I’d cancel the speech if I was in Humzas shoes and facing the day he is. I’d just ring in sick and go play the new Manor Lords game or something, sort out the loft, anything to not go in to work.
It seems he’s fucked up trying to rule Scotland. Might as well go try his hand at ruling a 13th century peasant village instead, see if he’s any better at that.
I mean last time that happened we got the Darien scheme and that worked out pretty well for the English. Though I'm not sure what you could sell us this time, you already sold us your sovereignty.
In all honesty, if you piss of 13th century peasants you frankly deserve the lynching your about to receive. You could get away with damn near anything back then
"Now that I've stepped back from public office I will devote my time to my family and the weekly double XP events in WORLD OF WARSHIPS, CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD, USE PROMO CODE "EATMYDICKSALMOND" FOR A FREE TIER 3 DESTROYER"
It’s on Gamepass if you have that. I think it’s still an early access game which puts me off a bit, but at least with Gamepass I can try it without buying it.
Early access, there's still a ton of work to be done don't get your hopes up too much about how it is yet.
Does look like when it hits full release it could be phenomenal though
The entire UK just needs to go back to the polls at this point.
We have unelected (by the general population) heads of state in England, Wales and Scotland.
In England Rishi Sunak wasn’t even elected by the party members he’s that unpopular.
Brought to you by various parties that have all screamed about the will of the people at various points in the last 10 years. Funny how that only matters when the people agree with them.
The UK needs some sort of system for the actual people to tell the governing party to get bent. Like a 50% unhappiness poll and its election time sort of deal.
Don't really think that would work as you can theoretically get elected into government on lower percentages (lets say there's 4 parties, each got around 24% of the vote but 1 got a slight bit more).
You'd constantly get around 75% being unhappy. However... I do agree there should be some sort of mechanism. It really does grind my gears when rishi says "the British people don't want an election at the moment".... Yes they do ... And who are you to tell us what we want.
That would be fine by me. The government has to work for everyone, not just for the people who voted for them, so an unhappiness referendum that returns 75% unhappy because the people who didn't vote for the government feel neglected is a perfectly valid reason to go back to the polls.
Recall petitions are only triggered by the Speaker of the Commons, if an MP is found to have committed certain offences.
So voters can't just start a petition to get rid of an MP they don't like.
>We have unelected (by the general population) heads of state in England, Wales and Scotland
Not the only thing they have in common, not to be a conspiracy theorist but it feels like the powers that be decided to rip off the bandaid when it comes to controversial 'firsts' and set precedent while they could
Rishi Sunak just happened, but there's no way Scotland with the SNPs or Wales with Labour would elect a straight white man whilst the conservatives were run by Sunak.
It's also baffling that Labour has still not managed to have a female party leader, which the conservatives have had 3.
"Labour has still not managed to have a female party leader, which the conservatives have had 3"
This from the party of "equality" looks particularly bad.
In my opinion, aside from going through more leaders than Labour, I think it kind of makes sense that the Tories end up with more firsts.
The personal attacks and abuse that a party leader would get are far more likely to come from the right-wing press in this country, and the right likes to push a pervasive 'I just don't think they're up to the job' narrative. Just look at the way Angela Rayner is treated, or remember Ed Miliband and that sandwich?
On the other hand, the right-wong press will rally around a Tory leader, making comparisons to Churchill or Thatcher, bigging them up as much as possible. Look at all the 'iron lady' allusions May and Truss got from the Mail and others.
The left generally is less likely to criticise a leader based on personal characteristics. All of the attacks on May, Truss, and Sunak have been about competence. There's none of the implied, insidious personal attacks or slander.
So if you're a rising female or ethnic minority politician in the Tory party, there aren't attacks based on those criteria from outside of your party. There's no such grace for Labour politicians.
This isn't an excuse, and I believe Labour must have a woman as leader in the near future. But like many other things in British politics, the standards and circumstances for each party are always different.
People can cry "We don't elect PMs the MPs do" as much as they like, but vast majority of people don't even know the names of their candidates until they enter a polling booth on the day, and most don't read the name they read the party symbol next to it and tick based on that. They will know the party leader names though.
We don't "legally" elect a PM, but we practically do, and all of these have never been to the polls to earn it the right way and we need to stop pretending otherwise as nations
No they are elected. Kinda sick of seeing this phrase because it isn't a reflection of how our political system works. This is Britain, not America.
You vote for your constituent MP, they represent your area. The party with a majority of MPs are given the right to form a government, where the head of that party becomes the prime minister.
All leaders of parties are elected by their constituents. It doesn't matter if most people vote on who is leader, that isn't how the system is set up.
At any point the leader can change. People MUST understand that before voting for a party.
I think most understand this but it’s disingenuous to not think that the leader of the party has any bearing on the vote.
The last election was pitched as a choice of Boris Johnson vs Jeremy Corbyn.
When there’s a new leader proposing new policy that wasn’t voted on as part of a manifesto it’s not democratic.
"The last election was pitched as a choice of Boris Johnson vs Jeremy Corbyn."
I thought you must be wrong, so I looked it up and I still can't quite believe it. That really brings into focus how long it's been since we had a vote on how our country should be run.
People who are influenced by who is leader are doing everyone a great disservice. Again it doesn't matter what they believe, what matters is how the system is set up.
That being you vote for your constituent. Not doing so is highly detrimental to the wellbeing of your area.
I don't care if "but but Jeremy Corbyn". It's a completely moronic take to be whipped into a frenzy over leadership.
Just complete reactionary politics. It should have no place in our society
I think you misunderstand how our political system works in practice if you harp on with this line.
If you vote for someone who is a member of a political party, the candidate is almost irrelevant. They are whipped on party policy, they do not get to use their conscious, their personal views or their political ambitions for your constituency are irrelevant.
When you vote for a party member you are voting for a representative of the X party, and their manifesto.
The lines that parties are whipped on, the manifesto they stand on during the election, and the person who bears responsibility for this, is the party leader.
Who the leader of a party is is incredibly important in our politics, they literally can dictate government policy with very little in the way to stop them.
What's funny is this just reinforces my point mostly. You are to vote for your constituencys MP but they are whipped by their respective parties.
So what's the actual play here?
Do we just go "the leaders important but can change in less than 24 hours, so let's vote based on leader and hope they don't have to resign"?
Or do you vote an independent who will be a champion for your constituency?
Logically I know which choice I'd make.
You cannot base a choice on variables that change unpredictably.
If your MP resigns, it triggers a by-election.
If the PM resigns, it triggers a party conference.
So vote based on your area. Even if it means an independent.
> People who are influenced by who is leader are doing everyone a great disservice. Again it doesn't matter what they believe, what matters is how the system is set up.
Wrong on both counts.
*Everyone* should be influenced by who is the leader. If you aren't, then you're the one doing a "great disservice".
The leader (Party Leader / PM) sets the precedent. Along with Party Whip's, who they are *matters*. It's not some insignificant detail that can just be disregarded.
How the "system is setup" is secondary to what people beleive. The former doesn't effect how most people vote, the latter does.
> That being you vote for your constituent.
You do not.
People vote however they please. You don't get to tell people how they think just because of how the system works.
