CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

We need a Scottish Parliament election thread

(1355 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Whatever anyone thinks of all this (never mind what might be ‘true’), there are those who wish it would all go away and others happy that it isn’t.

    Jackie Baillie, the Scottish Labour member on the inquiry and deputy party leader, said: “This bombshell revelation demands answers from the First Minister.

    “It is all too clear that senior officials at the very heart of the Scottish Government have attempted to conceal when they first knew of allegations made against Alex Salmond.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/cover-accusations-amid-reports-official-asked-change-account-alex-salmond-complaint-knowledge-3109558

    Short of convincing evidence that key SNP people have been lying (which might still be the conclusion), not convinced that this will change the numbers much on polling day.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin


    The Holyrood inquiry into the handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond is using legal powers to seek documents from the Crown Office.

    The documents include messages between SNP officials, civil servants and advisers relating to Mr Salmond's legal challenge to the complaints process.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55770271

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. gembo
    Member

    Fat Eck trying to be the last act on. Committee saying if he doesn’t come next week that will be it

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Fat Eck's letter to the committee is quite something. The main reason he can't attend is that if he does he then has to:

    1. Swear to tell the whole truth and then either:

    2.a Tell the truth thus breaching the court orders about disclosure of the evidence in the failed conspiracy to jail him or
    2.b Not tell the whole truth and breach the oath in 1. above.

    Only a mug's attending with that sword hanging over them and he's no mug.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. gembo
    Member

    @IWRATS I do see his point. Even Morningsider. is not going to be able to sort that one out.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. Frenchy
    Member

    Can we please be more careful when referring to allegations of sexual assault against a senior politician (by not implying that "failed conspiracy to jail him" is an established fact, for example)?

    Not doing so makes it all the more difficult for victims of sexual assault to find justice.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    It pretty much is established by elements already in the public domain. Which will indeed make prosecutions more difficult to secure in other cases, but ignoring the very obvious project to jail this person won't help that and is the responsibility of the people behind the plot.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    “pretty much”

    “ignoring the very obvious project to jail this person”

    There may be assertions of convincing ‘evidence’ by various high profile people (one had to resign), BUT...

    Not much point in ‘us’ indulging in too much conspiracy theorising.

    I think this thread is legitimate for ‘what ifs’.

    IF any of this goes anywhere with key people having to resign or DOESN’T - with name calling consequences overshadowing the election, then...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    Glenn Campbell
    @GlennBBC

    The SNP has announced its “plan B” for #indyref2 if @BorisJohnson refuses to agree terms after the Holyrood election
    @Feorlean says if SNP retains power in a pro-indy Parliament it will seek to pass referendum bill UK Govt could either accept or challenge legal basis in court

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. crowriver
    Member

    Further details here:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55780100

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. LaidBack
    Member

    @crowriver - edging towards IndyRef2 then. Douglas Ross is keen (along with maybe Anas Sarwar, George Galloway and Michelle Balantyne). He seems to want the May election to be a de-facto referendum on having a referendum.

    Meanwhile on Keatings case. Was pointed out more or less that he was 'a mere voter' in extract from National below.

    LORD Advocate James Wolffe has been accused of trying to turn litigation into a “game of snakes and ladders” by trying to halt a crowdfunded bid to prove the Scottish Parliament can hold indyref2 without “permission” from Westminster.

    Aidan O’Neill QC, counsel for Forward as One convener Martin Keatings, who raised the case, made the accusation on the second day of the remote Court of Session hearing.

    David Johnston QC, for the Advocate General, and James Mure QC, for Wolffe, argued that Keatings did not have the “standing” to bring such an action.

    Johnston said yesterday that a pursuer had to be directly affected and Keatings “does not have standing to bring these proceedings and the rule of law does not require that he should”.

    He said there was “nothing anti-democratic” in denying his standing, and said society can “take the form of representative democracy”

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    and said society can “take the form of representative democracy”

    What’s that supposed to mean?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    A yes, we can't let uppity proles start challenging the divine right of Kings nor indeed HM government, judiciary, Advocates General, etc. Know your place, plebeians!

    Use the proper channels and file form XYZb2 in triplicate to your local MP... Alternatively, if you're an hereditary Peer of the Realm, litigate away and the Advocate General will see you at dinner next week...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Absolutely baffling that a minister in a Scottish government would seek to prevent a citizen from establishing the power of the parliament to deliver a manifesto commitment of that government. Doubly odd as the Scottish Government withdrew from the case and the Lord Advocate is in theory representing the parliament. Two MSPs have given affidavits saying they'd like to hear what the judge has to say, but Mr Woolfe says he knows better.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. gembo
    Member

    Told me he was through with me an’
    Told me I was too plebian

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    Bigger

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Here is the article in full.

