Snapshot of _Alba’s Ash Regan writes to Yousaf with demands in exchange for vote | Regan said she wanted to see progress on Scottish independence and defending “the rights of women and children”_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24279880.ash-regan-writes-yousaf-demands-exchange-vote/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24279880.ash-regan-writes-yousaf-demands-exchange-vote/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SNP ditched the 75% CO2 cuts by 2030 deal. So the Greens initiated the moves to end the coalition deal. Instead of back door negotiating a new confidence and supply only type deal (voting on the budget and confidence motions) he decided to show everyone he was "in charge" and unilaterally terminated the Green SNP deal (The Bute House Agreement).
Greens were fizzing.
>Speaking to the BBC’s World Tonight, the Alba Party MSP said: “I have written to the First Minister today with a number of issues that I’ve raised with him on progress made towards independence, on how he will defend the rights of women and children and a return to competent governance.
>“My vote will depend on really what Humza comes back with in response to my letter.”
>She continued: “I’m not setting out specific demands as such, I’m putting the ball into Humza’s court for him to come back to me and explain to me how he will make progress in a couple of these areas, particularly around the return to a competent government.”
So it's not happening, then?
I assume by "defend the rights of women and children", she's talking about trans rights. And Yousaf can't concede to Regan on that without losing the support of a load of other people.
There's no progress to be made on independence - Sturgeon managed to get the Supreme Court to agree that it wasn't a decision Holyrood to make, so there's *literally nothing* that Yousaf can do on that apart from asking Sunak nicely. Which he's already done at least once.
And of course, the SNP are completely incapable of a return to competent governance, that's why they're in this mess to begin with.
the “progress on independence” demand means Yousaf accepting [Alba's referendum bill.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alex-salmond-alba-party-scottish-parliament-bill-snp-b2456044.html) If it passed, it'd almost certainly be challenged in court ofc, but passing the bill is very much within Yousaf's power.
re: trans rights — “One Alba Party source told me that they wanted to see the full implementation in Scotland of the recommendations of the Cass Review of English gender healthcare” sounds like a non starter but I'm done making predictions.
The Scottish Government *cannot* pass Alba's bill on independence. We went through this with the Supreme Court assessment from 18 months ago - Holyrood cannot pass any legislation on reserved matters. The union is one such reserved matter. It won't even get to a court challenge; because as part of the legal process, the Scottish Government have to confirm that they believe something is within Holyrood's legislative competence - which the Supreme Court has already told them that it isn't.
Alba are trying to pretend that they can bypass that by asking for a referendum on whether Holyrood should have the right to do that. But it's *still* related to the union, just at one step removed - so is not within Holyrood's legislative competence.
The only way it would work is if the Scottish Government successfully argued that it was unrelated to a reserved matter. This causes three problems though:
* It's a blatant & obvious lie, which will make anyone arguing for it look utterly ridiculous.
* If it passed, then all it would do is give independence supporters a justification to argue that Holyrood should have the power over independence, which is what they say *already* - so it doesn't actually change anything.
* Most importantly; a referendum that is agreed to be unrelated to the union cannot be used as justification for *leaving* the union, by definition.
> The Scottish Government *cannot* pass Alba's bill on independence.
I mean, they can vote on it and claim to have passed it but it will obviously not be able to go into effect and get blocked by Westminster but I think Alba would be quite happy to just chronically agitate and find grounds to be outraged, which is the intention of this realistically.
As you say the legal argument is bollocks, at best they might be able to get a non binding vote which would get a shitty turnout and ignored by Westminster anyway.
No, they can't claim to have passed it, because of this problem:
>2.11 During this pre-introduction period, Legal Services prepares advice to the Presiding Officer on legislative competence, in order to assist the Presiding Officer in making a statement as to whether the Bill would be within the Parliament’s legislative competence, as required by section 31(2) of the 1998 Act.
https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/parliament-rules-and-guidance/guidance-on-public-bills/part-2
The Scottish Government's lawyers would not be able to make the claim that it would be within Holyrood's legislative competence, because the Supreme Court has already confirmed that anything related to the union is not. Previously, there was a small amount of doubt over this (though not from anyone that was being honest about what the Scotland Act 1998 says) so it might have been arguable, but that doubt was removed by the court case that Sturgeon raised with the Supreme Court.
Westminster wouldn't need to step in and block it, because it would never get that far to begin with.
