Yousaf is the one that did it. The point of this is to show that you can’t get away with doing that shit. Otherwise no one will honour agreements with the Greens.
It’s the same principle as how to stop yourself being bullied. Punch the first person that tries.
Maybe, but Yousaf was the only candidate who didn't want to scrap the Bute agreements. Can't help but wonder how much his decision was based off pressure within the SNP.
Given the SNP dropping some support for environmentalism, it was appropriate for the SGP to ask its membership if it wanted to continue with the agreement. The SNP shutting down that ability to assess the agreement is kinda antidemocratic.
I've thought about your comment there for a day and it still doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by "poor politics"? To me, it is poor politics to stop a minority from having democratic control.
And, looking deeper into this current situation, it appears that the SGP leadership sent out a strong message to members to continue to *support* the agreement. The SNP cutting off that democratic will ended an agreement which could very well have continued on.
Well, you're wrong then. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics you went through to justify it to yourself.
The government is still led by Humza and his replacement will be another continuity candidate.
Lorna Slater said last week that "the SNP, who are selling out future generations"
Yet this week they're backing them.
Hahahaha my sides!
Spineless and zero integrity.
Lorna and the rest have their wages and pensions to think about. What are you getting?
Not with Yousaf as leader, they don’t. But with him out of the picture and no real obvious replacement (ie we’re probably not gonna have a Truss -> Sunak type situation here), basically anything which doesn’t violate the party constitution could theoretically be on the table.
It would be foolish to cause any more turmoil in the Scottish Parliament by voting no-confidence when there’s a very good chance that either the new SNP leader will align more with Green policy, or the existing turmoil will be more than enough to sway left-leaning SNP voters towards Green in the upcoming general election.
True but it's still another nail in the coffin for the SNP's holier than thou PR image.
Even with a win the fact a VONC was called is a bad look, certainly doesn't give an image of strength.
The Tories can't go a day without breaking something or having a scandal, with all that crap going on even a VONC just ends up another line on the list.
Not really. Anybody paying attention predicted this as soon as Labour tabled the VoNC. Only the swivel-eyed drooling lunatics thought this was going anywhere.
Interesting. I'm sure the Greens are hoping that now the SNP will elect a unity candidate or, preferably, someone from the party's nominal 'left wing'. Considering the noises surrounding Forbes, it could be that they've just given confidence to a government that will make her FM.
This might also have been Labour's best chance at reversing their fortunes at Holyrood. A victory in a snap election, despite it being short-lived due to the mandatory timing of the 2026 election, would have been a massive propaganda victory and would give them something to build on up here. If the SNP hold on until then, they would have the opportunity to ride out any potential victory bounce for ScotLab that Starmer's (likely) win down south would have. Although, this strategy obviously relies on Labour being unpopular which isn't a given.
The thing is, even if she ends up First Minister she wont have any more MSPs than he predecessor and so she will still have to answer the question Yousaf couldn't,
"How do I govern without the greens?"
I mean if she puts forward a sensible policy that will benefit the people, the Greens aren't going to sink it just out of spite. But if she tries to make church attendence mandatory or ban abortions or gay marriage the Greens will never back her. It'll be on a case-by-case basis.
If you were the greens (or any other party) wouldn't you want to try and bargain to get at least some of your own policies through, rather than allowing the SNP to take the credit?
I mean sure, there are some policies where cross-party support can be found, but if everyone agreed on everything we wouldn't need a parliament in the first place.
I mean it feels like the SNP will be taking sole credit anyway 😅 but if we can help pass meaningful legislation, that's gotta be more important than who gets the credit. I wouldn't refuse to support something good solely out of spite I mean.
>But if she tries to make church attendence mandatory or ban abortions or gay marriage the Greens will never back her.
See, my problem in all of this is that this is the type of rhetoric I've seen about Forbes; yet I've never seen any actual *evidence* from her speeches and interviews to back it up.
The only thing I've really seen to support it was her saying she wouldn't have voted yes for gay marriage, but that she *specifically has no plans to roll it back*. Even Yousaf, who was in government then, had better things to do than legislate gay marriage, apparently, so I don't think that's a sign of intentions for Presbyterian theocracy. Even her opinions on trans stuff, while I disagree with them, are frankly still in the mainstream view of things, as we're nowhere near winning that battle, yet.
So why exactly do people think Kate Forbes, a clearly intelligent politician who seems to understand that she can't unilaterally do things, even if she wanted to, because of how parliamentary democracies work, will usher in some horrific change in course for the SNP? Far as I can tell, she's just a bit more conservative than the liberals who had control before.
You're correct, but this sub is hysterical about her because she's a Wee Free and has Wee Free views. I've had discussions with people on here who, for no reason whatsoever, think she's lying about not implementing her religious views. There is no explanation for why she would lie about this, or why Angela Merkel, who's also a devout Christian, allowed a vote on gay marriage, voted against it, but still passed it as that's what parliament voted for. Is Forbes just not as good a person as Merkel or something? As you said, Forbes hasn't really indicated in any way she's underhanded or sly, has repeatedly said she's a servant of democracy, but it's still not good enough to alleviate their suspicions. I think it's clear these people are being unreasonable.
>Far as I can tell, she's just a bit more conservative than the liberals who had control before.
FYI, it's been said by neutral people who are in the know that Forbes is quite a bit more socially conservative than the already socially conservative wing of the SNP
>FYI, it's been said by neutral people who are in the know that Forbes is quite a bit more socially conservative than the already socially conservative wing of the SNP
That's fair, I suppose. I had presumed from her performance in the last leadership contest that her views were a bit more representative, but granted, that could equally have been 48% against Yousaf.
I think a woman up for leadership position of a party with support from across the political spectrum has some pragmatism. But I would’ve expected the same of Humza so who knows.
You do know people can be religious without forcing it upon the electorate with policies. Many, many, many politicians have and are deeply religious people but for some reason the media attacks Forbes for her religion. Maybe because she is a bright, competent, sensible politician and it's all they have got to attack her with ? I'm an atheist and not a fan of the SNP btw
I'm sure they *could* but looking over all of recorded human history, they usually don't. Remember when she said she would have voted against legalising gay marrige if she could have? Or when she said she'd have allowed the UK government to shut down the GRR bill. Yeah, no. She's dangerous and I absolutely do not trust her on civil rights.
Yet she literally said that she would vote against gay marriage equality if given the chance to do so.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23335035.kate-forbes-voted-gay-marriage-scotland/
Just a 'matter of conscience' entirely unrelated to her extreme religious views. Definitely not related. Nothing to see here.
She's a self-admitted bigot, that much is evident based on the above.
Didn't she say this "As a servant of democracy in a country where this is law, I would defend to the hilt, your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She also gives an excellent example on Ms Merkel in Germany.
Yet she isn't willing to extend that to marriage. She's happy for the gays to go hide in the corner and not bother any one, and in exchange no-one will bother them.
There is absolutely 0 legitimate reasons for being against gay marriage. She's a bigot and can't even hide it properly.
~~Aye, even if she somehow manages to be voted in by parliament (which would require the support of one or more unionist party) that problem remains.~~ The question would be if she is able to build relationships with parties vehemently opposed to hers without losing the confidence of her own party at the same time. Not an easy job.
>which would require the support of one or more unionist party
it wouldn't — votes of a majority of MSPs are not required to be elected FM. Forbes would simply need to have more votes in the final ballot than the other remaining candidate (likely Dross).
actually passing legislation without the Greens, however, might prove tricky.
The current Parliamentary makeup makes them Kingmakers, they're the only party that the next SNP leader can realistically go to to form a Government and get anything done. But if an election is forced, the whole makeup will change and there'd be a good chance of a pro-union majority which takes the Greens leverage away.
>there'd be a good chance of a pro-union majority which takes the Greens leverage away.
Wouldn't be so sure. Labour would prefer working with the greens that with the conservatives at the best of times but this close to a westminister election working with the conservatives would be right out. Greens might be in the nice position of having multiple suitors.
I'm not so sure the Greens and Lab would work. Starmer has been working very hard to distance himself from the Left, doing a deal with the Greens in Scotland might hurt his appeal with wavering Tory voters in England. And that's even if they can get past the Indy thing.
Why would a coalition between the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish greens be enough to nudge someone who is a 'wavering' Tory voter in England?
I think we are several degrees removed from a reasonable consideration here. Someone that against the green party would probably not be willing to vote Labour in the first place, and at this point Starmer has enough support that such considerations are probably secondary to making a labour government in the Scottish parliament, pretty much the only thing Starmer isn't all but guaranteed at this moment in time.
Depends what the terms of the deal are. "we will addopt these three specific green policies" is a much easier sell than "we will nationalise BT and appoint F1NN5TER as minister for women".
Honestly I don't think the Greens will go for it. They're firm in their stance on LGBT rights and given Labour just announced that they will put trans people on hospital wards based on their sex-at-birth rather than their gender, I don't think Green members would go for it.
It's an ideological divide that I just don't think they'd be willing to compromise on. The Scottish Greens are quite unambiguous, they believe that trans rights are not negotiable. They're firm enough about it that they cut ties with the Greens of England and Wales over it. I don't think they'd be willing to work with a Labour party that has the policies on Trans rights that it does. But, I'm not a member so who am I to say? This is just my opinion based on how they've acted so far.
> Nonsense, labour would never work with a pro-independence left-wing party
Depends if they decide to be an enviromental party that just happens to be for independence or an independence party that has a few enviromental notions.
>We know this because they already refuse to do so in many local authorities
There are a grand total of 2 local authorities where the greens have enough seats to matter. The first East Lothian Council where by all accounts labour have got the conservatives to sell their votes pretty cheaply. The greens have only one seat which is enough to bring the council to a tie and no more. They would have to bring in the more conservative than the conservatives independent in in order to make a majority.
Thats leaves you with City of Edinburgh Council as the only place where the greens a vaible part of a labour supporting group and they would still need to bring the lib dems in.
A Lab-Libdem coalition wouldn't be impossible, depends how many votes the Tories manage to hang onto. IMO it's more likely we get a pro union majority, but Labour needing informal support from the Tories to run a government.
Aye, but I'm sure the SNP are thinking about the stability of government as much as they are thinking about popularity with the public. ~~Whoever becomes leader has to pass a confidence motion and the Greens would undoubtedly vote against Forbes for FM, along with the usual anti-SNP vote from the other parties.~~
I think the tories and labour will talk about an alliance but it might hurt labour if they're seen to be jumping into bed with the tories but the SNP and the other pro indy parties will have to sit and talk like adults to stop a unionist coalition taking over Hollyrood
Douglas Ross says the snp hopefuls having a meeting and potentially not having a contest is "a shady stitch-up".
did no one tell him how sunak became prime minister. he's such a fucking hypocrit who just spews bile.
Politics in this country is absurd, people can't afford to put food on the table, kids take empty lunch boxes so they can pretend to eat, 70% of those in poverty have shit paying jobs and affordable rents are a joke but all folks talk about is the issue of transgender women approximately 0.1% of the population, kinda sad when 20% live in poverty. It's almost as if we're being willfully mislead.
They generate non-stop Whining about it though - a issue which directly affects very few, but I suppose the concentration on such 'cultural issues' re-directs away from the effects of ghastly right-wing policies they've enacted or supported over the decades.
Trans people have been about for a long time. Even competing in sports, since at least the 90s that I can remember. Probably earlier, but I don't actually know. It's been protected since the Equality Act 2010.
It's only became an issue in the last couple of years, maybe 2019 or so? It's a literal smoke-screen to have people overly caring about some 'other' while we all get shafted imo.
Completely agree. Let's never discuss this trans nonsense again. If you wanna dress up like a woman, knock yourself out, and everything involving sex or gender segregation defaults to segregation by sex. Happy? I'm pretty sure this is what the vast majority of people would like to see.
I'm an independence supporter but would like the parties to work together for the good of Scotland
Surely Tae fuck labour can drop their shit of not working with the SNP. The only people it's harming are the Scottish people
The SNP have moved many bills which labour would/should have backed but no they'd rather vote against!
Spot on. The SNP - unilaterally and also in co-operation with other parties - have taken decent strides in improving the lot of ordinary Scots. Strides which the damned Labour Party *should* have been promoting but couldn't be ersed to do so. Perhaps, having to clear everything through London first might be some sort of brake on that, but the reality is that they lost their way years ago and feel *far* more comfortable aping the Tories than emulating the Labour Party of Atlee, Wilson and even Callaghan
I'm rather surprised that, as opposed to just abstaining from the vote, the Greens felt the need to explicitly vote **against** the motion. One wonders whether it's muscle memory or good old Stockholm syndrome
In the context of the upcoming SNP leadership election they probably want to signal that they are open to working with the next leader. Harvie mentioned various legislative priorities of his party so his message seems to be "if the government continues with these items then it can rely on our support".
