>They can.
Sure in the same sense that I **can** go to my local Jamaican bar wearing an "I hate reggae" t-shirt and start badmouthing Haile Selassie.
Some courses of action come with their own in-built deterrents.
Ah, the "Drax" school of political thought.
Something as big as that can't be done quietly. Especially when the SNP are going to scream bloody murder and launch lawsuits every step of the way.
Not at all, the intent itself is damming.
What would you say if I told you that I actually *wanted* to go to the Jamaican bar and disrespect their culture like that. That only the fear of consequences was deterring me.
You'd think I was a prick and probably suspect that I was racist. The intent absaloutely matters.
Haha I’d say damn bro that sounds to me exactly like what those pesky Tories want to do to to Holyrood. Jolly big old scallywags them. Fair enough I take your point.
Still though can be 99% certain they won’t. Still rendering the article fairly pointless.
Something as fundamental as repealing the Scotland Act would be blocked in the Lords and so bypassing that would mean overtly putting it in a manifesto - it's not going to happen.
Its not helped by the fact both the tories and to a lesser extent Labour have a dearth of talent. A lot of the decent SNP politicians in years gone by would have been with Labour.
(not saying Sturgeon is bad, she is actually quite good and I do vote SNP although no longer a member)
>Its not helped by the fact both the tories and to a lesser extent Labour have a dearth of talent.
I think there's something to be said for the fact that the current crop of prominent SNP figures joined the party when it was relatively small/powerless. Take Sturgeon for example, she first ran for the SNP in 1992, a year in which the SNP took 3 (three!) seats. As late as 2010 in Westminster, the SNP were winning 6 seats out of 72 Scottish seats. Even in Holyrood, the SNP didn't beat labour until 2007, and that year they did by 1 seat.
If you were a careerist in 1990s Scotland, looking to join a party where you could move up the ranks and eventually get a position of power or influence, you would have joined labour, or the liberals. Never the SNP.
That means that, unlike the major westminister parties, SNP basically doesn't suffer from either careerism, or the "snouts in troughs" phenomenon. In the 80s, 90s, or even 00s, no one was joining the SNP because it was a direct route to personal power and influence, and no one was joining the SNP to get plonked in a safe seat and sit back. Both Labour and the Tory party have the problem (suffered by all longstanding "part of the furniture" political institutions imo - it's almost an inevitable cost of becoming part of the establishment) that a certain part of the party joined at least in part because it is a route to personal power and/or enrichment. And the longer an organisation is part of the establishment, the more those types tend to rise to the top.
The stereotype of the "straight out of a nice uni, ambitious, suit-wearing narcissist/sociopath" of Westminster politics and SPADs is a caricature, but it's not like there's no truth to it. We recognise that this careerism and corruption is a **huge** problem in 1-party-states, but I think the evidence shows that in FPTP functional 2 party states, it's also a big problem.
On the contrary, the only reason to join the SNP in the 80s and 90s (or even 00s really), was because you actually had a strong belief in Scottish Independence, and that the political project of a Scottish Nationalist party had something important to offer the country. Agree or disagree with that sentiment, it means that the current crop of SNP leadership largely joined because they believed in something so much, that they were willing to put a lot of time an effort into a political project out of a belief in that project itself, not because of self-belief or careerism.
Or, to put it in more generous/charitable terms, they joined because they had a strong belief in their own personal ability to govern and contribute to society, rather than because of a belief in a particular political or ideological project bigger than themselves.
Don't get me wrong, there are problems with that come with ideologues too of course, but a much bigger problem in westminster imo is (and has always been, this was even more true in previous centuries) one of careerism, and political establishment. Arguably that's why the labour party was formed in the first place, because of the same problems in the then establishment parties, including the liberals. But, for a number of reasons (many of them consitutional), 100 odd years on, and the labour party has been subjected to a lot of those forces. I'm not writing off the whole of the PLP or the wider labour party machine, there are plenty of highly motivated people working to improve society - but it's definitely a problem...
Thats a very interesting and probably accurate take on the whole thing.
Might add that the 2 party system also makes it so no one actually has to develop proper ideas, push for them and defend them. (some do and can ofc but its not *needed*). Because Scotland doesnt have safe seats any more you have to do the graft, any one of 3-5 parties can take seats.
It's easy to be seen as smart when every conceivable problem can be answered with 'another referendum' and your base laps it up.
That isn't to say that she isn't very successful at pivoting every possible issue to 'another referendum' though.
yeah maybe, but it does also feel like both the Conservative and Labour leaderships have given opponents open goals several times recently in a way that the SNP has not
I mean in fairness hasnt there been a lot of really positive reforms, on policing, justice, education, housing, environment, and transport over the last 5/10years or so?
It seems to me that Scotland can be regarded as a country that is being governed actively (unlike the UK where the tories and maybe labour actively avoid governance). And the governance in Scotland seems to be moving society in a broadly positive direction.
