The Scottish Politics Thread

[Biffer]

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

What is more concerning is when a MSP says eight year old should decide - FFS they can't decide if they want beans or spaghetti

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politic ... e-chapman/

Don't confuse the argument about the particular piece of legislation with the argument about the constitutional position.

[westport]

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

What is more concerning is when a MSP says eight year old should decide - FFS they can't decide if they want beans or spaghetti

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politic ... e-chapman/

Don't confuse the argument about the particular piece of legislation with the argument about the constitutional position.

But it is alright to infringe on women's and children's rights. Aye ok.

[Blackmac]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

I think it was the SG that fired up the Culture War Quattro and this is the intended result. I have no real issue with the legislation and find some of the arguments against it to be faintly ridiculous, but the problem they have is that only the strongest supporters will really care and the vast majority of Scots won't give a hoot as they have far greater things to worry about and will be angered by the energy expended.

[Blackmac]

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think HMG have actually laid out their concerns well and it has resonated with a lot of pro independence folk. Alastair Jack (an absolute tosser otherwise) has emphasised they want to work with SG to find an acceptable alternative and I don't think the usual stamping of the feet is going to go down as well as usual.

Lord Hope, retired Supreme Court judge, has said that HMG's arguments are devastating and a legal challenge hasn't a prayer. He's asked for a more reasoned, mature solution. Not a fucking chance.

[Biffer]

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think HMG have actually laid out their concerns well and it has resonated with a lot of pro independence folk. Alastair Jack (an absolute tosser otherwise) has emphasised they want to work with SG to find an acceptable alternative and I don't think the usual stamping of the feet is going to go down as well as usual.

Lord Hope, retired Supreme Court judge, has said that HMG's arguments are devastating and a legal challenge hasn't a prayer. He's asked for a more reasoned, mature solution. Not a fucking chance.

Journo on twitter said he'd spoken to five different legal experts and got five different opinions

Just shows, again, how much of a fuck up the UK constitution is.

[Biffer]

What is more concerning is when a MSP says eight year old should decide - FFS they can't decide if they want beans or spaghetti

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politic ... e-chapman/

Don't confuse the argument about the particular piece of legislation with the argument about the constitutional position.

But it is alright to infringe on women's and children's rights. Aye ok.

Never said that. Said they're two different arguments and eliding them helps no one.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think HMG have actually laid out their concerns well and it has resonated with a lot of pro independence folk. Alastair Jack (an absolute tosser otherwise) has emphasised they want to work with SG to find an acceptable alternative and I don't think the usual stamping of the feet is going to go down as well as usual.

Lord Hope, retired Supreme Court judge, has said that HMG's arguments are devastating and a legal challenge hasn't a prayer. He's asked for a more reasoned, mature solution. Not a fucking chance.

Journo on twitter said he'd spoken to five different legal experts and got five different opinions

Just shows, again, how much of a fuck up the UK constitution is.

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

[Biffer]

Lord Hope, retired Supreme Court judge, has said that HMG's arguments are devastating and a legal challenge hasn't a prayer. He's asked for a more reasoned, mature solution. Not a fucking chance.

Journo on twitter said he'd spoken to five different legal experts and got five different opinions

Just shows, again, how much of a fuck up the UK constitution is.

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

[Paddington Bear]

Journo on twitter said he'd spoken to five different legal experts and got five different opinions

Just shows, again, how much of a fuck up the UK constitution is.

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

Courts don’t deal with hypotheticals, nothing usual or unique to constitutional law there

[Biffer]

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

Courts don’t deal with hypotheticals, nothing usual or unique to constitutional law there

And yet they did in respect of a hypothetical referendum bill.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

SO it should be done under section 33 of the scotland act, where legal position is sought through the court, and made legitimate in a proper constitutional manner. Not by just Westminster deciding under section 35.