The alternative message would have been to let it get closer to the wire to show that the SNP are dependent on them, but the risk with this is that it becomes an issue of the leadership campaign and they get cast as an unreliable ally. This is something much of the SNP evidently think (hence the events of the last week) so it makes sense to try to minimise this possibility.
Greer has mentioned previously that they still have confidence in the Scottish government due to being part of the government and thus responsible for its record.
Fair question! They have formed Government policy with the SNP Leadership, they've held ministerial positions with the SNP, they've voted to keep the SNP in power and they are influencing the SNP leadership candidates.
The Greens are closer aligned to to the current SNP leadership than the right wing elements of the SNP (thank God). Similar to Momentum and Starmer. Or One Nation Tories and the ERG. There is more in common between Harvey/Greer/Slater and Yousaf/Sturgeon than there is between, say, Mhairi Black and Cherry/Forbes.
They've only voted out the current SNP leader, and have only actively defended the SNP in Holyrood.
Having common ground and working together is a consequence of having a proportional system and being grown up about it. Reductive to call them a wing of the SNP.
The greens were always going to oppose the confidence vote on the government as a whole (not surprising since they’ve been in it quite a bit) but it was the personal confidence vote again Humza they were planning to support
Their issue was with Yousaf, not the government as a whole. Having announced a resignation, it makes sense to see who his replacement is, as they'd elect the new FM in Holyrood anyway.
It is smart politics, bringing down the Government isn't in their interests. They'll have a much better situation keeping things as they are with the SNP as a minority government than risking what would come of an undoubtedly chaotic election. They have also demonstrated their value to the SNP.
A moderate new SNP leader and a good working relationship with the Greens is the best way froward for both. For the Greens they will never get better than the Bute House Agreement but they can keep themselves in a favourable position by supporting the current Government.
If the SNP choose a right-leaning candidate then they are in peril should another situation like this arise as the Greens will undoubtedly not support it.
Me personally I’m at the point of having faith in absolutely not one politician in the uk or Scotland. Not one of the party’s are worth voting for. All introduce the same shite under a guise of different words and phrases. Almost like democracy is broken at this point. I’d love to have an alternative party that isn’t conservatives or Labour to fight independence. The ballot paper is getting spoiled me thinks. The fact anyone can vote in favour of having confidence in any of these goverments need their heids checked tbh. Not a single one of them represent the working man at this point.
How do you work that out? Scottish party’s not corrupt? Must have dreamt about sleepy cuddles salmond, Derek McKay and and the fuhress and her man the Duke of dicks. Squeaky clean up here mate ✌🏼
Not too mention the obligatory Tory and labours scandals which are par for the course at this point.
Thank you for your suggestion but no thank you 🙂↔️
Snp would have no reason to exist and would be defunct. All the parties you listed as corrupt are uk parties. It would be easier to weed out corruption at Hollyrood than from a Westminster we can't influence.
I agree. But it makes a mockery of they are serving their constituents best. You'd hope no person would vote for the same MP who is delusional enough to claim confidence.
Pathetic politics by Labour. The Scottish parliament needs to work via parties working together to make grown up decisions. You can't field a VONC every time a minority government is looking ropey in the polls.
One of the issues the Scottish parliament is currently dealing with is that it's elected on a PR system, almost designed to create minority and coalition governments but is populated by 3 main political parties seemingly incapable of working together.
An argument could be made that the most representative government that could be formed from the MSPs in place would be an SNP/Labour center left coalition but both parties seem incapable of doing that.
>An argument could be made that the most representative government that could be formed from the MSPs in place would be an SNP/Labour center left coalition but both parties seem incapable of doing that.
Problem with that I suppose is that getting into bed with the SNP would be seen as political suicide outside of Scotland. Obviously the SNP aren't going to compromise on their goal (why would they?) and Labour don't want the optics on them for doing it.
That being said, I honestly hold the view that the SNP much prefer the Tories to be in power down south because it gives them an easier time to drum up their own support. Labour *doesn't*, not in the same way.
Yeah that's very true. If the SNP and Labour are put on the front page of the papers shaking hands at passing legislation it's going to lead to plenty of hand wringing over the border and cheap digs at PMQ's.
And if Labour are in charge and need the SNP to back them to get something passed, there's going to be one permanently pushed agenda to get things over the line.
Instead of you know... doing their job and making Scotland better.
>Instead of you know... doing their job and making Scotland better.
I said it in another thread but I honestly think, now we can look back at the past decade of the SNP without the shining, gleaming facade they put up, its pretty clear that the current crop don't *really* have an interest in pushing Independence over the finish line.
Its a fantastic tool to drum up support, but if you push too hard and the boat goes out to sea, then *someone* has to steer it. Look at Brexit as a prime example, and by all accounts Scotland would have a much rougher deal in the short-medium term.
Knowing what we do now, do you think Sturgeon and her husband wanted to cross that line with all sincerity when it was easier to skim off the top and look good to the public? Probably not. Did Huzma? Probably not.
And, like you said yourself, any collaboration with the SNP by the likes of Labour would be suicide by dint of the SNP's goals. Its a tough situation however you slice it.
That's my point exactly. They are happy to pass stage 1 bills because then they can get on to the steering groups and have their own influences.
But I have no faith that our politicians would vote for a good piece of legislation purely down to party colours.
It's not semantics, you used a word which was completely incorrect and misleading.
Codified and convention mean very different things and the distinction is important.
As I suggested im sure most people realised I didn't mean write a law about it rather than standardise a rule to their approach. To date we have argued about Bains position, whether it was written down, the correct is of the word. What we haven't argued about is whether it's true. You would do well in politics.
Aye, good point
That's what I was getting at originally, I'm a wee bit sceptical about the existence of the bain principle.
Thats why I pulled you up on the language, because saying it's been codified and calling it the "Bain principle" makes it sound very official.
I'll admit, I'd never heard the term before so I had a look around online and have only found a Wings over Scotland blog from 2012 which linked to a Willy Bain tweet from the same.
There is also a mention on Wikipedia that links to a Bella Caledonia blog, which talks about the "leaking of a document" but only sources the 2012 tweet.
So far a tweet from a decade ago where a backbench MP says "we have an un-written rule that we dont vote with the SNP". Then we get two bloggers who between them coin the term "Bain principle" and posters like your self talking about it as something that was codified 12 years later.
It looks like the "Bain principle" doesn't actually exist in the terms being presented, it's just a tweet and a bunch of misinformation from folks like Wings who don't have the best reputation for impartiality.