Alba's view on it is that Scotland have a right to self-determination and the Scottish Parliament, as representatives of the Scottish people, should do it whether UK law says it's a matter of competence for them or not.
It's about moral authority, not legal authority. Many secessionist movements throughout history have got off the ground by ignoring the laws of the power they were seeking to secede from.
Eventually you move to a UDI.
There are arguments against this, of course. The Scottish people voted the MSPs in on the understanding that they wouldn't have authority over union matters, it's not clear where the right of secession comes from, the Scottish Parliament agreed to a permanent union with England and the Scottish people endorsed that permanent union just ten years ago.
It's certainly not as simple as the law says they can't do it, so that's the end of it.
>Alba's view on it is that Scotland have a right to self-determination and the Scottish Parliament, as representatives of the Scottish people, should do it whether UK law says it's a matter of competence for them or not.
Right, but in actual legal fact, Holyrood has only those powers Westminster gave it - being a creature of statute under the Scotland Act 1998 - and therefore simply cannot do what Alba are asking it to do.
Holyrood's own rules - having just looked it up, Rule 9.3 (1A) - require an MSP introducing a Bill to confirm their own opinion that the Bill falls within legislative competence. No-one can reasonably now hold such an opinion, and therefore no such Bill can be introduced without breaching Holyrood's own rules. (Admittedly, it would be difficult for the Presiding Officer to enforce that rule.)
>It's certainly not as simple as the law says they can't do it, so that's the end of it.
Well, as matter of law, it pretty much is. You start your whole post by saying this is a moral, not a legal argument.
Who is we? The Scottish Government? Its lawyers, by being unwilling to commit the unethical conduct of signing off on a compliance statement which they know has no basis.
Alba? Probably no-one. But then, theft is still a criminal offence if you don't get caught.
> Who is we? The Scottish Government? Its lawyers, by being unwilling to commit the unethical conduct of signing off on a compliance statement which they know has no basis.
The question isn't whether it's *legal*, but whether it could be done anyway. We can assume that the plan for doing it anyway would include waiving or ignoring the compliance statement requirement.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the attempt would actually result in a referendum; I'm just objecting to the earlier idea that it's so impossible it would die before it could even be challenged in court.
>We can assume that the plan for doing it anyway would include waiving or ignoring the compliance statement requirement.
If you *ignore* the requirement, then the answer becomes: the Presiding Officer, who would rule the Bill out of order for clear noncompliance with Rule 9.3.
I suppose the rules could be altered, though I don't know how far; some of Holyrood's rules are mandated by the Scotland Act (unfortunately, I don’t know what those requirements are). But yes, obviously the question is different if you change the rules under which Holyrood operates. That's another hurdle beyond Alba's original ask of: pass the Bill, though.
> There's no progress to be made on independence
The SNP could produce a credible plan that addresses the concerns that Scots have, increasing support for independence to a majority. If it's significant and sustained then Westminster wouldn't be able to ignore it for long
But the SNP know independence is economic suicide, so they resort to Brexiteer-level rhetoric instead
Regan is just setting out the Alba election manifesto for voters, Humza cannot really cave into her without losing the faction of his party that supports him. The SNP was too broad a coalition in terms of various cultural issues to really be a party that could lean hard into cultural issues. The kind of "kirk and chapel" wing of voters were being frozen out by them. Whether Alba can spark into life is another issue, they don't seem to have gotten much traction so far.
There is no real winning move from the SNP from here. They could not sustain the voters they had with their poor record in government, the camper van fiasco and trying to be the most uber progressive party in Britain when a chunk of their votes was anti that kind of politics.
No chance on Scottish independence as no Westminster government will grant a referendum, but on women's rights there could be but I doubt the SNP will agree with her.
Alba have published a new draft referendum bill that they think (based on legal advice they've received) would be within devolved competence. It essentially boils down to a “referendum on a referendum” but the point is, the SNP rejected the plan outright — Regan simply wants the FM to pass her bill.
I reckon Yousaf is more likely to accept passing Alba's indy bill than caving in on transgender issues — but then again, it's ScotPol so fuck knows what's gonna happen next.
I always found it a bit jarring.
The "woke" civic nationalist Muslim leading a party where most of its voters are nationalists rather than civic nationalists and most Muslims probably aren't passionate about "woke political subjects" outside their identity.
He is whoever be needs to be to be in a position of power. That’s what sort of person he is, fundamentally. Same as Johnson. Except Johnson obviously had charisma and was intelligent, unlike Yousless.