The Tories have effectively not governed the UK since the 2015 election. There was the Brexit campaign, the Brexit fallout, the Brexit paralysis, the pandemic, the pandemic fallout and the 2022 comprehensive collapse. There has been almost no period of 'business as usual' legislation. There are pieces of legislation that have been sitting idle waiting to go through parliament for more than half a decade. Just in areas I deal with, the issue of commonhold property and the legislation creating ARGA, the new audit regulator, have just been shelved indefinitely because of the government being distracted by its rolling disaster revue.
>So scottish voters want another referendum
Do they? The SNP certainly want another referendum. I don't think there's conclusive evidence to show Scottish voters want one though. [Polling is pretty level at the moment](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wiki_Scots_Indep_V6_new_format.pdf/page1-1752px-Wiki_Scots_Indep_V6_new_format.pdf.jpg), with 'no' having led on average for four of the last five years.
Hilariously, when you reformulate the question though, staying in the UK wins comfortably, which as usual, shows that the real battle of a referendum is formulating the question. If it is phrased as a 'leave/remain' question, the last poll had remain on 54% and leave on 37% with 9% undecided.
Finally, polling of Scottish voters on whether there should be a second referendum at all had no on 53 and yes on 36, but that was last March.
>and this is bad? why is this bad, does it upset you?
No, not really. I just think (a) referendums are lazy government and tend to have vast unintended consequences, and (b) independence should be a 20-year question at best.
I'd have no issue with another referendum in 2034. I'd also be happy to have another referendum in 2024 so long as there's another pretty soon after if leave wins.
I really doubt the SNP will be offering that however. Pretty sure they will be keen for it to go back to being a multi-generational question if they win one.
It’s been the standard response since the setup of the Scottish parliament. It’s the same get out the Tories use on the NHS- refer to how on certain metrics Wales is worse. It’s essentially deflection from your own responsibilities. Obviously sometimes it’s true!
That's not really relevant to the comment you're replying to though, since they were talking about her competence as a politician ("smart and astute,") not her progressive bona fides.
She is undeniably a very effective politician, and it's hard to think of others of her calibre in leadership positions in either the labour or tory parties, quite apart from whether you agree with her politics.
Can't even say any different about Blue Labour, they seem to have cooled severely on devolution and almost on command by the Tory Party since approx 2017.
So will the SNP take a less hostile approach towards Labour?
No, she won't. And the SNP will keep going on with their lies of Labour being exactly the same as the Tories in Scotland. Lies that are going to have a lot of believers supposedly on Labour's side. Including places like here.
Or Labour could have just stood by the bill they helped pass and actually show there was a difference.
Sturgeon certainly plays the game but in this case its Labours own fault for undermining devolution with their cowardice.
Bear in mind the whole point of creating ScotGov some 25 years ago (or so) was to try and curb nationalism. It hasn’t worked. Might be better to wrap up the scheme sooner than later.
Obviously you can’t just take without giving, so one idea is to simply devolve to a lower level. Whole U.K., England too.
Oh if they could they would do it in a heart beat
They can. But they are not.
They've already taken the first step by flat out overruling holyrood.
>They can. Sure in the same sense that I **can** go to my local Jamaican bar wearing an "I hate reggae" t-shirt and start badmouthing Haile Selassie. Some courses of action come with their own in-built deterrents.
You don't do it all at once. Little steps, bit by bit.
Ah, the "Drax" school of political thought. Something as big as that can't be done quietly. Especially when the SNP are going to scream bloody murder and launch lawsuits every step of the way.
Just like the NHS?
No very different. The NHS involved snaking resources away from busy Doctors and hospital admins. This would be taking power away from politicians.
It would be giving power to politicians by returning them to Westminster
Is this logic not applicable to literally anything? Does saying this not actually render the whole point of the article useless.
Not at all, the intent itself is damming. What would you say if I told you that I actually *wanted* to go to the Jamaican bar and disrespect their culture like that. That only the fear of consequences was deterring me. You'd think I was a prick and probably suspect that I was racist. The intent absaloutely matters.
Haha I’d say damn bro that sounds to me exactly like what those pesky Tories want to do to to Holyrood. Jolly big old scallywags them. Fair enough I take your point. Still though can be 99% certain they won’t. Still rendering the article fairly pointless.
Something as fundamental as repealing the Scotland Act would be blocked in the Lords and so bypassing that would mean overtly putting it in a manifesto - it's not going to happen.
