The Scottish Politics Thread

[Slick]

Forbes now reported as saying that having children out of wedlock is 'wrong'. Full-on 1950's Christian bollox. Can't see her coming back from this, I don't think the average SNP member is on the same wavelength at all.

She's making it very easy for them.

To be honest I don’t really see what she said about gay marriage as a big deal. She doesn’t agree with it personally but would never try to block if if that’s the way it went. I quite admire her for that, even if I 100% disagree with her position.

A politician sticking to their values, eeek

[Biffer]

Forbes now reported as saying that having children out of wedlock is 'wrong'. Full-on 1950's Christian bollox. Can't see her coming back from this, I don't think the average SNP member is on the same wavelength at all.

She's making it very easy for them.

To be honest I don’t really see what she said about gay marriage as a big deal. She doesn’t agree with it personally but would never try to block if if that’s the way it went. I quite admire her for that, even if I 100% disagree with her position.

A politician sticking to their values, eeek

She's not expressing that very well though. There's an easy way to do this by talking about the tradition of rights in Scotland and England, and how that developed. Basically we developed our principles of rights on the basis that when you protect everyone's rights, you protect your own. That was the philosophy that came from Mill, Smith, Locke etc. Yousaf kind of referred to that in what he said yesterday about protecting other people's rights being the same as protecting his own or some such. She's not emphasised that in a clear way.

But equally, there's a big swedge of misogyny and lets-all-laugh-at-the-islanders as an undercurrent in the way she's being portrayed.

[sturginho]

made i larf

[Slick]

She's making it very easy for them.

To be honest I don’t really see what she said about gay marriage as a big deal. She doesn’t agree with it personally but would never try to block if if that’s the way it went. I quite admire her for that, even if I 100% disagree with her position.

A politician sticking to their values, eeek

She's not expressing that very well though. There's an easy way to do this by talking about the tradition of rights in Scotland and England, and how that developed. Basically we developed our principles of rights on the basis that when you protect everyone's rights, you protect your own. That was the philosophy that came from Mill, Smith, Locke etc. Yousaf kind of referred to that in what he said yesterday about protecting other people's rights being the same as protecting his own or some such. She's not emphasised that in a clear way.

But equally, there's a big swedge of misogyny and lets-all-laugh-at-the-islanders as an undercurrent in the way she's being portrayed.

Totally agree, while I don’t have a particular problem with what she is trying to say it’s a big worry that she can’t

[clydecloggie]

To be honest I don’t really see what she said about gay marriage as a big deal. She doesn’t agree with it personally but would never try to block if if that’s the way it went. I quite admire her for that, even if I 100% disagree with her position.

A politician sticking to their values, eeek

She's not expressing that very well though. There's an easy way to do this by talking about the tradition of rights in Scotland and England, and how that developed. Basically we developed our principles of rights on the basis that when you protect everyone's rights, you protect your own. That was the philosophy that came from Mill, Smith, Locke etc. Yousaf kind of referred to that in what he said yesterday about protecting other people's rights being the same as protecting his own or some such. She's not emphasised that in a clear way.

But equally, there's a big swedge of misogyny and lets-all-laugh-at-the-islanders as an undercurrent in the way she's being portrayed.

Totally agree, while I don’t have a particular problem with what she is trying to say it’s a big worry that she can’t

She can say it, she actually did - and then got called out on it by lots of other people who think those views are abhorrent. She hasn't been arrested or silenced, has she? She stated her opinion, others disagreed to the point where they no longer supported her bid to become FM. Democracy live, basically.

For me, not supporting gay marriage is a fairly harmless position probably shared by a sizeable minority in Scotland, although I can see how that might be different for people personally affected by it. But saying all children should be conceived and born in wedlock strays pretty far into WTF territory and old-school puritanism that most of society left behind ages ago - I had her down as a pretty reasonable type, she clearly isn't; game over.

[Slick]

She's not expressing that very well though. There's an easy way to do this by talking about the tradition of rights in Scotland and England, and how that developed. Basically we developed our principles of rights on the basis that when you protect everyone's rights, you protect your own. That was the philosophy that came from Mill, Smith, Locke etc. Yousaf kind of referred to that in what he said yesterday about protecting other people's rights being the same as protecting his own or some such. She's not emphasised that in a clear way.

