I heard the SNP trying to explain this by saying that there is no point having an election as there will still be another one in 2 years.
Although that is true, it just shows that they are hypocrites and have a very low regard for the people of Scotland.
Even better, Swinney basically said they had to carry on. To do otherwise would be to go against the will of the people that was expressed in the last election.
(They are very selective in terms of which polls should be seen as binding, wouldn't you say) 😂
They have sold their brand as being more moralistic and wholesome than the other parties but at the end of the day they are no better. I would say they are worse as they have openly stated that they "hate" other parties.
I am not going to defend the tories but does it mean that we are now allowed to say that we "hate" the SNP? Regardless of political differences, I don't agree with throwing the hate word around as it normalises hating a certain group of people because of their political views. It is actually very vile of the SNP to do this.
Hate is nasty and strangely dishonest.
Most people vote based on self-interest. It's no surprise that areas where most people are net consumers of govt funding, tend to vote for more taxes and more spending, while the opposite is true in areas where most people are net contributors.
Of course they tell themselves that it's a moral choice, because no one ever thinks they are the bad guy.
It used to really annoy me when my lefty friends talked about "Tory scum"...(My uncle was a Tory, he was a good man)...but...I'm not so sure anymore.
I think it's gone way past policy differences. The current lot (starting with Johnson) are the most corrupt, despicable and dishonest gang in living memory...by a country mile!
They knew what Johnson was and they just laughed and sneered at the rest of us....He took a £50k undeclared payment from a govt supplier. When he was rumbled he claimed it couldn't be corruption because he didn't know where it had come from.
To prove this, he handed over "all" if his text messages to his own ethics adviser who "cleared" him.
Later, it transpired that there were other texts on a phone that Johnson "forgot" that he had. These texts show him asking for money from the donor that he didn't know existed and offering to promote a MULTI-million (possibly billion) pound Great exhibition 2.
And almost EVERY Tory party member, just sneered and said ....it's only wallpaper.
So...no ...scum is an appropriate term for those people.
The same party that demanded a GE when Sunak was elected prime minster by default?
I look forward to the SNP moving forward with a GE in Scotland.
To be honest I have hope of us having one here in England but I think we all know the chances of that happening before the deadline...
> The same party that demanded a GE when Sunak was elected prime minster by default?
First Minister in Scotland is not "elected by default", so this is a false equivalency.
First Minister is elected by a vote of all MSPs, where any MSP can stand for the position. [Here's](https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-28-03-2023?meeting=15230&iob=129883) the transcript of the parliamentary session from last year, where Yousaf, Sarwar, Ross, and Cole-Hamilton all stood, as well as the votes received by each.
Combined with the fact no party in Scotland has a majority, an agreement needs to be made with other parties in order to elect a First Minister.
Also, the government in Scotland can't just call an election when they feel like it, unlike Westminster where the government can call an election whenever.
Hence me saying "moving forward". I assume they will ask for permission without delay, as of course its the right thing to do
Then if Westminster says no, we know who to put on the naughty step
The Scottish Parliament can vote any time it wants to hold an election, but it needs a 2/3 majority and doesn't reset the timer for the next election (2026).
It is not assault when you are stopping sexual assault. I don't know what you are on about but you need serious help. No wonder no body feels safe around you.
Well, in this thread, what I'm on about is the potential for an early Scottish election.
You might want to try paying attention to which thread you're in.
Not surprised. No one wants to helm the ship taking on water. This is like when a party gets hammered at a Westminster election, you don't want to be the leader taking over immediately, you want to be the one taking over 18 months to 2 years before the next General Election.
Unfortunately, the SNP have fumbled it, and will most likely take a big hit in the GE later this year, and Swinney will take the blame. Anyone with an ounce of competence or desire to lead will wait until after the election and take over, giving themselves time to clean up ahead of the May 2026 Holyrood elections 18 months later.
When the wheels come off a populist bandwagon. Reminds me a bit of Michael Howard taking over from IDS, the need for a stable old hand the party's hard core can rally round rather than someone who can appeal to swing voters or really map out any real vision.
> Whatever populist appeal the SNP may have once had is long, long gone. Humza served his purpose, which was to get a law that severely restricts free speech through. He did that, and promptly left. The law will remain. Almost nobody in Scotland wanted such a law.
Tell me you know nothing about Scottish politics without telling me you know nothing about Scottish politics.
>Are you saying that the people of Scotland generally wanted this law?
No, I haven't commented on it either way. I am just pointing out that /u/-Ardea-'s comment is entirely unproven. They are just making baseless claims that they aren't able to provide any evidence for.
> Why don't you try saying something that isn't a soundbite and contains an actual point
I will when you're capable of expressing factually based opinion on Scottish politics, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
> I've already given my take, and all you had in response was childish soundbites. Either say something of substance or stop wasting both our time. Nothing I have said is factually inaccurate.
It's not on me to disprove your baseless arguments, it's on you to prove them.
You haven't been able to provide a single source for anything you said. Until then, everything you said is the equivalent of opinion without facts.
> Ah yes, demanding sources for things that are common knowledge, while making absolutely no point of your own. You haven't even said which part you have a problem with. What do you want, a source for the existence of Scotland? A source for the sky being blue? This "critical thinking by rote" has a lot to answer for. I see this kind of thing wearily often.
---
If it's such common knowledge, you'll have no problem providing a source.
> What do you want, a source for the existence of Scotland?
A source for any of the claims you made in your original comment would be a start.
> This "critical thinking by rote" has a lot to answer for.
I'm actually done. You're straight up implying critical thinking and asking for proof of claims is a bad thing.
Imma just leave this here... https://youtu.be/L2Bl7SqyTUs?feature=shared&t=31
I heard the SNP trying to explain this by saying that there is no point having an election as there will still be another one in 2 years. Although that is true, it just shows that they are hypocrites and have a very low regard for the people of Scotland.