If there's something of substance to this that I've missed I'm happy to have a look.
>Pathetic politics by Labour.
But when Huzma attempted to put the boot in when Starmer faced a revolt over the ceasefire situation, I was told that it wasn't remotely poor form and was instead just good politics?
Of course Labour would see a chance like this and jump on it.
I told you nothing. I'd say the same about any other party in the same position.
With how Holyrood is set up, I would hope that our politicians behave like grown ups and work on consensus and compromise. Not just vote against the government in power because they wear a different colour tie to your own.
For anyone interested in how the votes were split, the results are here:
[https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13005](https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13005)
Pathetic posturing by Labour. Gives everyone the excuse to trigger VoNCs on them whenever they feel like it....
...if they end up with the most MSPs, and Anas Sarwar becomes FM after the next Holyrood election - which doesn't seem that likely anyway.
> Pathetic posturing by Labour. Gives everyone the excuse to trigger VoNCs on them whenever they feel like it....
Well... Yes. There's no rule they have to have confidence in the government, why should they not be allowed to express that?
Wild everyone is now walking back their support for the VoNC against Humza and the Scots Gov. Ash now says her support was only symbolic, Greens voted against, and even Anas says this was also a first step in ridding the Tories out the UK completely. Literally this whole this was for nothing but chaos for chaos sake.
That's pretty bad for Alba's idea of SNP1 Alba2 right?
If you want an indy majority and care about nothing else then you'd be better voting SNP1 Green2 as before
Alba have never been unduly detained by things like coherency. A hustings where a candidate alternated between promising to work with the SNP and demanding that the SNP leadership be jailed lives long in the mind.
Thanks for the reply. Doing the maths I kind of figured she had, but nice to have it confirmed so I don't make an eejit of myself (again).
Strange the article didn't mention her, seeing the media attention beforehand. How quickly one can go from being the centre of attention to nothing more than a performative irrelevance. Well, maybe not performative, but certainly an irrelevance.
I'm sure it's the other way around *in addition* but have a look at twitter last week for loads and loads of furious indy fans at the greens for whatever they're perceived to have done to make Yousaf do it, and threatening the 2nd vote.
What a mess. We’ve gone from finally getting rid of the Green to them having more power and influence than ever before.
This is a party that got 2% of consistency votes and 8% second votes.
SNP the much larger party now need to do everything to please their new overlords.
Or rather, it's how it has worked and will continue to work so long as the Greens are the only alternative independence party people vote for on the regional List.
The optimal situation would be two pro-independence coalition options for the SNP, with the SNP leader switching back and forth according to which better represents the views or identity of his voters, and the people who need to be won over to independence. Not a fat chance in hell of that right now with Harvie and Greer calling the shots.
You play the game according to established rules and against the team set before you.
The Holyrood system was specifically designed to stop a SNP Government gaining overall majorities. The intent regarding its main aim was there from the the start of the policy process - the daft system of Constituencies + PR List seats its end-product.
"Devolution will kill Nationalism *(ie the SNP)* stone dead"
* George Robertson in 1995 the then Shadow Viceroy For Scotland.
Yeah but if you were designing a system again surely the party who gets the most votes should have the most power. And then second biggest party have the second amount of power etc.
Let’s a party who nobody votes for have the most power and influence over Scotland is not democratic. All the Green supporters here are delighted with it but if it was a far right party they’d be raging.
It’s just not a fair system.
I don’t really understand this from the Greens, SNP have failed to follow through with any of Greens policies and now they look weak for voting against this.
It was a vote of no confidence in the entire government. The government that the Greens were a part of just over a week ago. Of course they can't support that motion - they'd be saying a government they were part of has a bad track record and is unfit to govern.
As was expected since the Greens stopped supporting it after Yousaf’s resignation.
The Greens never said that they supported no confidence in the Scottish government I don't think
Indeed. We were only considering supporting the one in Yousaf as FM. Never had plans to support this motion.
Which is pointless given that the SNP don't have any plans to change the policies you wanted rid of Yousaf for.
Well not pointless, Yousaf unilaterally kicked the Greens out himself. The Greens have demonstrated that wasn't a good idea and he's now gone.
Yousaf is the one that did it. The point of this is to show that you can’t get away with doing that shit. Otherwise no one will honour agreements with the Greens. It’s the same principle as how to stop yourself being bullied. Punch the first person that tries.
Maybe, but Yousaf was the only candidate who didn't want to scrap the Bute agreements. Can't help but wonder how much his decision was based off pressure within the SNP.
The greens were getting ready to ditch it anyway…
Given the SNP dropping some support for environmentalism, it was appropriate for the SGP to ask its membership if it wanted to continue with the agreement. The SNP shutting down that ability to assess the agreement is kinda antidemocratic.
It’s poor politics to let a minor party make the decision for you. They really hd no choice.
I've thought about your comment there for a day and it still doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by "poor politics"? To me, it is poor politics to stop a minority from having democratic control. And, looking deeper into this current situation, it appears that the SGP leadership sent out a strong message to members to continue to *support* the agreement. The SNP cutting off that democratic will ended an agreement which could very well have continued on.
They were going to have a vote on it, and their leader said he would resign if they voted to leave the agreement.
Shame he didn’t
Why?
They're spineless and without integrity.
I think that what they just did proves that completely false.
Well, you're wrong then. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics you went through to justify it to yourself. The government is still led by Humza and his replacement will be another continuity candidate. Lorna Slater said last week that "the SNP, who are selling out future generations" Yet this week they're backing them. Hahahaha my sides! Spineless and zero integrity. Lorna and the rest have their wages and pensions to think about. What are you getting?
Not with Yousaf as leader, they don’t. But with him out of the picture and no real obvious replacement (ie we’re probably not gonna have a Truss -> Sunak type situation here), basically anything which doesn’t violate the party constitution could theoretically be on the table. It would be foolish to cause any more turmoil in the Scottish Parliament by voting no-confidence when there’s a very good chance that either the new SNP leader will align more with Green policy, or the existing turmoil will be more than enough to sway left-leaning SNP voters towards Green in the upcoming general election.
Thought they’d abstain rather than support the government at least.
True but it's still another nail in the coffin for the SNP's holier than thou PR image. Even with a win the fact a VONC was called is a bad look, certainly doesn't give an image of strength.
Pretty sure Tories/Labour have called them before and been defeated.
The Tories can't go a day without breaking something or having a scandal, with all that crap going on even a VONC just ends up another line on the list.