But equally, there's a big swedge of misogyny and lets-all-laugh-at-the-islanders as an undercurrent in the way she's being portrayed.

Totally agree, while I don’t have a particular problem with what she is trying to say it’s a big worry that she can’t

She can say it, she actually did - and then got called out on it by lots of other people who think those views are abhorrent. She hasn't been arrested or silenced, has she? She stated her opinion, others disagreed to the point where they no longer supported her bid to become FM. Democracy live, basically.

For me, not supporting gay marriage is a fairly harmless position probably shared by a sizeable minority in Scotland, although I can see how that might be different for people personally affected by it. But saying all children should be conceived and born in wedlock strays pretty far into WTF territory and old-school puritanism that most of society left behind ages ago - I had her down as a pretty reasonable type, she clearly isn't; game over.

Sorry, bad wording, I meant she can’t seem to articulate her position properly. As Biffer mentioned, there were ways to express her opinion without ending up where she is. That’s a worry for someone who wants to lead the country

[clydecloggie]

Totally agree, while I don’t have a particular problem with what she is trying to say it’s a big worry that she can’t

She can say it, she actually did - and then got called out on it by lots of other people who think those views are abhorrent. She hasn't been arrested or silenced, has she? She stated her opinion, others disagreed to the point where they no longer supported her bid to become FM. Democracy live, basically.

For me, not supporting gay marriage is a fairly harmless position probably shared by a sizeable minority in Scotland, although I can see how that might be different for people personally affected by it. But saying all children should be conceived and born in wedlock strays pretty far into WTF territory and old-school puritanism that most of society left behind ages ago - I had her down as a pretty reasonable type, she clearly isn't; game over.

Sorry, bad wording, I meant she can’t seem to articulate her position properly. As Biffer mentioned, there were ways to express her opinion without ending up where she is. That’s a worry for someone who wants to lead the country

Ah apologies, I misunderstood - agree with that actually. Whilst honesty is a trait to savour in a politician, they also need to have the skill to give their opinion in the way that alienates the fewest people.

Forbes and Yusaf are probably not a million miles apart in their personal opinions on ethical issues, but Yusaf has managed to state his without getting called out too much. For me, that has nothing to do with misogyny or let's laugh at islanders, but more with the political skill of saying things many would disagree with without actually triggering those people. Yusaf sounded reasonable expressing sentiments similar to Forbes, who sounded anything but reasonable.

[Tichtheid]

I have some problems with what she said, not least for the ironic consequence of her being from a tiny minority group and attacked for who she is