    A sane and responsible government would set about arranging the peaceful dissolution of the 1707 and 1801/1921/1949 Unions. Or at least figure out what drastic change is required to extend them for twenty years.

    But we are governed by thugs with personality disorders so I think the dissolutions, when they come, will be quite nasty.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Turns out the SNP's latest eleven-point scam came as news to Joanna Cherry, their main proponent of the principle of exploring options for self government absent any enthusiasm for that subject from the regime in London.

    Many people are now in a multitude of sweaty panics.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    In ST article

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. gembo
    Member

    The bloc abides to vote SNP regardless of the brouhaha with the foodstuffs (Salmon-d Sturgeon and Cherry)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    “The bloc abides to vote SNP regardless“

    Perhaps/probably this time. (Hasn’t always been so!)

    Hard to be sure to what extent it’s ‘SNP best’ or merely ‘best of a bad lot’.

    People can argue for ever about Independence, the state of Scottish education, transport policy in a Climate Emergency etc, but unless voters are vehemently anti-Indy (a perfectly legitimate view) the alternatives to the SNP are hardly offering anything credible in the way of a convincing reason for change.

    Apart from the Greens.

    If the predictions of Prof Curtice are close to accurate, the significant increase in Green seats will come at a time when their votes in the SP will count less - if there is the forecast SNP majority.

    Interesting times continue.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Here we go.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

  24. chdot
    Admin

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/24/scotland-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-snp-wins-may-

    That’s (mostly) the end of ‘she doesn’t really want Indy’ then.

    Maybe.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. LaidBack
    Member

    ST article


    Alan Trench of University College London’s constitution unit said it is “crystal clear” that the Scottish parliament can only hold a vote calling for Scotland to become independent if the UK gives consent because constitutional matters are reserved to London.

    Not really crystal clear in a union if one part can order the other bit about surely? That's why there are court cases.

    NS will not be FM for ever and if the enthusiasm for AS from MSM results in resignation that will not end the party will it - or the desire for democratic governance in Scotland?
    BJ will not be PM much longer so the Indyref2 question can be handled by whoever takes over. Having seen the low quality of British negotiations with Bxt we know that MAD (mutually assured destruction) is their main approach. 'We will hurt you Scotland - just like we did with Bxt' - not really much reason to stay in a relationship then and think that 'hardball' approach will not work now.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    Which brings us to questions of power, and how it is distributed. Beyond devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, this has never been something Labour is terribly comfortable with. To his credit, Starmer has promised a “UK-wide constitutional commission to consider how power, wealth and opportunity can be devolved to the most local level”. But this is a long way from forming any kind of Labour narrative, and the party – as usual – seems incapable of demonstrating how modern power ought to work by opening itself up to outside voices.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/24/history-labour-keir-starmer-boris-johnson

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    That’s (mostly) the end of ‘she doesn’t really want Indy’ then.

    Not at all. Aberdeen City Council will not make its staff available for this 'advisory' referendum. Ditto all of the other Tory/Labour councils.

    Unless Scot Gov plans direct rule over LAs (and at this stage maybe they do?) there will be no referendum.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

  29. gembo
    Member

    The Bloc will vote SNP

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    “The Bloc will vote SNP“

    Except that everyone has 2 votes.

    A fact that ‘most’ people have probably forgotten.

    Some people will vote for ‘their’ party on constituency and List ballots.

    Presume there are stats about the % of people who voted for the same party twice in all past SP elections.

    There has always been some pressure to not ‘split’ the vote, but many people like(d) the idea of being able to vote for different parties. In the early days there were more parties to consider on the List - and a significant number of individuals.

    Tommy Sheridan has a lot to do with that changing.

    In the early days of the SP it was mostly believed that no party could ever have an overall majority. This was a deliberate reason for having a PR system, and the various existing systems in other parliaments were studied.

    The reasons were to remove the (perceived and real) problems of FPTP (notably Westminster) and also to increase the chance of Government by consensus which, some believe, is more in line with attitudes in Scotland.

    Without this system it’s unlikely there would have been many Greens and perhaps no other parties at all other than the ‘normal’ four.

    As I’ve said before, there is now the opportunity for other parties, interest groups and individuals to stand and campaign as ‘none of the above’ or on single issues - and get elected - but this seems less likely to happen than at previous elections.

    This is being billed as the ‘IndyRef2 election’ which to some extent it is. If people want Independence they can vote SNP or/and Green.

    Those against have more choices and perhaps harder decisions.

    But, the chance of Independence during the next Parliament is small and Independence will/would not miraculously solve all problems.

    So all the more reason to take an interest in parties’ policies/manifestos and also individual candidates.

    But it is likely that ‘the media’ will still be more interested in what NS did or didn’t know (when) than Climate Crises.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin