 more years of budget deals with the Tories and accepting the s35 hits on previously passed government business.

It's possible that Forbes as leader wouldn't even get elected FM. It's unlikely another party leader would either which would force an election if they couldn't agree on one within 28 days.

Edited March 3, 2023 by welshbairn

[vikingTON]

35 minutes ago, renton said:

That leaves us with the image of a Forbes government cutting deals with the Tories to pass centrist (at best) budgets with Starmer racing around the left flank.

[renton]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Relatively speaking.

[vikingTON]

38 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Buffer zones around abortion clinics. She's been very careful to avoid saying she would go ahead with them, just that she's against intimidation and harassment. Same with LGBT+ conversion therapy, hasn't said she'd support a ban, just that nobody should be forced to undergo it.

Neither of which are a rollback of existing rights or protections. Although it's hardly surprising that Scottish political discourse once again revolves around 'banning' something as the solution to a problem of little societal urgency. That's been Holyrood's M.O. since 1999. 

You are aware that Kate Forbes and the other candidates are running to be the leader of a large and pluralistic political party, in a multi-party chamber where agreement with at least one other party is essential to set policy?We're not handing any of them the nuclear codes or the right to set executive orders/rule by decree. 

The concern trolling around the protection of rights in this campaign should be filed in the bin where it belongs then. 

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

Relatively speaking.

Relatively speaking to whom? Starmer supports Brexit, is subservient to the gammon views of Red Wall England and his party is now getting the standard attention of corporate lobbyists who see the way the wind is blowing. There's no chance of him outflanking the SG on the left. 

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Neither of which are a rollback of existing rights or protections.

Which wasn't what you were asking for examples of.

Quote

 It's fine and well for Forbes to say she has no plans to roll back existing laws and remove existing rights, but what about future hypotheticals?

 

[welshbairn]

On 28/02/2023 at 22:29, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Their editor must have wanked himself silly when Ross held up that front page in parliament.

Veering to the right editorially must be their new strategy after recently being forced to shutter half of their newspapers. I know I shouldn't look at it, but their FB page is just a constant stream of Daily Mail-esque faux outrage. I'm sure they have the same few "What about the A9!/potholes!/cyclists!/gypsies!/trans people!" headlines on rotation every day. All exclusively commented on by the same cabal of weirdo gammons.

They've got the candidates to agree to a hustings on March 17th that they'll host, I'd imagine the stage will be surrounded by union flags.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/inverness-courier-to-host-snp-leadership-hustings-305341/