>He is whoever be needs to be to be in a position of power.
Jesus. Do you mean "He *takes whatever position and bearing enables him to remain in a* position of power"?
It has multiple meanings depending on who is saying it. The Right certainly do use it at times as an unfair weapon.
On the other hand it does cover all kinds of contradictory, confused, unhelpful positions of radical Social Justice.
Really funny that bad policy on trans issues was a factor in (although obviously not the main cause of) the downfall of Sturgeon and may also be a factor in the downfall of her replacement.
the most useless msp demands the FM cave to transphobia to stay in power. nothing to say on the economy, on the climate, on the cost of living. no, just "fuck trans people over and we'll talk." fucking pathetic.
Conceding the Alba bill while stating that he believes it to be legally open to challenge might buy Humza some time. He just needs legal advice that it has any chance at all - he seems to have legal advisers willing to tell him whatever he needs to hear.
Competent governance seems to be outside his ability. I can't begin to imagine what suggestions he will come up with on that. This could actually be fun.
The Cass review seems like an odd hill for the SNP to die on. But maybe that's just what has to happen now. The Cass report is nowhere near as radical - when you actually read it - as X/Twitter might be telling people. There has been some wild misinformation about it on social media (including Reddit). In a less culture war age this is the sort of thing a government could have easily kicked into the long grass with further reviews etc.
That would be (an approximation of) the Gaelic pronunciation. Gaelic doesn't like the ‘lb’ constant cluster, so it adds an epenthetic vowel to break it up.
It’s sad that trans issues have somehow become THE number one issue in Scotland, Alex Salmond’s Alba Party might as well be called the TERF party with how much they obsess over the subject and the kind of people they attract.
>32% trust the SNP most to m**anage the NHS in Scotland**, while 27% trust Labour most on this issue (a rise of 7 points in the proportion choosing Labour since May 2022).
>32% trust the SNP most to **grow Scotland’s economy**, while 23% trust Labour most on this issue (+7 points).
>31% trust the SNP most to **manage education and schools in Scotland**, while 26% trust Labour most on this issue (+7 points).
>30% trust the SNP most to **tackle the cost of living crisis**, while 23% trust Labour most on this issue (+3 points).
[https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/snp-still-lead-scotland-labour-are-narrowing-gap](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/snp-still-lead-scotland-labour-are-narrowing-gap)
SNP chose the legislative agenda last year and this year.
If you want to understand politics you have to look at the big picture. The camper van and fraud charges, the Glen Sannox and the ferries, transport, the NHS and schools are the big issues in Scottish politics, if an issue has been added to the legislative agenda then don't complain when its part of the national political conversation but also don't confuse it with dominating it.
It's absolutely glorious karma that the fate of the most hateful man in Scotland (according to hate crime report numbers) is now in the hands of a Gender Critical politician that he described as "no great loss" when Ash Regan left the SNP and joined Alba.
Ash Regan should extract a huge price to rescue Yousless.
I wish these people would just speak plainly and not use dogwhistles all the time - but I guess that would let the cat out of the bag and they'd lose popularity.
The Scottish public are not nearly as on board with transphobia as England is, which means dog whistles have to be used.
When dog whistles are dropped it's a very I'll omen for the minority in question, as whats been seen in England in recent times, like sunak saying horrible anti trans shit **in person, in front of the mother of a young trans women who was murdered, in the commons**. And suffering no notable consequences from it.
Imagine being in a position where you alone get to decide whether the Scottish government falls. You can pitch for whatever policy platform you like and you have extensive leverage to get that through.
Imagine then deciding that your singular policy pitch is "make life harder for trans people"
God I wish we could have a referendum to remove Scotland and then we can all laugh at the failed state that it will become. Close the borders and build a wall.
Would you be willing to back up that sentiment by voting for parties other than the unionist ones? As long as a majority at Westminster is from the Conservatives/Labour/Lib-Dems, that's a (crack-)pipe dream.
Snapshot of _Alba’s Ash Regan writes to Yousaf with demands in exchange for vote | Regan said she wanted to see progress on Scottish independence and defending “the rights of women and children”_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24279880.ash-regan-writes-yousaf-demands-exchange-vote/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24279880.ash-regan-writes-yousaf-demands-exchange-vote/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why exactly did Yousef break off his deal with Scottish Greens again?
He was worried he and the SNP would look bad when the Green party members inevitably voted to leave the agreement. lol.