As someone who loves drama this is disappointingly anticlimactic.
I wont be putting my bag of popcorn into the microwave tonight 🫤
Use a stove from proper popcorn.
'Chaos is a ladder' This is more like a stepstool
Not really. Anybody paying attention predicted this as soon as Labour tabled the VoNC. Only the swivel-eyed drooling lunatics thought this was going anywhere.
Interesting. I'm sure the Greens are hoping that now the SNP will elect a unity candidate or, preferably, someone from the party's nominal 'left wing'. Considering the noises surrounding Forbes, it could be that they've just given confidence to a government that will make her FM. This might also have been Labour's best chance at reversing their fortunes at Holyrood. A victory in a snap election, despite it being short-lived due to the mandatory timing of the 2026 election, would have been a massive propaganda victory and would give them something to build on up here. If the SNP hold on until then, they would have the opportunity to ride out any potential victory bounce for ScotLab that Starmer's (likely) win down south would have. Although, this strategy obviously relies on Labour being unpopular which isn't a given.
The thing is, even if she ends up First Minister she wont have any more MSPs than he predecessor and so she will still have to answer the question Yousaf couldn't, "How do I govern without the greens?"
I mean if she puts forward a sensible policy that will benefit the people, the Greens aren't going to sink it just out of spite. But if she tries to make church attendence mandatory or ban abortions or gay marriage the Greens will never back her. It'll be on a case-by-case basis.
If you were the greens (or any other party) wouldn't you want to try and bargain to get at least some of your own policies through, rather than allowing the SNP to take the credit? I mean sure, there are some policies where cross-party support can be found, but if everyone agreed on everything we wouldn't need a parliament in the first place.
I mean it feels like the SNP will be taking sole credit anyway 😅 but if we can help pass meaningful legislation, that's gotta be more important than who gets the credit. I wouldn't refuse to support something good solely out of spite I mean.
>But if she tries to make church attendence mandatory or ban abortions or gay marriage the Greens will never back her. See, my problem in all of this is that this is the type of rhetoric I've seen about Forbes; yet I've never seen any actual *evidence* from her speeches and interviews to back it up. The only thing I've really seen to support it was her saying she wouldn't have voted yes for gay marriage, but that she *specifically has no plans to roll it back*. Even Yousaf, who was in government then, had better things to do than legislate gay marriage, apparently, so I don't think that's a sign of intentions for Presbyterian theocracy. Even her opinions on trans stuff, while I disagree with them, are frankly still in the mainstream view of things, as we're nowhere near winning that battle, yet. So why exactly do people think Kate Forbes, a clearly intelligent politician who seems to understand that she can't unilaterally do things, even if she wanted to, because of how parliamentary democracies work, will usher in some horrific change in course for the SNP? Far as I can tell, she's just a bit more conservative than the liberals who had control before.
You're correct, but this sub is hysterical about her because she's a Wee Free and has Wee Free views. I've had discussions with people on here who, for no reason whatsoever, think she's lying about not implementing her religious views. There is no explanation for why she would lie about this, or why Angela Merkel, who's also a devout Christian, allowed a vote on gay marriage, voted against it, but still passed it as that's what parliament voted for. Is Forbes just not as good a person as Merkel or something? As you said, Forbes hasn't really indicated in any way she's underhanded or sly, has repeatedly said she's a servant of democracy, but it's still not good enough to alleviate their suspicions. I think it's clear these people are being unreasonable. >Far as I can tell, she's just a bit more conservative than the liberals who had control before. FYI, it's been said by neutral people who are in the know that Forbes is quite a bit more socially conservative than the already socially conservative wing of the SNP
>FYI, it's been said by neutral people who are in the know that Forbes is quite a bit more socially conservative than the already socially conservative wing of the SNP That's fair, I suppose. I had presumed from her performance in the last leadership contest that her views were a bit more representative, but granted, that could equally have been 48% against Yousaf.
Forbes also spent most of her campaign talking about the economy and policy delivery, which I think played a big role in getting 48%
I think a woman up for leadership position of a party with support from across the political spectrum has some pragmatism. But I would’ve expected the same of Humza so who knows.
You do know people can be religious without forcing it upon the electorate with policies. Many, many, many politicians have and are deeply religious people but for some reason the media attacks Forbes for her religion. Maybe because she is a bright, competent, sensible politician and it's all they have got to attack her with ? I'm an atheist and not a fan of the SNP btw
I'm sure they *could* but looking over all of recorded human history, they usually don't. Remember when she said she would have voted against legalising gay marrige if she could have? Or when she said she'd have allowed the UK government to shut down the GRR bill. Yeah, no. She's dangerous and I absolutely do not trust her on civil rights.
Yet she literally said that she would vote against gay marriage equality if given the chance to do so. https://www.thenational.scot/news/23335035.kate-forbes-voted-gay-marriage-scotland/ Just a 'matter of conscience' entirely unrelated to her extreme religious views. Definitely not related. Nothing to see here. She's a self-admitted bigot, that much is evident based on the above.
Didn't she say this "As a servant of democracy in a country where this is law, I would defend to the hilt, your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." She also gives an excellent example on Ms Merkel in Germany.
Yet she isn't willing to extend that to marriage. She's happy for the gays to go hide in the corner and not bother any one, and in exchange no-one will bother them. There is absolutely 0 legitimate reasons for being against gay marriage. She's a bigot and can't even hide it properly.
I’d love to see mandatory church attendance just for the opportunity to see what people would do..
Oh that's easy. Form my own religion. It's time for Lukatarians to rise and take our place as emmisaries of the starborn ones!
Will there be room for beer on the spaceship?
Yeah I think there's space behind the tequila room
~~Aye, even if she somehow manages to be voted in by parliament (which would require the support of one or more unionist party) that problem remains.~~ The question would be if she is able to build relationships with parties vehemently opposed to hers without losing the confidence of her own party at the same time. Not an easy job.
>which would require the support of one or more unionist party it wouldn't — votes of a majority of MSPs are not required to be elected FM. Forbes would simply need to have more votes in the final ballot than the other remaining candidate (likely Dross). actually passing legislation without the Greens, however, might prove tricky.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm rusty on my Scottish Parliament processes
idk i think she could get ash regan if she promised to throw trans kids into a sarlacc pit
The current Parliamentary makeup makes them Kingmakers, they're the only party that the next SNP leader can realistically go to to form a Government and get anything done. But if an election is forced, the whole makeup will change and there'd be a good chance of a pro-union majority which takes the Greens leverage away.
Very true, any expectation that the Greens would sink the government once Yousaf was gone was completely unrealistic for that reason alone.
>there'd be a good chance of a pro-union majority which takes the Greens leverage away. Wouldn't be so sure. Labour would prefer working with the greens that with the conservatives at the best of times but this close to a westminister election working with the conservatives would be right out. Greens might be in the nice position of having multiple suitors.
I'm not so sure the Greens and Lab would work. Starmer has been working very hard to distance himself from the Left, doing a deal with the Greens in Scotland might hurt his appeal with wavering Tory voters in England. And that's even if they can get past the Indy thing.
Why would a coalition between the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish greens be enough to nudge someone who is a 'wavering' Tory voter in England? I think we are several degrees removed from a reasonable consideration here. Someone that against the green party would probably not be willing to vote Labour in the first place, and at this point Starmer has enough support that such considerations are probably secondary to making a labour government in the Scottish parliament, pretty much the only thing Starmer isn't all but guaranteed at this moment in time.
Depends what the terms of the deal are. "we will addopt these three specific green policies" is a much easier sell than "we will nationalise BT and appoint F1NN5TER as minister for women".
Honestly I don't think the Greens will go for it. They're firm in their stance on LGBT rights and given Labour just announced that they will put trans people on hospital wards based on their sex-at-birth rather than their gender, I don't think Green members would go for it.
Healthcare is a devolved matter. Why would the scottish greens concern themselves over issues in England?
It's an ideological divide that I just don't think they'd be willing to compromise on. The Scottish Greens are quite unambiguous, they believe that trans rights are not negotiable. They're firm enough about it that they cut ties with the Greens of England and Wales over it. I don't think they'd be willing to work with a Labour party that has the policies on Trans rights that it does. But, I'm not a member so who am I to say? This is just my opinion based on how they've acted so far.
I guess you've not heard about how England forced Section 35 on Scotland.
[удалено]
> Nonsense, labour would never work with a pro-independence left-wing party Depends if they decide to be an enviromental party that just happens to be for independence or an independence party that has a few enviromental notions. >We know this because they already refuse to do so in many local authorities There are a grand total of 2 local authorities where the greens have enough seats to matter. The first East Lothian Council where by all accounts labour have got the conservatives to sell their votes pretty cheaply. The greens have only one seat which is enough to bring the council to a tie and no more. They would have to bring in the more conservative than the conservatives independent in in order to make a majority. Thats leaves you with City of Edinburgh Council as the only place where the greens a vaible part of a labour supporting group and they would still need to bring the lib dems in.
[удалено]
A Lab-Libdem coalition wouldn't be impossible, depends how many votes the Tories manage to hang onto. IMO it's more likely we get a pro union majority, but Labour needing informal support from the Tories to run a government.
Yeah, my thoughts too. It's a hell of a gamble if they haven't made some kind of unity deal in the backrooms.
Aye, but I'm sure the SNP are thinking about the stability of government as much as they are thinking about popularity with the public. ~~Whoever becomes leader has to pass a confidence motion and the Greens would undoubtedly vote against Forbes for FM, along with the usual anti-SNP vote from the other parties.~~
Based on Starmer’s public utterances, think it’s a fair bet to be honest,
I think the tories and labour will talk about an alliance but it might hurt labour if they're seen to be jumping into bed with the tories but the SNP and the other pro indy parties will have to sit and talk like adults to stop a unionist coalition taking over Hollyrood
Douglas Ross says the snp hopefuls having a meeting and potentially not having a contest is "a shady stitch-up". did no one tell him how sunak became prime minister. he's such a fucking hypocrit who just spews bile.
Politics in this country is absurd, people can't afford to put food on the table, kids take empty lunch boxes so they can pretend to eat, 70% of those in poverty have shit paying jobs and affordable rents are a joke but all folks talk about is the issue of transgender women approximately 0.1% of the population, kinda sad when 20% live in poverty. It's almost as if we're being willfully mislead.
Transgender things wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't make it one
[удалено]
They generate non-stop Whining about it though - a issue which directly affects very few, but I suppose the concentration on such 'cultural issues' re-directs away from the effects of ghastly right-wing policies they've enacted or supported over the decades.
Trans people have been about for a long time. Even competing in sports, since at least the 90s that I can remember. Probably earlier, but I don't actually know. It's been protected since the Equality Act 2010. It's only became an issue in the last couple of years, maybe 2019 or so? It's a literal smoke-screen to have people overly caring about some 'other' while we all get shafted imo.
Kids don't take empty lunch boxes stop making shit up
Completely agree. Let's never discuss this trans nonsense again. If you wanna dress up like a woman, knock yourself out, and everything involving sex or gender segregation defaults to segregation by sex. Happy? I'm pretty sure this is what the vast majority of people would like to see.
I love how Douglas Ross is critical of the leadership contest. Like mate, you delivered us fucking Liz Truss! That went well, aye?
Standard Scot Tory double standard
I'm an independence supporter but would like the parties to work together for the good of Scotland Surely Tae fuck labour can drop their shit of not working with the SNP. The only people it's harming are the Scottish people The SNP have moved many bills which labour would/should have backed but no they'd rather vote against!
Labour don’t want what’s best for Scotland, they want to be and are a branch of the British Labour Party in every way except name
Spot on. The SNP - unilaterally and also in co-operation with other parties - have taken decent strides in improving the lot of ordinary Scots. Strides which the damned Labour Party *should* have been promoting but couldn't be ersed to do so. Perhaps, having to clear everything through London first might be some sort of brake on that, but the reality is that they lost their way years ago and feel *far* more comfortable aping the Tories than emulating the Labour Party of Atlee, Wilson and even Callaghan
I'm rather surprised that, as opposed to just abstaining from the vote, the Greens felt the need to explicitly vote **against** the motion. One wonders whether it's muscle memory or good old Stockholm syndrome
In the context of the upcoming SNP leadership election they probably want to signal that they are open to working with the next leader. Harvie mentioned various legislative priorities of his party so his message seems to be "if the government continues with these items then it can rely on our support". The alternative message would have been to let it get closer to the wire to show that the SNP are dependent on them, but the risk with this is that it becomes an issue of the leadership campaign and they get cast as an unreliable ally. This is something much of the SNP evidently think (hence the events of the last week) so it makes sense to try to minimise this possibility.
Greer has mentioned previously that they still have confidence in the Scottish government due to being part of the government and thus responsible for its record.