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

It was simplistically explained to me that section 33 is a legal process that determines whether a proposed law (from the SG) sits within their power under the devolved matters (i.e. within Scotland). Section 35 comes in when a law proposed by the SG is contrary to laws in other parts of the UK and can impact them (i.e. outside Scotland), which also includes matters such as defence and foreign policy etc.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Journo on twitter said he'd spoken to five different legal experts and got five different opinions

Just shows, again, how much of a fuck up the UK constitution is.

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

Sauce? I'm not saying your wrong, but it sounds surprising that there was no dialogue between the two governments on this.

[Biffer]

I wonder what legal advice the SG got before putting the legislation forward? Because if there was any chance of it having an impact on UK legislation, then they surely they should have sat down with the UK gov't to work out how to avoid this situation. But they didn't, so either:
a) they didn't seek legal advice
b) they did, but advice was clear that there would be no UK constitutional fall-out
c) they did, and the advice was that there might be UK constitutional fall-out, but they went ahead anyway.

Given your comment above that the legal interpretation seems unclear, then b) doesn't seem likely.

Should someone be asking questions about how we got here?

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

Sauce? I'm not saying your wrong, but it sounds surprising that there was no dialogue between the two governments on this.

All of the backj and forwards about legislating for a referendum. That was the UK govt's approach to this, that the matter shouldn't be considered by the supreme court until the Scottish Parliament had produced the bill and passed it.

[Tichtheid]

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

I think it was the SG that fired up the Culture War Quattro and this is the intended result.

If this had been a case in isolation, then that may have been a charge worth looking at, but we've seen the UK Gov and their supporters in the Telegraph, Express etc pushing the Culture Wars agenda for some time now, several years in fact. It's a right wing tactic imported from the US and going after The Woke is seen as a vote winner by these people. I do not believe for one nano second that their motivation is anything but nefarious.

I have no real issue with the legislation and find some of the arguments against it to be faintly ridiculous, but the problem they have is that only the strongest supporters will really care and the vast majority of Scots won't give a hoot as they have far greater things to worry about and will be angered by the energy expended.

I think that is largely true, no one would care too much, the bill would pass without too much fanfare and we'd all get on with it pretty much unaffected by it. There wouldn't be much energy expended by anyone.
The UK Government have chosen to make this a big deal.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Given that up until a couple of months ago, the Uk government's attitude to this was 'you need to pass the legislation before we discuss if it's valid' I doubt they'd have been interested in a constructive conversation.

Sauce? I'm not saying your wrong, but it sounds surprising that there was no dialogue between the two governments on this.

All of the backj and forwards about legislating for a referendum. That was the UK govt's approach to this, that the matter shouldn't be considered by the supreme court until the Scottish Parliament had produced the bill and passed it.

Hang on, you said a few posts ago that the Supreme Court considered a hypothetical bill for a referendum. Now you're saying it would only consider a bill which was passed? Which is it, I'm confused.

Anyway, I think the gender bill row is very different. The gender bill is not intended to impact UK law, it's supposed to be about Scotland only, and within devolved matters (and as others have said there's good stuff in there) - the problem is that it unintentionally impacts on UK law. The position of the UK government isn't that the SG can't legislate on this, it's just that it must do so in a way that doesn't impact the rest of the UK.

A referendum to break up the UK is a somewhat different matter. And as has been discussed ad nauseum, the UK gov't's position is that there is no clear mandate for a referendum at this time, there has already been a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum etc etc

[Biffer]

Sauce? I'm not saying your wrong, but it sounds surprising that there was no dialogue between the two governments on this.

All of the backj and forwards about legislating for a referendum. That was the UK govt's approach to this, that the matter shouldn't be considered by the supreme court until the Scottish Parliament had produced the bill and passed it.

Hang on, you said a few posts ago that the Supreme Court considered a hypothetical bill for a referendum. Now you're saying it would only consider a bill which was passed? Which is it, I'm confused.

Anyway, I think the gender bill row is very different. The gender bill is not intended to impact UK law, it's supposed to be about Scotland only, and within devolved matters (and as others have said there's good stuff in there) - the problem is that it unintentionally impacts on UK law. The position of the UK government isn't that the SG can't legislate on this, it's just that it must do so in a way that doesn't impact the rest of the UK.