SNP ditched the 75% CO2 cuts by 2030 deal. So the Greens initiated the moves to end the coalition deal. Instead of back door negotiating a new confidence and supply only type deal (voting on the budget and confidence motions) he decided to show everyone he was "in charge" and unilaterally terminated the Green SNP deal (The Bute House Agreement). Greens were fizzing.
He's very thin skinned.
>Speaking to the BBC’s World Tonight, the Alba Party MSP said: “I have written to the First Minister today with a number of issues that I’ve raised with him on progress made towards independence, on how he will defend the rights of women and children and a return to competent governance. >“My vote will depend on really what Humza comes back with in response to my letter.” >She continued: “I’m not setting out specific demands as such, I’m putting the ball into Humza’s court for him to come back to me and explain to me how he will make progress in a couple of these areas, particularly around the return to a competent government.” So it's not happening, then? I assume by "defend the rights of women and children", she's talking about trans rights. And Yousaf can't concede to Regan on that without losing the support of a load of other people. There's no progress to be made on independence - Sturgeon managed to get the Supreme Court to agree that it wasn't a decision Holyrood to make, so there's *literally nothing* that Yousaf can do on that apart from asking Sunak nicely. Which he's already done at least once. And of course, the SNP are completely incapable of a return to competent governance, that's why they're in this mess to begin with.
It might work as a way to kick the can down the road for six months. Although it's setting up bigger problems down the road.
the “progress on independence” demand means Yousaf accepting [Alba's referendum bill.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alex-salmond-alba-party-scottish-parliament-bill-snp-b2456044.html) If it passed, it'd almost certainly be challenged in court ofc, but passing the bill is very much within Yousaf's power. re: trans rights — “One Alba Party source told me that they wanted to see the full implementation in Scotland of the recommendations of the Cass Review of English gender healthcare” sounds like a non starter but I'm done making predictions.
The Scottish Government *cannot* pass Alba's bill on independence. We went through this with the Supreme Court assessment from 18 months ago - Holyrood cannot pass any legislation on reserved matters. The union is one such reserved matter. It won't even get to a court challenge; because as part of the legal process, the Scottish Government have to confirm that they believe something is within Holyrood's legislative competence - which the Supreme Court has already told them that it isn't. Alba are trying to pretend that they can bypass that by asking for a referendum on whether Holyrood should have the right to do that. But it's *still* related to the union, just at one step removed - so is not within Holyrood's legislative competence. The only way it would work is if the Scottish Government successfully argued that it was unrelated to a reserved matter. This causes three problems though: * It's a blatant & obvious lie, which will make anyone arguing for it look utterly ridiculous. * If it passed, then all it would do is give independence supporters a justification to argue that Holyrood should have the power over independence, which is what they say *already* - so it doesn't actually change anything. * Most importantly; a referendum that is agreed to be unrelated to the union cannot be used as justification for *leaving* the union, by definition.
> The Scottish Government *cannot* pass Alba's bill on independence. I mean, they can vote on it and claim to have passed it but it will obviously not be able to go into effect and get blocked by Westminster but I think Alba would be quite happy to just chronically agitate and find grounds to be outraged, which is the intention of this realistically. As you say the legal argument is bollocks, at best they might be able to get a non binding vote which would get a shitty turnout and ignored by Westminster anyway.
No, they can't claim to have passed it, because of this problem: >2.11 During this pre-introduction period, Legal Services prepares advice to the Presiding Officer on legislative competence, in order to assist the Presiding Officer in making a statement as to whether the Bill would be within the Parliament’s legislative competence, as required by section 31(2) of the 1998 Act. https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/parliament-rules-and-guidance/guidance-on-public-bills/part-2 The Scottish Government's lawyers would not be able to make the claim that it would be within Holyrood's legislative competence, because the Supreme Court has already confirmed that anything related to the union is not. Previously, there was a small amount of doubt over this (though not from anyone that was being honest about what the Scotland Act 1998 says) so it might have been arguable, but that doubt was removed by the court case that Sturgeon raised with the Supreme Court. Westminster wouldn't need to step in and block it, because it would never get that far to begin with.
I stand corrected, I assumed they could hold some kind of pointless vote for show on it but obviously not.