From Facebook


An open letter to Kate Forbes MSP
Dear Kate,
You're probably feeling attacked for who you are today, and it's probably not very nice.
I say probably - I know it's not very nice. I get it, the whole LGBTQ community gets it too. Because it's horrible being singled out and made to feel a pariah just for being you.
But Kate you're not being criticised for being you - you're being criticised for a belief. Or many beliefs that you hold. You weren't born this way Kate - these beliefs have been instilled in you. Beliefs can change.
Being LGBTQ is inherent - we can't change who we are. We were born this way. Which is why as a community we have to try and change people's beliefs about us. We've had to fight for decades to get what you take for granted just by the very virtue of you being a heterosexual woman.
Everyday each LGBTQ person steps out into the world to face the public knowing there's many people hostile to our very existence because of beliefs like yours. You can be as mild mannered and polite about them all you like - others are not so. We have seen the ugly rise in racism and anti-immigration sentiment in this country since the Brexit genie escaped out the lamp.
You being First Minister of Scotland, holding those beliefs, proudly proclaiming them puts a target on my back and the backs of every single one of my LGBTQ siblings.
Is the LGBTQ community supposed to be grateful when you say you wouldn't roll back our rights? You didn't even say you would have abstained on a same sex marriage vote - you said you'd have voted against it. That's actively working against me and my community's ability to "love and live freely."
If the roles were reversed and there was to be a vote on the closure of all religious places of worship and I voted in favour of that bill - could you see me as anything other than hostile to your community? Of course you couldn't.
I believe we all hold ideas and thoughts about life and society that whilst being very much to our own personal liking or the liking of the tribe we belong to but would be ridiculous to implement and very much resisted by the wider world.
Personally I would ban new mothers like yourself with screaming snot nose weans from public places until they were old enough to be told to wheesht. But that is obviously a ridiculous and wrong view to hold. But I hold it. I don't actively campaign for it. And I certainly wouldn't ever vote for it if in a position of power. Because that would be an abuse of power to shape the world as best suits me rather than something that accommodates us all as best we can.
You may feel you're being attacked for your religious beliefs - but that's simply not the case. Plenty of folk hold a devout faith in public office but take a wider world view. In the 48 hours since you put yourself forward to be our next First Minister you have demonstrated on several occasions you haven't got the maturity to see beyond your faith.
Your hypothetical vote against same sex marriage was just the start.
Your refusal to back the Gender Recognition Reform Bill for Trans People, despite it gaining a two thirds majority and cross party support in the Scottish Parliament and subsequent unwillingness to challenge Westminster's Section 35 order blocking the passage of a democratically and legally sound bill shows you will let equality for others slide if it suits you and your religion's moral compass. Would you have challenged a Section 35 order had it affected specifically any other group of people?
Scotland's people shouldn't have to know the intricacies of the doctrine of the Free Church of Scotland to know whether their First Minister is going to stand up and fight for them.
Then today's description of sex outside marriage as being "wrong" just seemed, well, a little judgey. Some 50% of births in Scotland are out of wedlock - are they all wrong? I really don't think the electorate has an appetite for a judgey political leader given the behaviour of the wider political class in the UK of recent years.
Possibly worse than all those things in your rebuttals today and yesterday you tried to gaslight the LGBTQ community and then 'other' them with your presentation of your views as "mainstream" and within the teachings of the majority of the major religions. For one it's not the view of the Church of Scotland, who permit same sex marriage. But you may as well have said "normal people" think like me.
Your views are not "mainstream" your religiosity is not mainstream. Church attendance in Scotland sits at 7% - it wasn't even mainstream 40 years ago before you were born when only 17% attended Church. Today only 18% of Scots consider themselves religious at all
You are the minority here Kate. And that's ok. Someone who's from a minority can and should be able to be the First Minister of Scotland but they cannot govern only for their minority. They must fight for all minorities - which is all of Scotland and all Scots.
What you're enduring Kate is not an attack on being religious and being in power - the two are not incompatible - you're being challenged because you are allowing your personal faith to supersede your duties and responsibilities to a whole nation.
The most successful religious people live and guide by their example in their own lives not by dictating and regulating others lives. The example you showed us Kate is that your choice would be not the route of example but the route of restriction to create a Scotland as you and your religion sees it.
And few outside the 8,000 members of the Free Church of Scotland could have any faith that you would govern for them after this week's example.
Yours faithfully
Scott Agnew

[C T]

Watching the reverse ferret of numerous MSPs/MPs over endorsing Forbes is very funny.

The wheels are coming off - the party that was best at internal discipline and clever messaging now looking like clown show. I cant say I am not enjoying it

I'm more bothered by her saying she would vote against, than her discussing her views on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that she is entitled to not agree with same-sex unions, however archaic and ridiculous her view may be.

However she should be voting based on her constituents views, not her own. Personally believe that being proven to vote against your constituents is, what would be called in most ways of working life, gross misconduct.

I take it you know her constituency. There is a strong possibility that the majority agree with her views.

I don't know. In my mind there's a fairly large step from finding something a bit uncomfortable, finding it a bit odd, to actively trying to stop it/vote against. But if she were to vote for or against something because that's how she understands her constituents to feel then it could be argued she's simply doing her job.

[tc27]

Rumours Swinney is going to enter after all.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

[sockwithaticket]

Totally agree, while I don’t have a particular problem with what she is trying to say it’s a big worry that she can’t

She can say it, she actually did - and then got called out on it by lots of other people who think those views are abhorrent. She hasn't been arrested or silenced, has she? She stated her opinion, others disagreed to the point where they no longer supported her bid to become FM. Democracy live, basically.