A referendum to break up the UK is a somewhat different matter. And as has been discussed ad nauseum, the UK gov't's position is that there is no clear mandate for a referendum at this time, there has already been a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum etc etc

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. The UK government argument in court was that the supreme court should only consider it once there was a bill passed by the scottish parliament. The supreme court disagreed with the Uk govt and considered the matter without a bill.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

All of the backj and forwards about legislating for a referendum. That was the UK govt's approach to this, that the matter shouldn't be considered by the supreme court until the Scottish Parliament had produced the bill and passed it.

Hang on, you said a few posts ago that the Supreme Court considered a hypothetical bill for a referendum. Now you're saying it would only consider a bill which was passed? Which is it, I'm confused.

Anyway, I think the gender bill row is very different. The gender bill is not intended to impact UK law, it's supposed to be about Scotland only, and within devolved matters (and as others have said there's good stuff in there) - the problem is that it unintentionally impacts on UK law. The position of the UK government isn't that the SG can't legislate on this, it's just that it must do so in a way that doesn't impact the rest of the UK.

A referendum to break up the UK is a somewhat different matter. And as has been discussed ad nauseum, the UK gov't's position is that there is no clear mandate for a referendum at this time, there has already been a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum etc etc

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. The UK government argument in court was that the supreme court should only consider it once there was a bill passed by the scottish parliament. The supreme court disagreed with the Uk govt and considered the matter without a bill.

Ah, gotcha, thanks

[Slick]

This is all kind of missing/avoiding the point of the original post about the unprecedented scale of the problems Sturgeon/SNP are currently facing. I also missed the ferries fiasco, the missing money and the dodgy loan. All of this would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.

[GogLais]

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

It was simplistically explained to me that section 33 is a legal process that determines whether a proposed law (from the SG) sits within their power under the devolved matters (i.e. within Scotland). Section 35 comes in when a law proposed by the SG is contrary to laws in other parts of the UK and can impact them (i.e. outside Scotland), which also includes matters such as defence and foreign policy etc.

Wtf, I’ll ask a stupid question. Why couldn’t trans people have differing rights in Scotland from EWNI?

[S/Lt_Phillips]

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

It was simplistically explained to me that section 33 is a legal process that determines whether a proposed law (from the SG) sits within their power under the devolved matters (i.e. within Scotland). Section 35 comes in when a law proposed by the SG is contrary to laws in other parts of the UK and can impact them (i.e. outside Scotland), which also includes matters such as defence and foreign policy etc.

Wtf, I’ll ask a stupid question. Why couldn’t trans people have differing rights in Scotland from EWNI?

I think the main thrust of the argument is that anyone from the UK can change their gender in Scotland without the usual checks & process they'd need in the rest of the UK, and particularly minors (age 16).

An example that's been quoted as a risk is a 16 yo male changing gender in Scotland then going to an all-girls boarding school in England.

[GogLais]

It was simplistically explained to me that section 33 is a legal process that determines whether a proposed law (from the SG) sits within their power under the devolved matters (i.e. within Scotland). Section 35 comes in when a law proposed by the SG is contrary to laws in other parts of the UK and can impact them (i.e. outside Scotland), which also includes matters such as defence and foreign policy etc.

Wtf, I’ll ask a stupid question. Why couldn’t trans people have differing rights in Scotland from EWNI?

I think the main thrust of the argument is that anyone from the UK can change their gender in Scotland without the usual checks & process they'd need in the rest of the UK, and particularly minors (age 16).

An example that's been quoted as a risk is a 16 yo male changing gender in Scotland then going to an all-girls boarding school in England.

Ta. I suppose in my scenario the boarding school would say that the change of gender in Scotland wasn’t relevant in England.

[Slick]

It was simplistically explained to me that section 33 is a legal process that determines whether a proposed law (from the SG) sits within their power under the devolved matters (i.e. within Scotland). Section 35 comes in when a law proposed by the SG is contrary to laws in other parts of the UK and can impact them (i.e. outside Scotland), which also includes matters such as defence and foreign policy etc.