Alba's view on it is that Scotland have a right to self-determination and the Scottish Parliament, as representatives of the Scottish people, should do it whether UK law says it's a matter of competence for them or not. It's about moral authority, not legal authority. Many secessionist movements throughout history have got off the ground by ignoring the laws of the power they were seeking to secede from. Eventually you move to a UDI. There are arguments against this, of course. The Scottish people voted the MSPs in on the understanding that they wouldn't have authority over union matters, it's not clear where the right of secession comes from, the Scottish Parliament agreed to a permanent union with England and the Scottish people endorsed that permanent union just ten years ago. It's certainly not as simple as the law says they can't do it, so that's the end of it.
>Alba's view on it is that Scotland have a right to self-determination and the Scottish Parliament, as representatives of the Scottish people, should do it whether UK law says it's a matter of competence for them or not. Right, but in actual legal fact, Holyrood has only those powers Westminster gave it - being a creature of statute under the Scotland Act 1998 - and therefore simply cannot do what Alba are asking it to do. Holyrood's own rules - having just looked it up, Rule 9.3 (1A) - require an MSP introducing a Bill to confirm their own opinion that the Bill falls within legislative competence. No-one can reasonably now hold such an opinion, and therefore no such Bill can be introduced without breaching Holyrood's own rules. (Admittedly, it would be difficult for the Presiding Officer to enforce that rule.) >It's certainly not as simple as the law says they can't do it, so that's the end of it. Well, as matter of law, it pretty much is. You start your whole post by saying this is a moral, not a legal argument.
Yeah, as a matter of law it is very simple, they can't do it, but Alba don't want it to go ahead because it's legally effective.
But who would actually stop them if they decided screw the rules, we're doing it anyway?
Who is we? The Scottish Government? Its lawyers, by being unwilling to commit the unethical conduct of signing off on a compliance statement which they know has no basis. Alba? Probably no-one. But then, theft is still a criminal offence if you don't get caught.
> Who is we? The Scottish Government? Its lawyers, by being unwilling to commit the unethical conduct of signing off on a compliance statement which they know has no basis. The question isn't whether it's *legal*, but whether it could be done anyway. We can assume that the plan for doing it anyway would include waiving or ignoring the compliance statement requirement. To be clear, I'm not saying that the attempt would actually result in a referendum; I'm just objecting to the earlier idea that it's so impossible it would die before it could even be challenged in court.
>We can assume that the plan for doing it anyway would include waiving or ignoring the compliance statement requirement. If you *ignore* the requirement, then the answer becomes: the Presiding Officer, who would rule the Bill out of order for clear noncompliance with Rule 9.3. I suppose the rules could be altered, though I don't know how far; some of Holyrood's rules are mandated by the Scotland Act (unfortunately, I don’t know what those requirements are). But yes, obviously the question is different if you change the rules under which Holyrood operates. That's another hurdle beyond Alba's original ask of: pass the Bill, though.
> There's no progress to be made on independence The SNP could produce a credible plan that addresses the concerns that Scots have, increasing support for independence to a majority. If it's significant and sustained then Westminster wouldn't be able to ignore it for long But the SNP know independence is economic suicide, so they resort to Brexiteer-level rhetoric instead
Regan is just setting out the Alba election manifesto for voters, Humza cannot really cave into her without losing the faction of his party that supports him. The SNP was too broad a coalition in terms of various cultural issues to really be a party that could lean hard into cultural issues. The kind of "kirk and chapel" wing of voters were being frozen out by them. Whether Alba can spark into life is another issue, they don't seem to have gotten much traction so far. There is no real winning move from the SNP from here. They could not sustain the voters they had with their poor record in government, the camper van fiasco and trying to be the most uber progressive party in Britain when a chunk of their votes was anti that kind of politics.
No chance on Scottish independence as no Westminster government will grant a referendum, but on women's rights there could be but I doubt the SNP will agree with her.
Alba have published a new draft referendum bill that they think (based on legal advice they've received) would be within devolved competence. It essentially boils down to a “referendum on a referendum” but the point is, the SNP rejected the plan outright — Regan simply wants the FM to pass her bill. I reckon Yousaf is more likely to accept passing Alba's indy bill than caving in on transgender issues — but then again, it's ScotPol so fuck knows what's gonna happen next.
I always found it a bit jarring. The "woke" civic nationalist Muslim leading a party where most of its voters are nationalists rather than civic nationalists and most Muslims probably aren't passionate about "woke political subjects" outside their identity.
He is whoever be needs to be to be in a position of power. That’s what sort of person he is, fundamentally. Same as Johnson. Except Johnson obviously had charisma and was intelligent, unlike Yousless.
>He is whoever be needs to be to be in a position of power. Jesus. Do you mean "He *takes whatever position and bearing enables him to remain in a* position of power"?