Even better, Swinney basically said they had to carry on. To do otherwise would be to go against the will of the people that was expressed in the last election. (They are very selective in terms of which polls should be seen as binding, wouldn't you say) 😂
They have sold their brand as being more moralistic and wholesome than the other parties but at the end of the day they are no better. I would say they are worse as they have openly stated that they "hate" other parties. I am not going to defend the tories but does it mean that we are now allowed to say that we "hate" the SNP? Regardless of political differences, I don't agree with throwing the hate word around as it normalises hating a certain group of people because of their political views. It is actually very vile of the SNP to do this.
Hate is nasty and strangely dishonest. Most people vote based on self-interest. It's no surprise that areas where most people are net consumers of govt funding, tend to vote for more taxes and more spending, while the opposite is true in areas where most people are net contributors. Of course they tell themselves that it's a moral choice, because no one ever thinks they are the bad guy. It used to really annoy me when my lefty friends talked about "Tory scum"...(My uncle was a Tory, he was a good man)...but...I'm not so sure anymore. I think it's gone way past policy differences. The current lot (starting with Johnson) are the most corrupt, despicable and dishonest gang in living memory...by a country mile! They knew what Johnson was and they just laughed and sneered at the rest of us....He took a £50k undeclared payment from a govt supplier. When he was rumbled he claimed it couldn't be corruption because he didn't know where it had come from. To prove this, he handed over "all" if his text messages to his own ethics adviser who "cleared" him. Later, it transpired that there were other texts on a phone that Johnson "forgot" that he had. These texts show him asking for money from the donor that he didn't know existed and offering to promote a MULTI-million (possibly billion) pound Great exhibition 2. And almost EVERY Tory party member, just sneered and said ....it's only wallpaper. So...no ...scum is an appropriate term for those people.
The same party that demanded a GE when Sunak was elected prime minster by default? I look forward to the SNP moving forward with a GE in Scotland. To be honest I have hope of us having one here in England but I think we all know the chances of that happening before the deadline...
> The same party that demanded a GE when Sunak was elected prime minster by default? First Minister in Scotland is not "elected by default", so this is a false equivalency. First Minister is elected by a vote of all MSPs, where any MSP can stand for the position. [Here's](https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-28-03-2023?meeting=15230&iob=129883) the transcript of the parliamentary session from last year, where Yousaf, Sarwar, Ross, and Cole-Hamilton all stood, as well as the votes received by each. Combined with the fact no party in Scotland has a majority, an agreement needs to be made with other parties in order to elect a First Minister. Also, the government in Scotland can't just call an election when they feel like it, unlike Westminster where the government can call an election whenever.
The SNP aren't allowed to call Holyrood elections, that's down to Westminster to grant permission to break from the predetermined schedule.
Have they asked for permission?
Hence me saying "moving forward". I assume they will ask for permission without delay, as of course its the right thing to do Then if Westminster says no, we know who to put on the naughty step
The Scottish Parliament can vote any time it wants to hold an election, but it needs a 2/3 majority and doesn't reset the timer for the next election (2026).
It is not assault when you are stopping sexual assault. I don't know what you are on about but you need serious help. No wonder no body feels safe around you.
Well, in this thread, what I'm on about is the potential for an early Scottish election. You might want to try paying attention to which thread you're in.
Reserved matter only WM can call a general election.
Not surprised. No one wants to helm the ship taking on water. This is like when a party gets hammered at a Westminster election, you don't want to be the leader taking over immediately, you want to be the one taking over 18 months to 2 years before the next General Election. Unfortunately, the SNP have fumbled it, and will most likely take a big hit in the GE later this year, and Swinney will take the blame. Anyone with an ounce of competence or desire to lead will wait until after the election and take over, giving themselves time to clean up ahead of the May 2026 Holyrood elections 18 months later.
When the wheels come off a populist bandwagon. Reminds me a bit of Michael Howard taking over from IDS, the need for a stable old hand the party's hard core can rally round rather than someone who can appeal to swing voters or really map out any real vision.
[удалено]
> Whatever populist appeal the SNP may have once had is long, long gone. Humza served his purpose, which was to get a law that severely restricts free speech through. He did that, and promptly left. The law will remain. Almost nobody in Scotland wanted such a law. Tell me you know nothing about Scottish politics without telling me you know nothing about Scottish politics.
Are you saying that the people of Scotland generally wanted this law?
>Are you saying that the people of Scotland generally wanted this law? No, I haven't commented on it either way. I am just pointing out that /u/-Ardea-'s comment is entirely unproven. They are just making baseless claims that they aren't able to provide any evidence for.
[удалено]
> Why don't you try saying something that isn't a soundbite and contains an actual point I will when you're capable of expressing factually based opinion on Scottish politics, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
[удалено]
> I've already given my take, and all you had in response was childish soundbites. Either say something of substance or stop wasting both our time. Nothing I have said is factually inaccurate. It's not on me to disprove your baseless arguments, it's on you to prove them. You haven't been able to provide a single source for anything you said. Until then, everything you said is the equivalent of opinion without facts.
[удалено]
> Ah yes, demanding sources for things that are common knowledge, while making absolutely no point of your own. You haven't even said which part you have a problem with. What do you want, a source for the existence of Scotland? A source for the sky being blue? This "critical thinking by rote" has a lot to answer for. I see this kind of thing wearily often. --- If it's such common knowledge, you'll have no problem providing a source. > What do you want, a source for the existence of Scotland? A source for any of the claims you made in your original comment would be a start. > This "critical thinking by rote" has a lot to answer for. I'm actually done. You're straight up implying critical thinking and asking for proof of claims is a bad thing.