For me, not supporting gay marriage is a fairly harmless position probably shared by a sizeable minority in Scotland, although I can see how that might be different for people personally affected by it. But saying all children should be conceived and born in wedlock strays pretty far into WTF territory and old-school puritanism that most of society left behind ages ago - I had her down as a pretty reasonable type, she clearly isn't; game over.

Sorry, bad wording, I meant she can’t seem to articulate her position properly. As Biffer mentioned, there were ways to express her opinion without ending up where she is. That’s a worry for someone who wants to lead the country

Her problem is, there is no way to articulate that view that will receive favourable or even neutral coverage. The media want to shit stir and the public don't want to give their attention to even two or three sentences of someone laying out a nuanced position. A not insignificant part of Brexit's success was the three word slogans; "Get Brexit done" or "Brexit means Brexit". Sadly, short and punchy catches eyes or ears. Tim Farron hit a similar issue as Lib Dem leader, he was also trying to go down the "I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't vote against it" route, but the reality is you can't really get to the second bit because the laser focus is on the first. If the end result is your vote on a potentially contentious issue is going to to go the 'right' way, it displays an awful lack of political nous to introduce anything else to the discussion. It's actually that lack of nouse which should probably mean someone isn't cut out for the role.

[Slick]

It’s obviously now going to be Yousaf and that’s a disaster for everyone. FFS

Nothing is going to change until the old guard are well and truly gone. Very depressing

[tc27]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

[Tichtheid]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

[Biffer]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

Sir, sir, I know sir!

[westport]

In the words of the song: There may be trouble ahead.

Saw this on another site posted by a friend about Ferguson Marine having posted a Strike Off Gazette notice.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/sunk-costs/

Explanation of gazette notice

https://www.ukliquidators.org.uk/closin ... strike-off

[Dogbert]

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

Sir, sir, I know sir!

Depends on what you define as 'Tories'

[Blackmac]

In the words of the song: There may be trouble ahead.

Saw this on another site posted by a friend about Ferguson Marine having posted a Strike Off Gazette notice.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/sunk-costs/

Explanation of gazette notice

https://www.ukliquidators.org.uk/closin ... strike-off

Jesus, what would happen then. Presumably no chance of these ships ever getting built.

[Blackmac]

I see that Iain Livingstone has quit as Chief Constable with over 2 years of his tenure left. He has warned that policing in Scotland is unsustainable under the SG's financial plans. A truly impressive individual with more honesty and integrity in his little finger than every grifter in the SG put together.

[westport]

In the words of the song: There may be trouble ahead.

Saw this on another site posted by a friend about Ferguson Marine having posted a Strike Off Gazette notice.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/sunk-costs/

Explanation of gazette notice

https://www.ukliquidators.org.uk/closin ... strike-off

Jesus, what would happen then. Presumably no chance of these ships ever getting built.

Herald has picked it up

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/hom ... nce-fails/

[robmatic]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

Are people voting for the SNP because of their progressive values or because of their desire for independence? You probably need to disentangle that a little before determining whether the SNP majority in Scotland indicates that it is a more progressive nation. From what I recall, social attitude surveys don't show a great deal of difference between Scotland and England. And more anecdotally, my staunch SNP supporting flatmate at uni was very much a small 'c' conservative.

[Tichtheid]

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

Are people voting for the SNP because of their progressive values or because of their desire for independence? You probably need to disentangle that a little before determining whether the SNP majority in Scotland indicates that it is a more progressive nation. From what I recall, social attitude surveys don't show a great deal of difference between Scotland and England. And more anecdotally, my staunch SNP supporting flatmate at uni was very much a small 'c' conservative.

This is exactly the sort of thing I hoped we'd gotten beyond.

If, by the definition of Tories we include those parties with the name "Unionist" (Dogbert raises a good point, but the vote from the Unionists went to the Tories before they were disbanded), then the Tories haven't won a majority in Scotland for coming up 70 years. There will be very few still alive who voted in 1955. When Labour tanked in Scotland, did the Tory vote swell?
It's hypothetical, but a right wing Indy party would not, imo, have gained the votes the SNP did. I'd have to see some pretty impressive analytical gymnastics to convince me otherwise.