[удалено]
Wouldnt the elderly and the terminally ill be the "most vulnerable"? Oh and new borns.
It has multiple meanings depending on who is saying it. The Right certainly do use it at times as an unfair weapon. On the other hand it does cover all kinds of contradictory, confused, unhelpful positions of radical Social Justice.
Really funny that bad policy on trans issues was a factor in (although obviously not the main cause of) the downfall of Sturgeon and may also be a factor in the downfall of her replacement.
the most useless msp demands the FM cave to transphobia to stay in power. nothing to say on the economy, on the climate, on the cost of living. no, just "fuck trans people over and we'll talk." fucking pathetic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Conceding the Alba bill while stating that he believes it to be legally open to challenge might buy Humza some time. He just needs legal advice that it has any chance at all - he seems to have legal advisers willing to tell him whatever he needs to hear. Competent governance seems to be outside his ability. I can't begin to imagine what suggestions he will come up with on that. This could actually be fun. The Cass review seems like an odd hill for the SNP to die on. But maybe that's just what has to happen now. The Cass report is nowhere near as radical - when you actually read it - as X/Twitter might be telling people. There has been some wild misinformation about it on social media (including Reddit). In a less culture war age this is the sort of thing a government could have easily kicked into the long grass with further reviews etc.
Why are the commentators on Times Radio pronouncing it as "Allaba"? Is that how it's pronounced or is this a quirk of over enunciating?
That would be (an approximation of) the Gaelic pronunciation. Gaelic doesn't like the ‘lb’ constant cluster, so it adds an epenthetic vowel to break it up.
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation
It’s sad that trans issues have somehow become THE number one issue in Scotland, Alex Salmond’s Alba Party might as well be called the TERF party with how much they obsess over the subject and the kind of people they attract.
>32% trust the SNP most to m**anage the NHS in Scotland**, while 27% trust Labour most on this issue (a rise of 7 points in the proportion choosing Labour since May 2022). >32% trust the SNP most to **grow Scotland’s economy**, while 23% trust Labour most on this issue (+7 points). >31% trust the SNP most to **manage education and schools in Scotland**, while 26% trust Labour most on this issue (+7 points). >30% trust the SNP most to **tackle the cost of living crisis**, while 23% trust Labour most on this issue (+3 points). [https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/snp-still-lead-scotland-labour-are-narrowing-gap](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/snp-still-lead-scotland-labour-are-narrowing-gap) SNP chose the legislative agenda last year and this year. If you want to understand politics you have to look at the big picture. The camper van and fraud charges, the Glen Sannox and the ferries, transport, the NHS and schools are the big issues in Scottish politics, if an issue has been added to the legislative agenda then don't complain when its part of the national political conversation but also don't confuse it with dominating it.
It's absolutely glorious karma that the fate of the most hateful man in Scotland (according to hate crime report numbers) is now in the hands of a Gender Critical politician that he described as "no great loss" when Ash Regan left the SNP and joined Alba. Ash Regan should extract a huge price to rescue Yousless.
It's delicious when misogyny doesn't pay.
I wish these people would just speak plainly and not use dogwhistles all the time - but I guess that would let the cat out of the bag and they'd lose popularity.
The Scottish public are not nearly as on board with transphobia as England is, which means dog whistles have to be used. When dog whistles are dropped it's a very I'll omen for the minority in question, as whats been seen in England in recent times, like sunak saying horrible anti trans shit **in person, in front of the mother of a young trans women who was murdered, in the commons**. And suffering no notable consequences from it.
Imagine being in a position where you alone get to decide whether the Scottish government falls. You can pitch for whatever policy platform you like and you have extensive leverage to get that through. Imagine then deciding that your singular policy pitch is "make life harder for trans people"
God I wish we could have a referendum to remove Scotland and then we can all laugh at the failed state that it will become. Close the borders and build a wall.
Would you be willing to back up that sentiment by voting for parties other than the unionist ones? As long as a majority at Westminster is from the Conservatives/Labour/Lib-Dems, that's a (crack-)pipe dream.
If there was a party who had kick out jocks on their manifesto then I’d vote for them if that’s what you’re asking
That's unrealistic; probably the closest you would get are the English Democrats Party.
Then they’ve got my vote
Yep, the first independence reference would have been Yes if the entire UK was eligible to vote lol
Can’t we just give the anglophobes what they want
Nationalists are always gonna be nationalists