Wtf, I’ll ask a stupid question. Why couldn’t trans people have differing rights in Scotland from EWNI?

I think the main thrust of the argument is that anyone from the UK can change their gender in Scotland without the usual checks & process they'd need in the rest of the UK, and particularly minors (age 16).

An example that's been quoted as a risk is a 16 yo male changing gender in Scotland then going to an all-girls boarding school in England.

And women’s only spaces and criminals changing befor going to prison etc

[westport]

Don't confuse the argument about the particular piece of legislation with the argument about the constitutional position.

But it is alright to infringe on women's and children's rights. Aye ok.

Never said that. Said they're two different arguments and eliding them helps no one.

Joanna Cherry KC MP, who i disagree with a lot she says, thinks it is flowed, then I would rather listen to her rather than some random bloke on the internet who thinks it is okay.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Wtf, I’ll ask a stupid question. Why couldn’t trans people have differing rights in Scotland from EWNI?

I think the main thrust of the argument is that anyone from the UK can change their gender in Scotland without the usual checks & process they'd need in the rest of the UK, and particularly minors (age 16).

An example that's been quoted as a risk is a 16 yo male changing gender in Scotland then going to an all-girls boarding school in England.

Ta. I suppose in my scenario the boarding school would say that the change of gender in Scotland wasn’t relevant in England.

You get a new birth certificate. Which is a pretty universally accepted document, no matter where it's been issued.

[Biffer]

But it is alright to infringe on women's and children's rights. Aye ok.

Never said that. Said they're two different arguments and eliding them helps no one.

Joanna Cherry KC MP, who i disagree with a lot she says, thinks it is flowed, then I would rather listen to her rather than some random bloke on the internet who thinks it is okay.

I don't think I actually did?

[Dogbert]

But it is alright to infringe on women's and children's rights. Aye ok.

Never said that. Said they're two different arguments and eliding them helps no one.

Joanna Cherry KC MP, who i disagree with a lot she says, thinks it is flowed, then I would rather listen to her rather than some random bloke on the internet who thinks it is okay.

But the Scottish Conservative Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care voted for the bill ( along with cross party support from other conservatives - including a former Scottish Conservative party leader, along with Labour, Liberals and Greens) - why would you not listen to them ?

[GogLais]

I think the main thrust of the argument is that anyone from the UK can change their gender in Scotland without the usual checks & process they'd need in the rest of the UK, and particularly minors (age 16).

An example that's been quoted as a risk is a 16 yo male changing gender in Scotland then going to an all-girls boarding school in England.

Ta. I suppose in my scenario the boarding school would say that the change of gender in Scotland wasn’t relevant in England.

You get a new birth certificate. Which is a pretty universally accepted document, no matter where it's been issued.

Stick a footnote on it “Only applies in Scotland” thus obviating the need for expensive lawyers to spend loads of time arguing about it. I know it won’t happen.

[tc27]

This is all kind of missing/avoiding the point of the original post about the unprecedented scale of the problems Sturgeon/SNP are currently facing. I also missed the ferries fiasco, the missing money and the dodgy loan. All of this would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.

Because culture war/nationalism plays much better than doing the hard shit like governing well, passing good laws and planting the metaphorical trees our grand children will enjoy.



I mean this is far more important that the entirely concocted fight over self ID law changes both sides knew was coming for months. This applies down south too before someone gets upset I am criticizing the SNP.

[Tichtheid]

This is all kind of missing/avoiding the point of the original post about the unprecedented scale of the problems Sturgeon/SNP are currently facing. I also missed the ferries fiasco, the missing money and the dodgy loan. All of this would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.

Because culture war/nationalism plays much better than doing the hard shit like governing well, passing good laws and planting the metaphorical trees our grand children will enjoy.



I mean this is far more important that the entirely concocted fight over self ID law changes both sides knew was coming for months. This applies down south too before someone gets upset I am criticizing the SNP.

It does, and after 12 years of austerity and misdirection of public funds to private pockets, who knew this would happen?

And before anyone gets upset that I've not mentioned that education is a devolved matter, The Pie, the famous pie, has become smaller due to cuts and Brexit. If the UK economy had been better handled we'd all be better off, in every part of the UK.

Of course this doesn't mean I'm absolving the Scottish Government or local governments of any wrong-doing or incompetence, this is just a bit of added perspective.

[Slick]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

As I said

[Dogbert]

Ah , the old 'Alex Massie ' Gambit

[Big D]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

As I said

No, she's made of teflon.

[Blackmac]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning today. Inevitable really but you do wonder who the hell can replace her. I'm no fan, but ability in the party and Scottish politics in general drops off a cliff after her.

[Paddington Bear]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

Fair play, hope you stuck a tenner on that

[Tichtheid]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

Fair play, hope you stuck a tenner on that

This is not aimed at Slick, but people have been saying that for years, the time of day will always reach the stopped clock eventually.

No doubt there will be champagne celebrations for some, but if it's true it's a fucking tragedy for Scotland and the UK, not many can shine a torch on Westminster like Sturgeon can.

[vball]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning today. Inevitable really but you do wonder who the hell can replace her. I'm no fan, but ability in the party and Scottish politics in general drops off a cliff after her.

Wonder if we we get an extra day's holiday to mark her passing. Perhaps Forbes, but nobody else springs to mind.
Or could the old fish, he of the Alba party, mount a coup d'etat - could be lots of infighting.

I am not Nat, but they complain about all the other parties infighting - this could be a cracker.

[tc27]

I thought she might go after her special conference as it looked like she would not be able to get her own party to agree with her Independence 'defacto' general election strategy.

So either she is pre-empting that now inevitable defeat - or the loan from her husband or the 'woven into accounts' 600k is about to catch up with her.

Personally whilst I concede she was the best communicator around for some years her primary political objective was regressive and would have embroiled us in years of economic and political turmoil that would have made Brexit look like a small bump. She was also pretty crap at policy and getting complex stuff done IMO.

[Blackmac]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

Fair play, hope you stuck a tenner on that

This is not aimed at Slick, but people have been saying that for years, the time of day will always reach the stopped clock eventually.

No doubt there will be champagne celebrations for some, but if it's true it's a fucking tragedy for Scotland and the UK, not many can shine a torch on Westminster like Sturgeon can.

As above. Not always in agreement with her views but you are bang on here. It's actually an out of the frying pan into the fire moment. Hopefully whoever replaces her gets rid of that mental twat Lorna Slater and draws a line under the DRS disaster.

[Big D]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning today. Inevitable really but you do wonder who the hell can replace her. I'm no fan, but ability in the party and Scottish politics in general drops off a cliff after her.

I am not sure whether she was great, good or not to be honest. The support the SNP have had in elections has many factors rather than only the performance of the FM and government.

It has been a fairly poor year to 18 months. The ferry issue, the lack of memory (Salmond, husbands large loan to the SNP) which whilst not fatal isn't a good look., the gender recognition bill and what it has brought with it (split the public, stumbling on Isla Bryson's sex and not having a clear plan for sex offenders which is part of the reason the public are split), public dissention in the SNP for the first time that I can remember due to the GR bill, losing support for the SNPs key aim of independence.

The decision in 2021 not to form a minority government after doing so in 2017 with only 1 seat more also brought it's own issues. Maggie Chapman stating Scotland should explore 8 year olds being able to change gender was daft, but she is part of government.

Although they might say otherwise, I wonder if she jumped before being pushed.

I also think it is an admission that a 2nd referendum is way off.

[Big D]

As with the parties in Westminster when a PM resigns there should be an election as many SNP politicians asked for when BawJaws resigned but completely understand why there wont be.

As I have said before if we aim to be better that the politics in Westminster we should be holding politicians to a higher standard and doing the right thing (whatever that may be or how tough it is). But again understand why that wont happen.