As for those "surveys", we've been over this before, they ask questions like, "Do you think your mum is a good person", well they don't but the questions are almost that anodyne, there is little to be gleaned from them, that is why, in my opinion, it's much more of a litmus test to look at voting patterns to discover what people feel on issues such as the private v public provision of services, education etc or to use the original analogy, to see whether they are closer to a Scandi-type Northern European social democracy. We could include the Brexit vote too, if we wish.

[Slick]

Not this garbage again, it’s all a little cringy to be honest

[Tichtheid]

Not this garbage again, it’s all a little cringy to be honest

No one forces you to read anything, skip on by if you don't want to contribute.

[Dogbert]

I have never understood why someone would vote for Scottish Independence, just to be Independent , that makes no sense to me
( I know that in todays global world no country is even remotely Independent )

Surely you only vote for Independence if it offers you opportunities that are different to the current set up of the current political Union.

Political parties tend to be fairly broad churches , I as an example , am what I would call fairly economically right of centre , Socially -centre / centre left , I think Brexit was a utter madness , and would want a route back in to Europe - to allow Free movement of people , Customs Union , internal single market. I believe in a strong defence , rather than neutrality , but I also believe that nuclear weapons are abhorrent.I would like to see Scotland as a country taking the best bits from the Scadi's -but with a Scottish twist

No single party represents my views but no single party is perfect and has all the answers , so in the end , like everyone else , you make priorities and vote accordingly .

What will be interesting wll be to see who wins out in the SNP Leadership contest - A lot of the SNP membership (and they are the ones with the voting power ) can be fairly (small c) conservative, I wouldn't rule out Kate Forbes just yet.

Looking back on what most people would probably say were the SNP's successful period ( the first Salmond minority SG parliament ) - the 'Tartan Tory' years , I do wonder if a Forbes leadership would venture down that route - and if so how successful it would be

[Biffer]

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

Are people voting for the SNP because of their progressive values or because of their desire for independence? You probably need to disentangle that a little before determining whether the SNP majority in Scotland indicates that it is a more progressive nation. From what I recall, social attitude surveys don't show a great deal of difference between Scotland and England. And more anecdotally, my staunch SNP supporting flatmate at uni was very much a small 'c' conservative.

This is exactly the sort of thing I hoped we'd gotten beyond.

If, by the definition of Tories we include those parties with the name "Unionist" (Dogbert raises a good point, but the vote from the Unionists went to the Tories before they were disbanded), then the Tories haven't won a majority in Scotland for coming up 70 years. There will be very few still alive who voted in 1955. When Labour tanked in Scotland, did the Tory vote swell?
It's hypothetical, but a right wing Indy party would not, imo, have gained the votes the SNP did. I'd have to see some pretty impressive analytical gymnastics to convince me otherwise.

As for those "surveys", we've been over this before, they ask questions like, "Do you think your mum is a good person", well they don't but the questions are almost that anodyne, there is little to be gleaned from them, that is why, in my opinion, it's much more of a litmus test to look at voting patterns to discover what people feel on issues such as the private v public provision of services, education etc or to use the original analogy, to see whether they are closer to a Scandi-type Northern European social democracy. We could include the Brexit vote too, if we wish.

I think the major thing the SNP have done in the last ten years. which has gone under the radar for the most part, is the effort on reducing child poverty. It's a work in progress that'll take twenty years to really feed through, but lowering poverty increases health outcomes, lowers crime, etc. etc. But you will never get any electoral credit for it.

The point about Tories not winning a majority since the 50s is key for me. The electorate has wanted to go a different way from much of the rest of the UK for a long time. You can argue as much as you like about what that different way is, but to say we want the same things as the UK as a whole is, in my opinion, a pretty stupid dismissal of 70 years of election results.

[Biffer]

I have never understood why someone would vote for Scottish Independence, just to be Independent , that makes no sense to me
( I know that in todays global world no country is even remotely Independent )

Surely you only vote for Independence if it offers you opportunities that are different to the current set up of the current political Union.

Political parties tend to be fairly broad churches , I as an example , am what I would call fairly economically right of centre , Socially -centre / centre left , I think Brexit was a utter madness , and would want a route back in to Europe - to allow Free movement of people , Customs Union , internal single market. I believe in a strong defence , rather than neutrality , but I also believe that nuclear weapons are abhorrent.I would like to see Scotland as a country taking the best bits from the Scadi's -but with a Scottish twist

No single party represents my views but no single party is perfect and has all the answers , so in the end , like everyone else , you make priorities and vote accordingly .

What will be interesting will be to see who wins out in the SNP Leadership contest - A lot of the SNP membership (and they are the ones with the voting power ) can be fairly (small c) conservative, I wouldn't rule out Kate Forbes just yet.

Looking back on what most people would probably say were the SNP's successful period ( the first Salmond minority SG parliament ) - the 'Tartan Tory' years , I do wonder if a Forbes leadership would venture down that route - and if so how successful it would be

I'm broadly in line with your thinking here. Given Brexit, an indy Scotland might be best placed in EFTA for quite some time, with a RUK deal separately. I generally think that smaller economies can be more agile in response to global economic winds as well, and we can also focus our state support and development activities to our key sectors. I'm entirely happy to see taxation rates more in line with other European countries in order to fund services properly.

Wrt defence, Scotland has a key geographic position in the western alliance as one end of the G-I-UK gap, and the idea we wouldn't be allowed into NATO (that I've heard people spout before) is ridiculous. The military tradition in Scotland is strong and I'd want to continue it. As you say, no nukes please - but I'd be pragmatic and allow a reasonably long term lease on Faslane and Coulport for the UK Nuclear deterrent, say 15-20 years to allow for RUK to construct a new base and storage facility safely and with proper execution. That'd be the obligation of any developed country to ensure nukes are handled and stored in line with the NPT. Make sure the rent incrementally increases over time to ensure that they actually build it though.

[Tichtheid]

I think the major thing the SNP have done in the last ten years. which has gone under the radar for the most part, is the effort on reducing child poverty. It's a work in progress that'll take twenty years to really feed through, but lowering poverty increases health outcomes, lowers crime, etc. etc. But you will never get any electoral credit for it.

The point about Tories not winning a majority since the 50s is key for me. The electorate has wanted to go a different way from much of the rest of the UK for a long time. You can argue as much as you like about what that different way is, but to say we want the same things as the UK as a whole is, in my opinion, a pretty stupid dismissal of 70 years of election results.

It's funny you should mention this, I was reading a FB post on a street in Stockbridge, near where I used to live and it compared an old photo with how the street looks now, previously it was tenement buildings and now it's fairly modern-looking flats.

Someone made the point that so-called "slum clearances" were done because it was quantifiable - you can see modern buildings, but if the same funding and effort had been put into refurbishment of the existing buildings and into education and health provision there would've actually been a better outcome for those that lived there, and without the cost of a lost community and sense of place too.

Now of course a flat in Stockbridge will, I imagine, cost in the region of half a million quid.

[Slick]

Are people voting for the SNP because of their progressive values or because of their desire for independence? You probably need to disentangle that a little before determining whether the SNP majority in Scotland indicates that it is a more progressive nation. From what I recall, social attitude surveys don't show a great deal of difference between Scotland and England. And more anecdotally, my staunch SNP supporting flatmate at uni was very much a small 'c' conservative.

This is exactly the sort of thing I hoped we'd gotten beyond.

If, by the definition of Tories we include those parties with the name "Unionist" (Dogbert raises a good point, but the vote from the Unionists went to the Tories before they were disbanded), then the Tories haven't won a majority in Scotland for coming up 70 years. There will be very few still alive who voted in 1955. When Labour tanked in Scotland, did the Tory vote swell?
It's hypothetical, but a right wing Indy party would not, imo, have gained the votes the SNP did. I'd have to see some pretty impressive analytical gymnastics to convince me otherwise.