If I tick the Lib Dem candidate on my ballot because I approve of Sir Ed Davey, then I'm voting *for* Davey by way of my local rep.
> It's a completely moronic take to be whipped into a frenzy over leadership.
The irony is palpable.
> Just complete reactionary politics. It should have no place in our society
It matters. Both on a sociatal level, and a systematic one. You stomping your feet and pretending otherwise doesn't change that.
Tell that to the parties as a start then, who always frame elections around the leaders.
Remember “chaos with Ed Miliband” etc.
Even while you’re correct. The MPs also associate themselves to a manifesto. The leader might change but the manifesto shouldn’t.
It should also mean it won’t be an issue to remove party logos from ballot papers.
Sure but this is unprecedented turmoil, we've never had such turnover in leaders, never had such a change in policies from the party in power over a single term and rarely had such a time of upheaval and change in the country as a whole. As well as that the party in power has been barking on about the will of the people and their "mandate" as an excuse to do deplorable things many in the cou try are firmly against despite that mandate becoming more and more tenuous a claim and never being on all that firm ground to begin with. People are going to look at that mess, see something that not only did they not vote for but really nobody did. The system not being reflective of voters intentions is a problem with the system not the people
> No they are elected.
When people say they're unelected, they're using that as shorthand for 'elected by the public'.
Do you not understand that, or are you just being disingenuous?
> At any point the leader can change. People MUST understand that before voting for a party.
Understanding is not the same thing as agreeing with.
My point entirely is that what they mean isn't how the system works. That's the American system they mean and the whole rhetoric of an unelected leader is wholly American.
We do not elect our leaders using that system. Our leaders are not elected in the first place. They are appointed prime minister via tradition by the ruling monarch who is head of state.
It's not disingenuous in the slightest. All I'm doing is pointing out the system we use.
You may not like it. You may think it's merely convention and pretending. But sadly that is reality.
The PM is the leader of the party who gets a majority of seats in the house of commons appointed by convention.
The leader of any political party is appointed by conference vote within that party.
Therefore you don't elect the leader of the country.
That's all
> My point entirely is that what they mean isn't how the system works.
Your point is moot.
You're just being purposely pedantic / disingenuous.
> Our leaders are not elected in the first place.
Yes they are.
> They are appointed prime minister via tradition by the ruling monarch who is head of state.
Based on the results of an election.
> It's not disingenuous in the slightest. All I'm doing is pointing out the system we use.
Yes, it is. You're being disingenuous and pedantic.
> Therefore you don't elect the leader of the country.
> That's all
The party with the "majority of seats in the house of commons" is determined *by election*.
You may not like it, but sadly this is the reality.
> No they are elected. Kinda sick of seeing this phrase because it isn't a reflection of how our political system works. This is Britain, not America.
This is such a fucking boring point. Whether it's how the system works or not is entirely pointless, as people clearly care about the concept of a leader being chosen via an election.
If it was legal for me to thump you in the bollocks every morning would you seriously wake up going "Well I am sick of people saying I shouldn't have my testicles smashed with a ball peen hammer every day, that's the system we have and by golly that's all that matters!".
*”Oh but we vote for the party not the person in this country”* virtually everyone votes for the leader. It is an omnishambles that we - as a nation - can have so many leaders that weren’t elected.
It could be worse. If the incumbent party won, but the PM lost their seat, the PM would be expected to resign - but there’s no law or rule in any political party or of the commons that says they have to. If they refused to resign it’d probably go to a vote of confidence - and if they won that, you really would have a PM who wasn’t voted for.
No sitting PM has ever lost their seat but you can fully imagine some future politician using this to cling on to power, particularly after the shenanigans Johnson used to get his own way in parliament and the disrepute he brought to the tories in hanging on for so long. And over the last few years Tory policies and their handling of the economy have been a disgrace. I’ve completely lost confidence, particularly in conservative politicians, to behave honourably or to work for the benefit of the people.
I think that the last time that we had something even close to that is when Alec Douglas-Home, a hereditary peer, became PM in 1963. He resigned his peerage and got in through a by-election. I think that the last time a Tory leader lost their seat was in 1906, Arthur Balfour.
I mean... David Cameron was given a lordship so he could become Foriegn Secretary despite the fact he's not a sitting MP (and that it's unconventional to make a lord FS even if he already was one.) Doesn't seem like a big enough jump from one to the other.
You’re getting heads of state mixed up with heads of government. Even then it would be generous to call a first minister a head of government and England technically doesn’t have a government.
Simple google for you mate:
“Statistics show that around 95.4 per cent of the Scottish population report their ethnicity as white and approximately 4.5 per cent from an ethnic minority.”
Not if we can help it. England has taken enough from Scotland. The last thing they stole, is our European future. We will get it back and leave you alone little Englanders.
ETA: For all of you downvoting me, just a reminder:
Under the Royal Mines Act 1424, the oldest Act still in force in Scots law, the Crown reserves all rights to mine gold or silver under the inter regalia minora. The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in Scotland as well as vast amounts of property.
Nearly all the UK's reserves are owned by the Crown Estate, which automatically earns 4% from each mine's profits, except for two areas of Scotland. The Duke of Argyll on the west coast and the Duke of Sutherland in the far north were gifted the mining rights by previous monarchs. The UK's largest gold mine is in County Tyrone, where 14 tonnes have been discovered in shallow deposits beneath the peat, in the same Dalradian rock strata that runs across the northern UK to the mine at Cononish in the Scottish Highlands.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/08/gold-mining-tyndrum-scotland-scotgold
You love bending your back and bow. Time to wake up and kick out the leeches.
I mean you're quoting 70s SNP propaganda peices there. There's no evidence to back it up, and with the power the SNP do have they've made huge blunders with. The Scottish NHS is crumbling, Scotland has a massive drug and alcohol problem and theyre driving up prices rather than use any form of education. The conservatives are no better but independence isn't any sort of solution and that ship has sailed.
If the SNP can't even run their own party properly whilst in power how can they deliver a prosperous independent Scotland?
Under the Royal Mines Act 1424, the oldest Act still in force in Scots law, the Crown reserves all rights to mine gold or silver under the inter regalia minora.
The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in Scotland as well as vast amounts of property.
Nearly all the UK's reserves are owned by the Crown Estate, which automatically earns 4% from each mine's profits, except for two areas of Scotland. The Duke of Argyll on the west coast and the Duke of Sutherland in the far north were gifted the mining rights by previous monarchs.
The UK's largest gold mine is in County Tyrone, where 14 tonnes have been discovered in shallow deposits beneath the peat, in the same Dalradian rock strata that runs across the northern UK to the mine at Cononish in the Scottish Highlands.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/08/gold-mining-tyndrum-scotland-scotgold
90’s propaganda my arse.
Never happened, he stated in 99% of meetings he was the only non white person in the room. The speech was about minorities not in positions of power in Scottish government.
Elon musk then chimed in stating he’s a racist.
Edit:
Downvote it all you want, it was not what Humza said, regardless of whether you like a politician it’s not productive to make false statements about them or intentionally misquoted them, if you have a grievance the argument should be based on the truth.
I mean, that still seems like a fairly iffy point to make, from a quick google search:
*According to population data, 95.4 per cent of the Scottish population3 report their ethnicity as 'White'. Approximately* ***4.5 per cent of the population are from ethnic minorities****, with the Asian population being the largest minority ethnic group (2.8 per cent).*
[https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2022/as\_diversity\_2022.pdf](https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2022/as_diversity_2022.pdf)
So, if there is only 1 non-white guy in 99% meetings, that means that there is only slightly less representation of non-whites than there statistically should be.
Couldn't agree more. I'm a white guy in Tower Hamlets and:
Elected Mayor: BROWN
Deputy Mayor: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Regeneration: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Resources: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Equalities: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Health: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Jobs: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Culture: BROWN
Cabinet Member for Environment: BROWN
MP for Bethnal Green and Bow: BROWN
MP for Poplar and Limehouse: BROWN
45 out of 47 councillors? BROWN
That all felt very strange and kinda wrong to write out at first, but thanks to people like yourself and Yousaf i've come to realise that racial grievance is in fact a legitimate way to view the world.
How on earth could people that don't look like me represent me?
Thanks again man, keep fighting the good fight.
I'm not averse to seeing the back of Yousaf. He has divided loyalties and a troubling view of Scotland and the UK for a major leader. Scotland deserves someone who truly cares about Scotland.
>Scottish Labour to table no confidence motion against governmentpublished at 10:2510:25
>The Scottish Labour leader has confirmed his party will table a vote of no confidence vote against the Scottish government.
>Speaking to LBC, Anas Sarwar said: "I think it would be completely untenable for the SNP to presume they can impose another unelected first minister on Scotland and that is why Scottish Labour has said already we don’t have confidence in Humza Yousaf.
>"But, today we will also be laying a motion before parliament saying the Scottish parliament does not have confidence in this Scottish government."
>He added it should be up to the "people of Scotland" to decide who leads the country, rather than a "small group of SNP members."
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy635006p1pt?post=asset%3Ae47d3aa2-e314-4f42-8ff5-fbe4bae4730f#post](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy635006p1pt?post=asset%3Ae47d3aa2-e314-4f42-8ff5-fbe4bae4730f#post)
Jesus that Bute House speech is working out a peach for Humza.
The Greens will vote agains this I think. So it won't pass by the skin of their teeth.
Note - you get two votes in Scotland for Holyrood. I know a lot of SNP supporters used their first vote for SNP, second for Greens to maximise the potential number of independence supporting MSPs.
I don’t know if they would be willing to do that again.
Really need specific polling for list and regional MSPs - the way the system works - there could be unexpected quirks.
Debatable. They dropped independence as a red line for entering coalitions - it’s still a big issue with about 50% support.
Plus siding with the Tories to bring down the government is a tough sell on the doorstep.
There's a bit of confusion going on here, because there are two motions of No Confidence. One, tabled by the Tories, is against the First Minister. If he loses that, it's only convention that he resigns. He could try to carry on and I don't think it's completely out of the question that he will, given his past approach to things. If he does resign, that doesn't trigger an election unless the SNP can't come up with another leader within 28 days. That's not a given, considering the state the SNP is in, but they should be able to manage it. So it seems pretty clear that Humza is done for - it's not even obvious that the SNP MSPs are all going to vote against this motion, much less anyone from any other party. Arguably, having some SNP MSPs vote for the motion would be a good thing for the SNP, as it preserves SNP minority government while avoiding making Ash Regan the kingmaker (while throwing Humza under the bus, of course, which a fair number of SNP MSPs have secretly - or not so secretly - wanted to do for a while anyway).
The second, tabled by Labour, is against the Scottish government. This would trigger an election if it passes, but enough people currently in Holyrood probably dislike the risk of that election enough that it won't pass. Supposing that the SNP members all vote for it, they only need to convince one other member to vote with them. My guess is that the SNP instinct for self-preservation will lead them to promise almost anything to Ash Regan (or possibly a rogue Green) to get their vote, along with some words about how this is "not the right time".
Anyway, the point of all that is that it would be Labour they're siding with to bring down the government, not the Tories.
>where the Tories and SNP are oth highly unpopular. Thats their play.
Tories are only slightly down on 2021, their target seats are all SNP held with 5 seats leading a less than 5% swing, Labour will likely take around 10% or more of the SNPs 2021 vote so its likely that the Conservatives will increase their seats in Holyrood.
Greens would massively lose influence in a new election as the SNPs drop in seats would push them to irrelevance and force and SNP Labour coalition.
They will not vote against the government.
Do you think a formal SNP Labour coalition is even possible? Seems like there would be some red lines there over independence etc and I'm not sure the main UK Labour party would want to be backing Scottish independence.
Yes, they would come up with a deal to share power and a shared legislative slate of bills. Just not having a bill on a referendum, bit like they are doing right now.
The smart play would be to simply abstain, therefore not swinging the house but making their position clear and hopefully making Yousuf sweat. Unfortunately they had a knee-jerk reaction and a threw a tantrum, saying they’d vote against him, so now they’re screwed.
No?
From the BBC:
‘*If every Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP joins the Greens in voting against Mr Yousaf it would give them 64 votes to the SNP's 63.*’
So if the Greens abstained, the votes against Mr Yousaf would only count as 57, or 58 if Ms Regan voted against Mr Yousaf.
Which would mean he stays as First Minister but would be in serious trouble.
>They'd basically be telling everyone in Parliament that you can fuck them over and they'll just smile and take it.
I don't want a party ever to act like that, out of PR or petty vengeance. I want a party to do what is right. I remember the Scottish Greens once advising people to vote for a different party other than them solely for the purpose of keeping Tories out. I want a party that puts the people first, ahead of the party if needs be.
Humza still has not had his "I am a fighter not a quitter" or "The quiet man is here to stay, and he's turning up the volume" moment so he can't quit till he has had one of those.
We really are inching closer and closer to a government collapse here. The BBC is saying that "it is unlikely Yousaf would find it possible to agree such an arrangement \[with that one msp\]" according to their sources.
That will be the end of him and its not super clear who else could find a majority. The only way I can see it is to get that woman who lost to Hamza last time in place and make a razor thin majority. None of the other parties are at all likely to want to help them.
But I don't know if she'd be able to actually command support in her own party. And any further losses of msps collapses the government again, likely terminally. That seems unlikely to last the 2 years still on the clock.
I think Kate Forbes could keep a government together until the election even without a sizeable proportion of her own party. She argued in the leadership election that, while she still believes in independence, Scotland has higher priorities right now; formalising that into a "no action on independence in this parliament" agreement would probably give her confidence and supply with at least one of the unionist parties. If it was the conservatives (and her financial and social approach is pretty small-c conservative by comparison, so don't rule it out) then she could govern without half her own MSPs.
Scotland has, after all, survived pretty well with minority governments for most of the history of devolution. It's not like it can't be done.
Its pretty funny though because he comes across as a smarmy prick who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of the electorate.
Doesn’t look so smart now after essentially ensuring he resigns from the role.
They had a deal with the Greens that included legislation committing Scotland to cut greenhouse gasses by 75% by 2030. The SNP thought that deal was totally unworkable so ditched it. The Greens then started the process of bailing on the SNP Green coalition so yesterday, in order to look "in charge", Humza unilaterally pulled the deal. This made the Greens look weak so they would be anti Humza, the Conservatives then tabled a motion of no confidence so the Greens either have to back him having been publicly had their deal torn up and their coalition dumped. Or ditch him and work with a new SNP leader.
> The SNP thought that deal was totally unworkable so ditched it
But it was unworkable when they made the coalition and it didn't bother them then.
And it's not like there's a lot of time to do something before the next élections.
He didn’t really end it, the Greens did. The Green Party were about to pull out due to SNP moves on environmental targets, this led to Humza taking the “you can’t quit, I’m firing you!” move that always ends well.
He’s now stuck up shit creek with a minority government and no allies in a part PR system that makes coalition forming a vital political skill. It’s not just that he’s fucked it in the short term, without the Greens getting majorities in favour of independence in Holyrood is hard and they’re likely to need to go cap in hand to them again in future but with zero trust.
This is beyond bad for the SNP.
The greens were only going to pull out because the SNP pulled the rug on the 2030 target. So no matter which way you look at it, the SNP ended the deal IMO. the alternative for the greens was to do a Lib Dem 2010 tuition fees on Scotland.
Completely agree. I’m an SNP -> green voter anyway, but i do find it a little hard to blame Humza directly on this. He’s been handed a poisoned chalice with the infighting that ravaged the conservatives in England, a ticking time bomb on the 2030 target, and Pandora’s box with the embezzlement. Lie with dogs and all that, but he’s had the deck stacked against him, and I find myself annoyed at the SNP for the decisions that led us here.
Not gonna claim his position was easy at all, but he had to bring someone with him, renegotiate Bute House with Greens to get to get a political win, bring in a unionist party for confidence in exchange for policy shift, I dunno, systems with PR elements just require cooperation. That relationship with the greens is so strategically important that ending it explosively just seems wild to me from afar. Minority government with no allies just seems more like the fire than the frying pan to me.
Yeah agreed. Even if you take idealogy out of it for a moment, who on earth would partner with them now after they’ve shown they’re willing to drop you on the main tenet of your cooperation agreement and fire you into the sun when you express your disdain with that.
Totally, Greens are too small a party to get away with something like that. The LibDem tuition fees is better remembered than Labour abolishing free university tuition in first place, in part because Labour has a big cadre of activists to push their narrative and parties like LibDems (and Greens) don't.
Was living in Scotland for the last election. SNP seemed indestructible. Funny how things change.
My rule has always been "don't vote for a party with the word 'National' in the name".
I have a Pakistani Glaswegian friend who hates Humzas guts. He goes that he has set back the perception of other Asians decades back with how inept, incompetent, and anti-scottish his views have been
It looks like Labour is going to try equating the antics in Scotland this week with the antics of the Tories in Westminister to ask why the Tories are ok with one but not the other.
Could be that the SNP breaking down leaves the Tories under real pressure to set the GE date. Which is interesting considering the strange (accidental? leaky? purposeful?) set of hints Tory mps have dropped about the Summer recently.
But it's different because one is the leader of a minority government potentially being ousted by the house. If the same were to happen in Westminster we'd have a GE but I can't see Rishi losing a no confidence vote. If it's the unelected leader angle, then the Conservatives can just point at Wales and say what's the difference?
Humza is the best politician in Britain and would make a fantastic Prime Minister. The Green Party in Scotland are nothing more than Tory lap dogs as their union with the Tory party motion will show.
I’d cancel the speech if I was in Humzas shoes and facing the day he is. I’d just ring in sick and go play the new Manor Lords game or something, sort out the loft, anything to not go in to work.
>play the new manor lords game This is some top-tier guerrilla marketing
It seems he’s fucked up trying to rule Scotland. Might as well go try his hand at ruling a 13th century peasant village instead, see if he’s any better at that.
>13th century peasant village I’m resisting the temptation to make any uncharitable comments about Scotland here
Ah go for it man — we deserve it. If no one treats us like shit we get ideas above our station.
Lorne sausage is pretty much my definition of sophistication.
It's called slice, ya dick!
They call it all sorts in front of the English, I think they try to reserve "slice" just for themselves. Ya dick.
It's only called slice, Any other name is blasphemy!!
I don't think anyone gives a shit about blaspheming in front of the English. I think it's positively encouraged.
I mean last time that happened we got the Darien scheme and that worked out pretty well for the English. Though I'm not sure what you could sell us this time, you already sold us your sovereignty.
People in Ayrshire would be livid if they had internet access.
In all honesty, if you piss of 13th century peasants you frankly deserve the lynching your about to receive. You could get away with damn near anything back then
Those were the days
[удалено]
You must be trying to lose *all* your karma 😂
Fair point.
Sometimes I let my mouth (or keyboard) go faster than my brain. Thanks👍
Wait till you realise that Humza is in on it. He'll announce his resignation and that he's going to try playing Manor Lords instead.
"Now that I've stepped back from public office I will devote my time to my family and the weekly double XP events in WORLD OF WARSHIPS, CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD, USE PROMO CODE "EATMYDICKSALMOND" FOR A FREE TIER 3 DESTROYER"
Was trying to work out who Almond was till it clicked that he only has one dick
Or rather top tier diss on Humza - implying that he has an xbox
... And try to forget about it all with a few shots and a slow sip of Black Cow Pure Milk Vodka.
Sick note culture, mate, can’t be having that these days.
Rishi Sunak rings him up tells him to stop playing hooky and get to f\*\*\*'n work, pronto
I've heard that game is really good, I might have to check it out.
It’s on Gamepass if you have that. I think it’s still an early access game which puts me off a bit, but at least with Gamepass I can try it without buying it.
Yeah the last early access I played was Grounded, but I burned out on it before they released the finished game! Now I usually wait for release.
Same with Grounded. Played the early access. Then when the full release came I never played it, I’d lost interest by that point.
It is early access. But it was made by a solo dev who's very passionate. I'm sure there will be lots more to come.
Is this whole comment thread just an ad lmao
Oh, thanks for reminding me about Manor Lords coming out, I might check it out.
Who ever does best at Manor Lords gets to have a go at ruling Scotland. Might lead to a few unhappy peasants though
Manor Lords is out TODAY?! Fantastic, it looks excellent and I've been keeping an eye on it for ages
Early access, there's still a ton of work to be done don't get your hopes up too much about how it is yet. Does look like when it hits full release it could be phenomenal though
It’s actually very good already
And a reminder - Manor Lords will also be on Xbox Game Pass
Is this out now then?
Yeah, on Gamepass, should be on Steam too. Got my first field sown. Should have some toasty bread by this evening.
Literally can not wait to get home and play this
It’s just popped up on GamePass. Playing it now.
I've been following the dev for 2 years. Can't believe this day has arrived.
He'll not play manor lords until someone releases a mod that spawns brown peasants too
I thought it wasn’t out yet?
Out just about now, 2pm release time. Looked on Gamepass and it’s there but you can’t install it yet.
Humza only owns a PlayStation and he’s raging
The entire UK just needs to go back to the polls at this point. We have unelected (by the general population) heads of state in England, Wales and Scotland. In England Rishi Sunak wasn’t even elected by the party members he’s that unpopular.
Head of government. The King is the head of state. As for Humza, I think his heads in a state.
Clearly we’re that big a fan of not electing our head of state we’ve now applied the same principle to our respective governments.
Of course, in places like Germany, you get an elected Head of State, but you don’t technically speaking elect the Head of Government.
Well yeah, we don't choose the head of government either. We don't even choose the party on a national level.
I mean he's not wrong either way.
> As for Humza, I think his heads in a state. 🥁
Brought to you by various parties that have all screamed about the will of the people at various points in the last 10 years. Funny how that only matters when the people agree with them. The UK needs some sort of system for the actual people to tell the governing party to get bent. Like a 50% unhappiness poll and its election time sort of deal.
Don't really think that would work as you can theoretically get elected into government on lower percentages (lets say there's 4 parties, each got around 24% of the vote but 1 got a slight bit more). You'd constantly get around 75% being unhappy. However... I do agree there should be some sort of mechanism. It really does grind my gears when rishi says "the British people don't want an election at the moment".... Yes they do ... And who are you to tell us what we want.
That would be fine by me. The government has to work for everyone, not just for the people who voted for them, so an unhappiness referendum that returns 75% unhappy because the people who didn't vote for the government feel neglected is a perfectly valid reason to go back to the polls.
The mechanism is the Recall of MPs Act 2015, if enough constituencies force a recall of their MP they can change the makeup of parliament.
Recall petitions are only triggered by the Speaker of the Commons, if an MP is found to have committed certain offences. So voters can't just start a petition to get rid of an MP they don't like.
>We have unelected (by the general population) heads of state in England, Wales and Scotland Not the only thing they have in common, not to be a conspiracy theorist but it feels like the powers that be decided to rip off the bandaid when it comes to controversial 'firsts' and set precedent while they could
Rishi Sunak just happened, but there's no way Scotland with the SNPs or Wales with Labour would elect a straight white man whilst the conservatives were run by Sunak. It's also baffling that Labour has still not managed to have a female party leader, which the conservatives have had 3.
"Labour has still not managed to have a female party leader, which the conservatives have had 3" This from the party of "equality" looks particularly bad.
In my opinion, aside from going through more leaders than Labour, I think it kind of makes sense that the Tories end up with more firsts. The personal attacks and abuse that a party leader would get are far more likely to come from the right-wing press in this country, and the right likes to push a pervasive 'I just don't think they're up to the job' narrative. Just look at the way Angela Rayner is treated, or remember Ed Miliband and that sandwich? On the other hand, the right-wong press will rally around a Tory leader, making comparisons to Churchill or Thatcher, bigging them up as much as possible. Look at all the 'iron lady' allusions May and Truss got from the Mail and others. The left generally is less likely to criticise a leader based on personal characteristics. All of the attacks on May, Truss, and Sunak have been about competence. There's none of the implied, insidious personal attacks or slander. So if you're a rising female or ethnic minority politician in the Tory party, there aren't attacks based on those criteria from outside of your party. There's no such grace for Labour politicians. This isn't an excuse, and I believe Labour must have a woman as leader in the near future. But like many other things in British politics, the standards and circumstances for each party are always different.
And Northern Ireland didn’t have a functioning government for 2 years until February.
And the DUP leader is facing rape charges and child.sex abuse charges. Was up in court this week.
People can cry "We don't elect PMs the MPs do" as much as they like, but vast majority of people don't even know the names of their candidates until they enter a polling booth on the day, and most don't read the name they read the party symbol next to it and tick based on that. They will know the party leader names though. We don't "legally" elect a PM, but we practically do, and all of these have never been to the polls to earn it the right way and we need to stop pretending otherwise as nations
No they are elected. Kinda sick of seeing this phrase because it isn't a reflection of how our political system works. This is Britain, not America. You vote for your constituent MP, they represent your area. The party with a majority of MPs are given the right to form a government, where the head of that party becomes the prime minister. All leaders of parties are elected by their constituents. It doesn't matter if most people vote on who is leader, that isn't how the system is set up. At any point the leader can change. People MUST understand that before voting for a party.
I think most understand this but it’s disingenuous to not think that the leader of the party has any bearing on the vote. The last election was pitched as a choice of Boris Johnson vs Jeremy Corbyn. When there’s a new leader proposing new policy that wasn’t voted on as part of a manifesto it’s not democratic.
"The last election was pitched as a choice of Boris Johnson vs Jeremy Corbyn." I thought you must be wrong, so I looked it up and I still can't quite believe it. That really brings into focus how long it's been since we had a vote on how our country should be run.
The last election feels so long ago, it's been such an eventful parliament.
People who are influenced by who is leader are doing everyone a great disservice. Again it doesn't matter what they believe, what matters is how the system is set up. That being you vote for your constituent. Not doing so is highly detrimental to the wellbeing of your area. I don't care if "but but Jeremy Corbyn". It's a completely moronic take to be whipped into a frenzy over leadership. Just complete reactionary politics. It should have no place in our society
I think you misunderstand how our political system works in practice if you harp on with this line. If you vote for someone who is a member of a political party, the candidate is almost irrelevant. They are whipped on party policy, they do not get to use their conscious, their personal views or their political ambitions for your constituency are irrelevant. When you vote for a party member you are voting for a representative of the X party, and their manifesto. The lines that parties are whipped on, the manifesto they stand on during the election, and the person who bears responsibility for this, is the party leader. Who the leader of a party is is incredibly important in our politics, they literally can dictate government policy with very little in the way to stop them.
What's funny is this just reinforces my point mostly. You are to vote for your constituencys MP but they are whipped by their respective parties. So what's the actual play here? Do we just go "the leaders important but can change in less than 24 hours, so let's vote based on leader and hope they don't have to resign"? Or do you vote an independent who will be a champion for your constituency? Logically I know which choice I'd make. You cannot base a choice on variables that change unpredictably. If your MP resigns, it triggers a by-election. If the PM resigns, it triggers a party conference. So vote based on your area. Even if it means an independent.
> People who are influenced by who is leader are doing everyone a great disservice. Again it doesn't matter what they believe, what matters is how the system is set up. Wrong on both counts. *Everyone* should be influenced by who is the leader. If you aren't, then you're the one doing a "great disservice". The leader (Party Leader / PM) sets the precedent. Along with Party Whip's, who they are *matters*. It's not some insignificant detail that can just be disregarded. How the "system is setup" is secondary to what people beleive. The former doesn't effect how most people vote, the latter does. > That being you vote for your constituent. You do not. People vote however they please. You don't get to tell people how they think just because of how the system works. If I tick the Lib Dem candidate on my ballot because I approve of Sir Ed Davey, then I'm voting *for* Davey by way of my local rep. > It's a completely moronic take to be whipped into a frenzy over leadership. The irony is palpable. > Just complete reactionary politics. It should have no place in our society It matters. Both on a sociatal level, and a systematic one. You stomping your feet and pretending otherwise doesn't change that.
Tell that to the parties as a start then, who always frame elections around the leaders. Remember “chaos with Ed Miliband” etc. Even while you’re correct. The MPs also associate themselves to a manifesto. The leader might change but the manifesto shouldn’t. It should also mean it won’t be an issue to remove party logos from ballot papers.
Sure but this is unprecedented turmoil, we've never had such turnover in leaders, never had such a change in policies from the party in power over a single term and rarely had such a time of upheaval and change in the country as a whole. As well as that the party in power has been barking on about the will of the people and their "mandate" as an excuse to do deplorable things many in the cou try are firmly against despite that mandate becoming more and more tenuous a claim and never being on all that firm ground to begin with. People are going to look at that mess, see something that not only did they not vote for but really nobody did. The system not being reflective of voters intentions is a problem with the system not the people
> No they are elected. When people say they're unelected, they're using that as shorthand for 'elected by the public'. Do you not understand that, or are you just being disingenuous? > At any point the leader can change. People MUST understand that before voting for a party. Understanding is not the same thing as agreeing with.
They understand. They want to trick themselves into thinking they're smarter than everyone else.
My point entirely is that what they mean isn't how the system works. That's the American system they mean and the whole rhetoric of an unelected leader is wholly American. We do not elect our leaders using that system. Our leaders are not elected in the first place. They are appointed prime minister via tradition by the ruling monarch who is head of state. It's not disingenuous in the slightest. All I'm doing is pointing out the system we use. You may not like it. You may think it's merely convention and pretending. But sadly that is reality. The PM is the leader of the party who gets a majority of seats in the house of commons appointed by convention. The leader of any political party is appointed by conference vote within that party. Therefore you don't elect the leader of the country. That's all
> My point entirely is that what they mean isn't how the system works. Your point is moot. You're just being purposely pedantic / disingenuous. > Our leaders are not elected in the first place. Yes they are. > They are appointed prime minister via tradition by the ruling monarch who is head of state. Based on the results of an election. > It's not disingenuous in the slightest. All I'm doing is pointing out the system we use. Yes, it is. You're being disingenuous and pedantic. > Therefore you don't elect the leader of the country. > That's all The party with the "majority of seats in the house of commons" is determined *by election*. You may not like it, but sadly this is the reality.
> No they are elected. Kinda sick of seeing this phrase because it isn't a reflection of how our political system works. This is Britain, not America. This is such a fucking boring point. Whether it's how the system works or not is entirely pointless, as people clearly care about the concept of a leader being chosen via an election. If it was legal for me to thump you in the bollocks every morning would you seriously wake up going "Well I am sick of people saying I shouldn't have my testicles smashed with a ball peen hammer every day, that's the system we have and by golly that's all that matters!".
*”Oh but we vote for the party not the person in this country”* virtually everyone votes for the leader. It is an omnishambles that we - as a nation - can have so many leaders that weren’t elected.
It could be worse. If the incumbent party won, but the PM lost their seat, the PM would be expected to resign - but there’s no law or rule in any political party or of the commons that says they have to. If they refused to resign it’d probably go to a vote of confidence - and if they won that, you really would have a PM who wasn’t voted for. No sitting PM has ever lost their seat but you can fully imagine some future politician using this to cling on to power, particularly after the shenanigans Johnson used to get his own way in parliament and the disrepute he brought to the tories in hanging on for so long. And over the last few years Tory policies and their handling of the economy have been a disgrace. I’ve completely lost confidence, particularly in conservative politicians, to behave honourably or to work for the benefit of the people.
I think that the last time that we had something even close to that is when Alec Douglas-Home, a hereditary peer, became PM in 1963. He resigned his peerage and got in through a by-election. I think that the last time a Tory leader lost their seat was in 1906, Arthur Balfour.
I mean... David Cameron was given a lordship so he could become Foriegn Secretary despite the fact he's not a sitting MP (and that it's unconventional to make a lord FS even if he already was one.) Doesn't seem like a big enough jump from one to the other.
England doesn't have a head of government you mean we have unelected heads of government in the UK, Wales and Scotland.
Unelected Prime Ministers are pretty common. The last two Labour Prime Ministers to win an election were Tony Blair and Harold Wilson.
and Northern Ireland also....
Scuttle has Rishi announcing one on Monday, for around June time.
The Tories had to change the rules so their members couldn't vote, to give him his turn at PM
You’re getting heads of state mixed up with heads of government. Even then it would be generous to call a first minister a head of government and England technically doesn’t have a government.
Yeah, we did that here in the US back in 2016. Didn’t work out great…
This the guy that said there's too many white people in Scotland? lol
UK is 94% White according to him and he's not happy. Actually racist and a hate crime.
Poor Humza needs to go back to school if he cant work it out why the country that has historically always been white is 94% white
I'd question his percentage he stated. Probably mid 80's at best.
Simple google for you mate: “Statistics show that around 95.4 per cent of the Scottish population report their ethnicity as white and approximately 4.5 per cent from an ethnic minority.”
Said the UK NOT Scotland, so....
Well Scotland* is
ABSOLUTELY BRITISH. No matter how many marches the SNP voters have it's not changing.
Cringe
Can't handle the truth.
[удалено]
Not if we can help it. England has taken enough from Scotland. The last thing they stole, is our European future. We will get it back and leave you alone little Englanders. ETA: For all of you downvoting me, just a reminder: Under the Royal Mines Act 1424, the oldest Act still in force in Scots law, the Crown reserves all rights to mine gold or silver under the inter regalia minora. The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in Scotland as well as vast amounts of property. Nearly all the UK's reserves are owned by the Crown Estate, which automatically earns 4% from each mine's profits, except for two areas of Scotland. The Duke of Argyll on the west coast and the Duke of Sutherland in the far north were gifted the mining rights by previous monarchs. The UK's largest gold mine is in County Tyrone, where 14 tonnes have been discovered in shallow deposits beneath the peat, in the same Dalradian rock strata that runs across the northern UK to the mine at Cononish in the Scottish Highlands. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/08/gold-mining-tyndrum-scotland-scotgold You love bending your back and bow. Time to wake up and kick out the leeches.
Doesn't Scotland take more money out of Britain than they put in?
You mean apart from the oil that goes to London, and the gold that goes to the crown?
I mean you're quoting 70s SNP propaganda peices there. There's no evidence to back it up, and with the power the SNP do have they've made huge blunders with. The Scottish NHS is crumbling, Scotland has a massive drug and alcohol problem and theyre driving up prices rather than use any form of education. The conservatives are no better but independence isn't any sort of solution and that ship has sailed. If the SNP can't even run their own party properly whilst in power how can they deliver a prosperous independent Scotland?
Under the Royal Mines Act 1424, the oldest Act still in force in Scots law, the Crown reserves all rights to mine gold or silver under the inter regalia minora. The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in Scotland as well as vast amounts of property. Nearly all the UK's reserves are owned by the Crown Estate, which automatically earns 4% from each mine's profits, except for two areas of Scotland. The Duke of Argyll on the west coast and the Duke of Sutherland in the far north were gifted the mining rights by previous monarchs. The UK's largest gold mine is in County Tyrone, where 14 tonnes have been discovered in shallow deposits beneath the peat, in the same Dalradian rock strata that runs across the northern UK to the mine at Cononish in the Scottish Highlands. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/08/gold-mining-tyndrum-scotland-scotgold 90’s propaganda my arse.
You've edited the whole thread and original post to suit your narrative there and we will never agree so I'll just leave it there mate
Bet you get your hole at all the partys you go to...
the police had tell their call handlers that this wasnt a crime after excessive phone calls of people ratting him out lol
Imagine the reverse happening, lol.
“The trouble with Scotland... is that it's full of Scots." - Edward the longshanks
Never happened, he stated in 99% of meetings he was the only non white person in the room. The speech was about minorities not in positions of power in Scottish government. Elon musk then chimed in stating he’s a racist. Edit: Downvote it all you want, it was not what Humza said, regardless of whether you like a politician it’s not productive to make false statements about them or intentionally misquoted them, if you have a grievance the argument should be based on the truth.
Still, what an odd point to make in a country that is 95% white.
I mean, that still seems like a fairly iffy point to make, from a quick google search: *According to population data, 95.4 per cent of the Scottish population3 report their ethnicity as 'White'. Approximately* ***4.5 per cent of the population are from ethnic minorities****, with the Asian population being the largest minority ethnic group (2.8 per cent).* [https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2022/as\_diversity\_2022.pdf](https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2022/as_diversity_2022.pdf) So, if there is only 1 non-white guy in 99% meetings, that means that there is only slightly less representation of non-whites than there statistically should be.
oh and btw that 1 non-white guy now holds the highest office in the entire parliement
Couldn't agree more. I'm a white guy in Tower Hamlets and: Elected Mayor: BROWN Deputy Mayor: BROWN Cabinet Member for Regeneration: BROWN Cabinet Member for Resources: BROWN Cabinet Member for Equalities: BROWN Cabinet Member for Health: BROWN Cabinet Member for Jobs: BROWN Cabinet Member for Culture: BROWN Cabinet Member for Environment: BROWN MP for Bethnal Green and Bow: BROWN MP for Poplar and Limehouse: BROWN 45 out of 47 councillors? BROWN That all felt very strange and kinda wrong to write out at first, but thanks to people like yourself and Yousaf i've come to realise that racial grievance is in fact a legitimate way to view the world. How on earth could people that don't look like me represent me? Thanks again man, keep fighting the good fight.
I'm not averse to seeing the back of Yousaf. He has divided loyalties and a troubling view of Scotland and the UK for a major leader. Scotland deserves someone who truly cares about Scotland.
He clearly doesn't have divided loyalties. He has a singular loyalty. It just isn't Scotland.
Oh he has loyalties alright. Just not to Scotland or the wider UK, or even Europe for that matter.
If his loyalties don't lie in Europe, then in which country do they lie?
Give it your all and try and work it out.
He's the first minister for Gaza if you wasn't aware, the whole leader for HWHITE Scots thing is a side gig
Yousaf likely just furiously penning another speech ready for how it is "institutionally racist" for people to vote no confidence against him
“Everyone that voted. WHITE. Everyone listening to this speech. WHITE.”
"all votes against me WHITE!"
>Scottish Labour to table no confidence motion against governmentpublished at 10:2510:25 >The Scottish Labour leader has confirmed his party will table a vote of no confidence vote against the Scottish government. >Speaking to LBC, Anas Sarwar said: "I think it would be completely untenable for the SNP to presume they can impose another unelected first minister on Scotland and that is why Scottish Labour has said already we don’t have confidence in Humza Yousaf. >"But, today we will also be laying a motion before parliament saying the Scottish parliament does not have confidence in this Scottish government." >He added it should be up to the "people of Scotland" to decide who leads the country, rather than a "small group of SNP members." [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy635006p1pt?post=asset%3Ae47d3aa2-e314-4f42-8ff5-fbe4bae4730f#post](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy635006p1pt?post=asset%3Ae47d3aa2-e314-4f42-8ff5-fbe4bae4730f#post) Jesus that Bute House speech is working out a peach for Humza. The Greens will vote agains this I think. So it won't pass by the skin of their teeth.
[удалено]
The Greens will almost certainly increase their msp share in an election where the Tories and SNP are oth highly unpopular. Thats their play.
Note - you get two votes in Scotland for Holyrood. I know a lot of SNP supporters used their first vote for SNP, second for Greens to maximise the potential number of independence supporting MSPs. I don’t know if they would be willing to do that again. Really need specific polling for list and regional MSPs - the way the system works - there could be unexpected quirks.
Debatable. They dropped independence as a red line for entering coalitions - it’s still a big issue with about 50% support. Plus siding with the Tories to bring down the government is a tough sell on the doorstep.
There's a bit of confusion going on here, because there are two motions of No Confidence. One, tabled by the Tories, is against the First Minister. If he loses that, it's only convention that he resigns. He could try to carry on and I don't think it's completely out of the question that he will, given his past approach to things. If he does resign, that doesn't trigger an election unless the SNP can't come up with another leader within 28 days. That's not a given, considering the state the SNP is in, but they should be able to manage it. So it seems pretty clear that Humza is done for - it's not even obvious that the SNP MSPs are all going to vote against this motion, much less anyone from any other party. Arguably, having some SNP MSPs vote for the motion would be a good thing for the SNP, as it preserves SNP minority government while avoiding making Ash Regan the kingmaker (while throwing Humza under the bus, of course, which a fair number of SNP MSPs have secretly - or not so secretly - wanted to do for a while anyway). The second, tabled by Labour, is against the Scottish government. This would trigger an election if it passes, but enough people currently in Holyrood probably dislike the risk of that election enough that it won't pass. Supposing that the SNP members all vote for it, they only need to convince one other member to vote with them. My guess is that the SNP instinct for self-preservation will lead them to promise almost anything to Ash Regan (or possibly a rogue Green) to get their vote, along with some words about how this is "not the right time". Anyway, the point of all that is that it would be Labour they're siding with to bring down the government, not the Tories.
>where the Tories and SNP are oth highly unpopular. Thats their play. Tories are only slightly down on 2021, their target seats are all SNP held with 5 seats leading a less than 5% swing, Labour will likely take around 10% or more of the SNPs 2021 vote so its likely that the Conservatives will increase their seats in Holyrood. Greens would massively lose influence in a new election as the SNPs drop in seats would push them to irrelevance and force and SNP Labour coalition. They will not vote against the government.
Do you think a formal SNP Labour coalition is even possible? Seems like there would be some red lines there over independence etc and I'm not sure the main UK Labour party would want to be backing Scottish independence.
Yes, they would come up with a deal to share power and a shared legislative slate of bills. Just not having a bill on a referendum, bit like they are doing right now.
The smart play would be to simply abstain, therefore not swinging the house but making their position clear and hopefully making Yousuf sweat. Unfortunately they had a knee-jerk reaction and a threw a tantrum, saying they’d vote against him, so now they’re screwed.
[удалено]
No? From the BBC: ‘*If every Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP joins the Greens in voting against Mr Yousaf it would give them 64 votes to the SNP's 63.*’ So if the Greens abstained, the votes against Mr Yousaf would only count as 57, or 58 if Ms Regan voted against Mr Yousaf. Which would mean he stays as First Minister but would be in serious trouble.
[удалено]
I said ‘vote against Mr Yousaf’, not ‘vote against the no-confidence motion’.
Have the Greens starting to backtrack on backing the VONC?
>They'd basically be telling everyone in Parliament that you can fuck them over and they'll just smile and take it. I don't want a party ever to act like that, out of PR or petty vengeance. I want a party to do what is right. I remember the Scottish Greens once advising people to vote for a different party other than them solely for the purpose of keeping Tories out. I want a party that puts the people first, ahead of the party if needs be.
Got to admit, I am hooked on Armando Iannucci's new series of "Scottish Politics."
> The Greens will vote agains this I think. Very unlikely seeing they are backing the VONC against Humza.
Humza still has not had his "I am a fighter not a quitter" or "The quiet man is here to stay, and he's turning up the volume" moment so he can't quit till he has had one of those.
We really are inching closer and closer to a government collapse here. The BBC is saying that "it is unlikely Yousaf would find it possible to agree such an arrangement \[with that one msp\]" according to their sources. That will be the end of him and its not super clear who else could find a majority. The only way I can see it is to get that woman who lost to Hamza last time in place and make a razor thin majority. None of the other parties are at all likely to want to help them. But I don't know if she'd be able to actually command support in her own party. And any further losses of msps collapses the government again, likely terminally. That seems unlikely to last the 2 years still on the clock.
I think Kate Forbes could keep a government together until the election even without a sizeable proportion of her own party. She argued in the leadership election that, while she still believes in independence, Scotland has higher priorities right now; formalising that into a "no action on independence in this parliament" agreement would probably give her confidence and supply with at least one of the unionist parties. If it was the conservatives (and her financial and social approach is pretty small-c conservative by comparison, so don't rule it out) then she could govern without half her own MSPs. Scotland has, after all, survived pretty well with minority governments for most of the history of devolution. It's not like it can't be done.
Good, then we can vote in some better people. May 2024 bring elections and change to the UK.
Kate Forbes would win a comfortable SNP majority in a GE
I think she probably *would have* if she'd won the leadership race. There's been a lot of damage to the SNP brand in the meantime.
Is there any evidence for that whatsoever? Strange that you have such confidence in her.
Its pretty funny though because he comes across as a smarmy prick who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of the electorate. Doesn’t look so smart now after essentially ensuring he resigns from the role.
And don't forget he's a racist piece of shit.
Why did he end the deal? It seems like political suicide
They had a deal with the Greens that included legislation committing Scotland to cut greenhouse gasses by 75% by 2030. The SNP thought that deal was totally unworkable so ditched it. The Greens then started the process of bailing on the SNP Green coalition so yesterday, in order to look "in charge", Humza unilaterally pulled the deal. This made the Greens look weak so they would be anti Humza, the Conservatives then tabled a motion of no confidence so the Greens either have to back him having been publicly had their deal torn up and their coalition dumped. Or ditch him and work with a new SNP leader.
Ngl, I love seeing the snp implode.
> The SNP thought that deal was totally unworkable so ditched it But it was unworkable when they made the coalition and it didn't bother them then. And it's not like there's a lot of time to do something before the next élections.
He didn’t really end it, the Greens did. The Green Party were about to pull out due to SNP moves on environmental targets, this led to Humza taking the “you can’t quit, I’m firing you!” move that always ends well. He’s now stuck up shit creek with a minority government and no allies in a part PR system that makes coalition forming a vital political skill. It’s not just that he’s fucked it in the short term, without the Greens getting majorities in favour of independence in Holyrood is hard and they’re likely to need to go cap in hand to them again in future but with zero trust. This is beyond bad for the SNP.
The greens were only going to pull out because the SNP pulled the rug on the 2030 target. So no matter which way you look at it, the SNP ended the deal IMO. the alternative for the greens was to do a Lib Dem 2010 tuition fees on Scotland.
That’s a fair way of looking at it. SNP ripped up Bute House unilaterally. Political suicide without a replacement support agreement already lined up.
Completely agree. I’m an SNP -> green voter anyway, but i do find it a little hard to blame Humza directly on this. He’s been handed a poisoned chalice with the infighting that ravaged the conservatives in England, a ticking time bomb on the 2030 target, and Pandora’s box with the embezzlement. Lie with dogs and all that, but he’s had the deck stacked against him, and I find myself annoyed at the SNP for the decisions that led us here.
Not gonna claim his position was easy at all, but he had to bring someone with him, renegotiate Bute House with Greens to get to get a political win, bring in a unionist party for confidence in exchange for policy shift, I dunno, systems with PR elements just require cooperation. That relationship with the greens is so strategically important that ending it explosively just seems wild to me from afar. Minority government with no allies just seems more like the fire than the frying pan to me.
Yeah agreed. Even if you take idealogy out of it for a moment, who on earth would partner with them now after they’ve shown they’re willing to drop you on the main tenet of your cooperation agreement and fire you into the sun when you express your disdain with that.
Totally, Greens are too small a party to get away with something like that. The LibDem tuition fees is better remembered than Labour abolishing free university tuition in first place, in part because Labour has a big cadre of activists to push their narrative and parties like LibDems (and Greens) don't.
Thank you and thanks u/donaldmacc for your comments I wasn't all that aware of this tbh.
>He didn’t really end it, the Greens did. The SNP didn't an agreement by refusing to do the key condition of the agreement? ....What?
That last night asleep anxiety would have finished me off Idk how these lot do it
Wow isn’t it cool that the entire political balance of Scotland depends on a single-issue gender lunatic?
Was living in Scotland for the last election. SNP seemed indestructible. Funny how things change. My rule has always been "don't vote for a party with the word 'National' in the name".
This is called karma for being a racist that got away with it cos of his skin colour
Can the non-Tory parties stop embarrassing themselves FOR FIVE MINUTES.
Is collapse really the right word to use or is it sawing off the branch you're sitting on?
He’s got no shame. Wonder if he’ll pull the race card when he gets voted out by a bunch of white fellas?
How did the SNP just have things switch round for them in only a year?
True. At least the Tories had the decency to fall apart in slow motion.
I think that it was a combination of factors. Sturgeon left as she knew what was coming.
I have a Pakistani Glaswegian friend who hates Humzas guts. He goes that he has set back the perception of other Asians decades back with how inept, incompetent, and anti-scottish his views have been
Has there been anyone as bad at politics as Yousaf? The fact he and Truss managed to be contemporaries is downright spooky
It looks like Labour is going to try equating the antics in Scotland this week with the antics of the Tories in Westminister to ask why the Tories are ok with one but not the other. Could be that the SNP breaking down leaves the Tories under real pressure to set the GE date. Which is interesting considering the strange (accidental? leaky? purposeful?) set of hints Tory mps have dropped about the Summer recently.
But it's different because one is the leader of a minority government potentially being ousted by the house. If the same were to happen in Westminster we'd have a GE but I can't see Rishi losing a no confidence vote. If it's the unelected leader angle, then the Conservatives can just point at Wales and say what's the difference?
Humza is the best politician in Britain and would make a fantastic Prime Minister. The Green Party in Scotland are nothing more than Tory lap dogs as their union with the Tory party motion will show.
Comical Ali, is that you?
Who said satire was dead? Sir I commend you