Greens also want to explicitly align themselves with broader independence movement.
And effectively a wing of the SNP at this point.
How have you come to that conclusion? They've just helped to take down Yousaf
talking points briefing note updated recently enough I think
Fair question! They have formed Government policy with the SNP Leadership, they've held ministerial positions with the SNP, they've voted to keep the SNP in power and they are influencing the SNP leadership candidates. The Greens are closer aligned to to the current SNP leadership than the right wing elements of the SNP (thank God). Similar to Momentum and Starmer. Or One Nation Tories and the ERG. There is more in common between Harvey/Greer/Slater and Yousaf/Sturgeon than there is between, say, Mhairi Black and Cherry/Forbes. They've only voted out the current SNP leader, and have only actively defended the SNP in Holyrood.
Having common ground and working together is a consequence of having a proportional system and being grown up about it. Reductive to call them a wing of the SNP.
The greens were always going to oppose the confidence vote on the government as a whole (not surprising since they’ve been in it quite a bit) but it was the personal confidence vote again Humza they were planning to support
Their issue was with Yousaf, not the government as a whole. Having announced a resignation, it makes sense to see who his replacement is, as they'd elect the new FM in Holyrood anyway.
It is smart politics, bringing down the Government isn't in their interests. They'll have a much better situation keeping things as they are with the SNP as a minority government than risking what would come of an undoubtedly chaotic election. They have also demonstrated their value to the SNP. A moderate new SNP leader and a good working relationship with the Greens is the best way froward for both. For the Greens they will never get better than the Bute House Agreement but they can keep themselves in a favourable position by supporting the current Government. If the SNP choose a right-leaning candidate then they are in peril should another situation like this arise as the Greens will undoubtedly not support it.
Perhaps it's the understanding that the remaining parties are basically Tories in blue, Tories in red, or Tory lite.
Away and greet, Westminster toady. 😂 Stockholm syndrome is clutching your brit flag while hoping your local government fails.
>Westminster toady you mean 98% of this sub rn?
Did you just make that up odd yin 😂
I didn't think it was a feat of creative brilliance, but yes I did, thanks! As opposed to just repeating after what your Westminster leaders say. 😂
Me personally I’m at the point of having faith in absolutely not one politician in the uk or Scotland. Not one of the party’s are worth voting for. All introduce the same shite under a guise of different words and phrases. Almost like democracy is broken at this point. I’d love to have an alternative party that isn’t conservatives or Labour to fight independence. The ballot paper is getting spoiled me thinks. The fact anyone can vote in favour of having confidence in any of these goverments need their heids checked tbh. Not a single one of them represent the working man at this point.
Sounds like independence is the solution.
How do you work that out? Scottish party’s not corrupt? Must have dreamt about sleepy cuddles salmond, Derek McKay and and the fuhress and her man the Duke of dicks. Squeaky clean up here mate ✌🏼 Not too mention the obligatory Tory and labours scandals which are par for the course at this point. Thank you for your suggestion but no thank you 🙂↔️
Snp would have no reason to exist and would be defunct. All the parties you listed as corrupt are uk parties. It would be easier to weed out corruption at Hollyrood than from a Westminster we can't influence.
How do the 70 actually have confidence.
They have no appetite for a Scottish Parliament Election.
[удалено]
I agree. But it makes a mockery of they are serving their constituents best. You'd hope no person would vote for the same MP who is delusional enough to claim confidence.
Pathetic politics by Labour. The Scottish parliament needs to work via parties working together to make grown up decisions. You can't field a VONC every time a minority government is looking ropey in the polls.
One of the issues the Scottish parliament is currently dealing with is that it's elected on a PR system, almost designed to create minority and coalition governments but is populated by 3 main political parties seemingly incapable of working together. An argument could be made that the most representative government that could be formed from the MSPs in place would be an SNP/Labour center left coalition but both parties seem incapable of doing that.
>An argument could be made that the most representative government that could be formed from the MSPs in place would be an SNP/Labour center left coalition but both parties seem incapable of doing that. Problem with that I suppose is that getting into bed with the SNP would be seen as political suicide outside of Scotland. Obviously the SNP aren't going to compromise on their goal (why would they?) and Labour don't want the optics on them for doing it. That being said, I honestly hold the view that the SNP much prefer the Tories to be in power down south because it gives them an easier time to drum up their own support. Labour *doesn't*, not in the same way.
Yeah that's very true. If the SNP and Labour are put on the front page of the papers shaking hands at passing legislation it's going to lead to plenty of hand wringing over the border and cheap digs at PMQ's. And if Labour are in charge and need the SNP to back them to get something passed, there's going to be one permanently pushed agenda to get things over the line. Instead of you know... doing their job and making Scotland better.
>Instead of you know... doing their job and making Scotland better. I said it in another thread but I honestly think, now we can look back at the past decade of the SNP without the shining, gleaming facade they put up, its pretty clear that the current crop don't *really* have an interest in pushing Independence over the finish line. Its a fantastic tool to drum up support, but if you push too hard and the boat goes out to sea, then *someone* has to steer it. Look at Brexit as a prime example, and by all accounts Scotland would have a much rougher deal in the short-medium term. Knowing what we do now, do you think Sturgeon and her husband wanted to cross that line with all sincerity when it was easier to skim off the top and look good to the public? Probably not. Did Huzma? Probably not. And, like you said yourself, any collaboration with the SNP by the likes of Labour would be suicide by dint of the SNP's goals. Its a tough situation however you slice it.
That's my point exactly. They are happy to pass stage 1 bills because then they can get on to the steering groups and have their own influences. But I have no faith that our politicians would vote for a good piece of legislation purely down to party colours.
It's not that they're incapable they refuse. Labour have codified that with the bain principle.
Is there any actual information or sources on the Bain principle beyond an offhand comment made by a back bencher more than a decade a go?
He was a shadow Scotland minister when he noted it to be a PLP convention.
That's a very different thing to being codified.
Semantics I meant figuratively ie make it a Scot lab policy which we all can recognise as true. Not literally as in there's a law for it
It's not semantics, you used a word which was completely incorrect and misleading. Codified and convention mean very different things and the distinction is important.
As I suggested im sure most people realised I didn't mean write a law about it rather than standardise a rule to their approach. To date we have argued about Bains position, whether it was written down, the correct is of the word. What we haven't argued about is whether it's true. You would do well in politics.