As for those "surveys", we've been over this before, they ask questions like, "Do you think your mum is a good person", well they don't but the questions are almost that anodyne, there is little to be gleaned from them, that is why, in my opinion, it's much more of a litmus test to look at voting patterns to discover what people feel on issues such as the private v public provision of services, education etc or to use the original analogy, to see whether they are closer to a Scandi-type Northern European social democracy. We could include the Brexit vote too, if we wish.

I think the major thing the SNP have done in the last ten years. which has gone under the radar for the most part, is the effort on reducing child poverty. It's a work in progress that'll take twenty years to really feed through, but lowering poverty increases health outcomes, lowers crime, etc. etc. But you will never get any electoral credit for it.

The point about Tories not winning a majority since the 50s is key for me. The electorate has wanted to go a different way from much of the rest of the UK for a long time. You can argue as much as you like about what that different way is, but to say we want the same things as the UK as a whole is, in my opinion, a pretty stupid dismissal of 70 years of election results.

Well I agree with this, Scotland has obviously chosen a different path and rightly so. I just disagree when we start veering off into Scottish exceptionalism and hints of moral superiority over England. As mentioned above, social attitudes are broadly similar and, like England, once you get out of the middle class bubble, problems are similar.

I have never understood why someone would vote for Scottish Independence, just to be Independent , that makes no sense to me
( I know that in todays global world no country is even remotely Independent )

Surely you only vote for Independence if it offers you opportunities that are different to the current set up of the current political Union.

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

[Biffer]

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

[Slick]

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

I'm sure it's not, and that's kind of my point, I don't think you would represent the average supporter.

[Biffer]

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

I'm sure it's not, and that's kind of my point, I don't think you would represent the average supporter.

I think my point would be that your experience is no more or less valid than mine, and for you to extend your experience to the majority but think mine is the minority is a somewhat partial view.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

And yet is it not that the SNP only there to deliver independence, after which it will dissolve? I thought that was pushed heavily during the 2014 referendum? Clearly that's helpful to counter the "SNP can't run the country with limited power, how can they be trusted to run a fully independent one" argument. However, in order to deliver independence they need to be a competent devolved government first, so a bit of a paradox there.

I know it's a different question, but I can't think of anyone I know who votes for the SNP who doesn't want independence.

[Biffer]

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

And yet is it not that the SNP only there to deliver independence, after which it will dissolve? I thought that was pushed heavily during the 2014 referendum? Clearly that's helpful to counter the "SNP can't run the country with limited power, how can they be trusted to run a fully independent one" argument. However, in order to deliver independence they need to be a competent devolved government first, so a bit of a paradox there.

I know it's a different question, but I can't think of anyone I know who votes for the SNP who doesn't want independence.

Neither can I, except at council election level, but I thought this was more in relation to Dogbert's point earlier in the thread.

[Slick]

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

I'm sure it's not, and that's kind of my point, I don't think you would represent the average supporter.

I think my point would be that your experience is no more or less valid than mine, and for you to extend your experience to the majority but think mine is the minority is a somewhat partial view.

Meh, OK, fair enough

[tc27]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0221231871

Very funny.

The notion often shared by Lesley Riddoch and others that Scotland is a liberal Scandi nation that must be unshackled from the troglodytes down South has taken a hell of a (deserved) beating.

You post variations on this same theme from time to time. I have three questions on this,


Would you say that the Tories or Labour implemented more progressive legislation?

Do you think the SNP of the last 25 years or so are more aligned with those Labour values or with the Tories, especially the Tories since 2010? I'd need to see reasoning if you think they are closer to the Tories.

Lastly, when was the last time the Tories held a majority in Scotland?

I will answer your questions in good faith but if you really think Scotland has more in common with Norway or Sweden than the rest of the UK then you are delusional - I have being lucky enough to spend time in both. Maybe some of the communities in the isles/highlands would give that vibe but the majority of Scotland live in the central belt.

I think Labor are more progressive...however in macro terms though the conservatives have abandoned any real ideology about limiting the role of the state. We have various shades of centralism with some culture war bullshit on top.

The SNP have absolutely aligned themselves more closely to Labour - this was a deliberate strategy and a break from the SNPs traditional position and was when it became obvious Labours core vote in Scotland might jump ship. The SNP and the nationalist movement has always being a wider tent however - as we are seeing in so far as the leading candidate to lead the party is a social conservative. Forbes has also explicitly advocated the Growth Commission strategy which advocates year on year austerity in an Independent Scotland - effectively she is also a fiscal conservative (as long as its in the service of independence).

[Tichtheid]

Well I agree with this, Scotland has obviously chosen a different path and rightly so. I just disagree when we start veering off into Scottish exceptionalism and hints of moral superiority over England.

When this was mentioned yesterday it was in the context of voters in Scotland choosing a different path. I maintain that when push comes to shove votes are more indicative of attitudes than any survey where there is no consequence to their responses.

I think that holds true in London too, where there are only 20 Tory MPs from 73 constituencies, to me that suggests that the majority of people in London wish to go down a different path to that which the current government is taking us.

It's got nothing to do with exceptionalism or moral superiority, it's just different viewpoints.

I have never understood why someone would vote for Scottish Independence, just to be Independent , that makes no sense to me
( I know that in todays global world no country is even remotely Independent )

Surely you only vote for Independence if it offers you opportunities that are different to the current set up of the current political Union.

Dogbert, you would hope this is case but I think it's fair to say that the majority of independence supporters vote SNP just for independence

I'd say that by definition Independence offers a different future to the status quo, I know people whose motivation is Independence for Independence's sake. I respect that view - their argument goes that for the majority of countries in the world, independence is normal. It's not necessarily my own view.

However, I do think that if the UK government's policies matched the hopes and expectations of the electorate in Scotland, then there would be far less support for indy, though having said that the waters are muddied by the meltdown of Labour north of the border - the voters didn't have many places to go, Labour voters are not going to switch to Tory in great numbers.

Indy isn't going to happen any time soon, events have rather overtaken that, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Scottish party numbers when Labour get in to Downing St, if they make a success of it I think support for the SNP will cool.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

The thing is, among my friends, that's not true.

And yet is it not that the SNP only there to deliver independence, after which it will dissolve? I thought that was pushed heavily during the 2014 referendum? Clearly that's helpful to counter the "SNP can't run the country with limited power, how can they be trusted to run a fully independent one" argument. However, in order to deliver independence they need to be a competent devolved government first, so a bit of a paradox there.

I know it's a different question, but I can't think of anyone I know who votes for the SNP who doesn't want independence.

Neither can I, except at council election level, but I thought this was more in relation to Dogbert's point earlier in the thread.

It is - just trying to explore the reasons why people vote for the SNP - is it just as a vehicle for independence no matter what, or if it's because they think the SNP are there for the long term as a party of power. TBH, I'm not sure my independence-supporting friends are really thinking beyond securing another referendum, so I'm not sure they (or I) can honestly state if they vote for the SNP for other reasons.

[Tichtheid]

And yet is it not that the SNP only there to deliver independence, after which it will dissolve? I thought that was pushed heavily during the 2014 referendum? Clearly that's helpful to counter the "SNP can't run the country with limited power, how can they be trusted to run a fully independent one" argument. However, in order to deliver independence they need to be a competent devolved government first, so a bit of a paradox there.

I know it's a different question, but I can't think of anyone I know who votes for the SNP who doesn't want independence.

Neither can I, except at council election level, but I thought this was more in relation to Dogbert's point earlier in the thread.

It is - just trying to explore the reasons why people vote for the SNP - is it just as a vehicle for independence no matter what, or if it's because they think the SNP are there for the long term as a party of power. TBH, I'm not sure my independence-supporting friends are really thinking beyond securing another referendum, so I'm not sure they (or I) can honestly state if they vote for the SNP for other reasons.

I don't think all voters back the SNP solely to achieve Independence, there are probably many Labour supporters who back Indy (I'm only guessing on this), Greens and other parties too, if all SNP voters really wanted Independence then I think this would be reflected in a clear majority for Yes in the polls.

As I mentioned earlier, I think Labour in Scotland continually falling over whilst trying to put their trousers on means that people don't vote for them, hence bolstering the SNP vote.