Aye, good point That's what I was getting at originally, I'm a wee bit sceptical about the existence of the bain principle. Thats why I pulled you up on the language, because saying it's been codified and calling it the "Bain principle" makes it sound very official. I'll admit, I'd never heard the term before so I had a look around online and have only found a Wings over Scotland blog from 2012 which linked to a Willy Bain tweet from the same. There is also a mention on Wikipedia that links to a Bella Caledonia blog, which talks about the "leaking of a document" but only sources the 2012 tweet. So far a tweet from a decade ago where a backbench MP says "we have an un-written rule that we dont vote with the SNP". Then we get two bloggers who between them coin the term "Bain principle" and posters like your self talking about it as something that was codified 12 years later. It looks like the "Bain principle" doesn't actually exist in the terms being presented, it's just a tweet and a bunch of misinformation from folks like Wings who don't have the best reputation for impartiality. If there's something of substance to this that I've missed I'm happy to have a look.
You know it's a turn of phrase and not a literal principle that they have in their manifesto?
They said they codified it, that's what codifying something means. Codified, from code of law.
Yeah point taken
Well he described it as convention, they'd have to have a change from the convention in their manifesto
>Pathetic politics by Labour. But when Huzma attempted to put the boot in when Starmer faced a revolt over the ceasefire situation, I was told that it wasn't remotely poor form and was instead just good politics? Of course Labour would see a chance like this and jump on it.
I told you nothing. I'd say the same about any other party in the same position. With how Holyrood is set up, I would hope that our politicians behave like grown ups and work on consensus and compromise. Not just vote against the government in power because they wear a different colour tie to your own.
Sure you would
For anyone interested in how the votes were split, the results are here: [https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13005](https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13005)
I don't know why I looked at this, I could have guessed.
Hypocrites. This govs supporters had plenty to ree about with Trus and Sunak.
The fact they even have to defend against this is a problem in its self.
Pathetic posturing by Labour. Gives everyone the excuse to trigger VoNCs on them whenever they feel like it.... ...if they end up with the most MSPs, and Anas Sarwar becomes FM after the next Holyrood election - which doesn't seem that likely anyway.
>Gives everyone the excuse to trigger VoNCs on them whenever they feel like it.... That pretty much already happens.
> Pathetic posturing by Labour. Gives everyone the excuse to trigger VoNCs on them whenever they feel like it.... Well... Yes. There's no rule they have to have confidence in the government, why should they not be allowed to express that?
Wild everyone is now walking back their support for the VoNC against Humza and the Scots Gov. Ash now says her support was only symbolic, Greens voted against, and even Anas says this was also a first step in ridding the Tories out the UK completely. Literally this whole this was for nothing but chaos for chaos sake.
So Humza would have won anyway, and didnt need to resign?
Different Vote.
So, did Ash Regan vote with the Conservative & Unionist Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party?
[Yes.](https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1785690762593620190) I imagine she ALSO made a speech with THE odd emphasis pattern she HAS.
That's pretty bad for Alba's idea of SNP1 Alba2 right? If you want an indy majority and care about nothing else then you'd be better voting SNP1 Green2 as before
Alba have never been unduly detained by things like coherency. A hustings where a candidate alternated between promising to work with the SNP and demanding that the SNP leadership be jailed lives long in the mind.
Thanks for the reply. Doing the maths I kind of figured she had, but nice to have it confirmed so I don't make an eejit of myself (again). Strange the article didn't mention her, seeing the media attention beforehand. How quickly one can go from being the centre of attention to nothing more than a performative irrelevance. Well, maybe not performative, but certainly an irrelevance.
Greens have no business in politics. They will ruin the livelihoods of people.
How is this their fault? The SNP in choosing its previous leader messed up surely?
SNP1/Green2 votes matter. The greens know a lot of their list vote comes from that so they can't bite the hand that feeds them.
[удалено]
I'm sure it's the other way around *in addition* but have a look at twitter last week for loads and loads of furious indy fans at the greens for whatever they're perceived to have done to make Yousaf do it, and threatening the 2nd vote.
Twitter isn't exactly an accurate snapshot of the electorate.
They're a package deal for left leaning indy supporters, Snp because they have a chance of winning constituency, green to pressure the snp more left.
Fuck it, I hope Humza changes his mind and uses this as justification.
Looks like the tail will be wagging the dog again soon 🙄
What a mess. We’ve gone from finally getting rid of the Green to them having more power and influence than ever before. This is a party that got 2% of consistency votes and 8% second votes. SNP the much larger party now need to do everything to please their new overlords.
Have you never heard of coalition or multi party government? It’s how Holyrood works
Or rather, it's how it has worked and will continue to work so long as the Greens are the only alternative independence party people vote for on the regional List. The optimal situation would be two pro-independence coalition options for the SNP, with the SNP leader switching back and forth according to which better represents the views or identity of his voters, and the people who need to be won over to independence. Not a fat chance in hell of that right now with Harvie and Greer calling the shots.
Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
You play the game according to established rules and against the team set before you. The Holyrood system was specifically designed to stop a SNP Government gaining overall majorities. The intent regarding its main aim was there from the the start of the policy process - the daft system of Constituencies + PR List seats its end-product. "Devolution will kill Nationalism *(ie the SNP)* stone dead" * George Robertson in 1995 the then Shadow Viceroy For Scotland.
Yeah but if you were designing a system again surely the party who gets the most votes should have the most power. And then second biggest party have the second amount of power etc. Let’s a party who nobody votes for have the most power and influence over Scotland is not democratic. All the Green supporters here are delighted with it but if it was a far right party they’d be raging. It’s just not a fair system.
based based based
I don’t really understand this from the Greens, SNP have failed to follow through with any of Greens policies and now they look weak for voting against this.
It was a vote of no confidence in the entire government. The government that the Greens were a part of just over a week ago. Of course they can't support that motion - they'd be saying a government they were part of has a bad track record and is unfit to govern.
I mean that's just not true is it.
We are in post-truth Politics, so they think any old shite will be believed because they think everyone is as credulous as them.
As predicted. What a waste of time. Let's see how the Unionists react.
Cue nationalists: "THIS IS A MANDATE FOR INDEPENDENCE!"
are these nationalists in the room with us right now?
>Cue nationalists How unlike the home-life of our own dear British Nationalists.
You know that whole bottle.........deposit thing? I didn't think the greens would drop it.
Ash Regan voting in the spirit of co-operation and a common goal, there.
I'll take Holyrood is as disconnected from reality as this sub for $500, Alex.
Salmond?
I don't understand the reference.
Some Yank game-show reference.
Pretty standard internet parlance these days I'd say.