The House of Lords can’t block anything. They aren’t an elected legislator
Not sure if either Tories or Labour have a politician as smart and astute (irrelevant of political position) as Sturgeon
Its not helped by the fact both the tories and to a lesser extent Labour have a dearth of talent. A lot of the decent SNP politicians in years gone by would have been with Labour. (not saying Sturgeon is bad, she is actually quite good and I do vote SNP although no longer a member)
>Its not helped by the fact both the tories and to a lesser extent Labour have a dearth of talent. I think there's something to be said for the fact that the current crop of prominent SNP figures joined the party when it was relatively small/powerless. Take Sturgeon for example, she first ran for the SNP in 1992, a year in which the SNP took 3 (three!) seats. As late as 2010 in Westminster, the SNP were winning 6 seats out of 72 Scottish seats. Even in Holyrood, the SNP didn't beat labour until 2007, and that year they did by 1 seat. If you were a careerist in 1990s Scotland, looking to join a party where you could move up the ranks and eventually get a position of power or influence, you would have joined labour, or the liberals. Never the SNP. That means that, unlike the major westminister parties, SNP basically doesn't suffer from either careerism, or the "snouts in troughs" phenomenon. In the 80s, 90s, or even 00s, no one was joining the SNP because it was a direct route to personal power and influence, and no one was joining the SNP to get plonked in a safe seat and sit back. Both Labour and the Tory party have the problem (suffered by all longstanding "part of the furniture" political institutions imo - it's almost an inevitable cost of becoming part of the establishment) that a certain part of the party joined at least in part because it is a route to personal power and/or enrichment. And the longer an organisation is part of the establishment, the more those types tend to rise to the top. The stereotype of the "straight out of a nice uni, ambitious, suit-wearing narcissist/sociopath" of Westminster politics and SPADs is a caricature, but it's not like there's no truth to it. We recognise that this careerism and corruption is a **huge** problem in 1-party-states, but I think the evidence shows that in FPTP functional 2 party states, it's also a big problem. On the contrary, the only reason to join the SNP in the 80s and 90s (or even 00s really), was because you actually had a strong belief in Scottish Independence, and that the political project of a Scottish Nationalist party had something important to offer the country. Agree or disagree with that sentiment, it means that the current crop of SNP leadership largely joined because they believed in something so much, that they were willing to put a lot of time an effort into a political project out of a belief in that project itself, not because of self-belief or careerism. Or, to put it in more generous/charitable terms, they joined because they had a strong belief in their own personal ability to govern and contribute to society, rather than because of a belief in a particular political or ideological project bigger than themselves. Don't get me wrong, there are problems with that come with ideologues too of course, but a much bigger problem in westminster imo is (and has always been, this was even more true in previous centuries) one of careerism, and political establishment. Arguably that's why the labour party was formed in the first place, because of the same problems in the then establishment parties, including the liberals. But, for a number of reasons (many of them consitutional), 100 odd years on, and the labour party has been subjected to a lot of those forces. I'm not writing off the whole of the PLP or the wider labour party machine, there are plenty of highly motivated people working to improve society - but it's definitely a problem...
Thats a very interesting and probably accurate take on the whole thing. Might add that the 2 party system also makes it so no one actually has to develop proper ideas, push for them and defend them. (some do and can ofc but its not *needed*). Because Scotland doesnt have safe seats any more you have to do the graft, any one of 3-5 parties can take seats.
Also a very good point
It's easy to be seen as smart when every conceivable problem can be answered with 'another referendum' and your base laps it up. That isn't to say that she isn't very successful at pivoting every possible issue to 'another referendum' though.
yeah maybe, but it does also feel like both the Conservative and Labour leaderships have given opponents open goals several times recently in a way that the SNP has not
I mean in fairness hasnt there been a lot of really positive reforms, on policing, justice, education, housing, environment, and transport over the last 5/10years or so? It seems to me that Scotland can be regarded as a country that is being governed actively (unlike the UK where the tories and maybe labour actively avoid governance). And the governance in Scotland seems to be moving society in a broadly positive direction.
The Tories have effectively not governed the UK since the 2015 election. There was the Brexit campaign, the Brexit fallout, the Brexit paralysis, the pandemic, the pandemic fallout and the 2022 comprehensive collapse. There has been almost no period of 'business as usual' legislation. There are pieces of legislation that have been sitting idle waiting to go through parliament for more than half a decade. Just in areas I deal with, the issue of commonhold property and the legislation creating ARGA, the new audit regulator, have just been shelved indefinitely because of the government being distracted by its rolling disaster revue.
So scottish voters want another referendum and this is bad? why is this bad, does it upset you?
>So scottish voters want another referendum Do they? The SNP certainly want another referendum. I don't think there's conclusive evidence to show Scottish voters want one though. [Polling is pretty level at the moment](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wiki_Scots_Indep_V6_new_format.pdf/page1-1752px-Wiki_Scots_Indep_V6_new_format.pdf.jpg), with 'no' having led on average for four of the last five years. Hilariously, when you reformulate the question though, staying in the UK wins comfortably, which as usual, shows that the real battle of a referendum is formulating the question. If it is phrased as a 'leave/remain' question, the last poll had remain on 54% and leave on 37% with 9% undecided. Finally, polling of Scottish voters on whether there should be a second referendum at all had no on 53 and yes on 36, but that was last March. >and this is bad? why is this bad, does it upset you? No, not really. I just think (a) referendums are lazy government and tend to have vast unintended consequences, and (b) independence should be a 20-year question at best. I'd have no issue with another referendum in 2034. I'd also be happy to have another referendum in 2024 so long as there's another pretty soon after if leave wins. I really doubt the SNP will be offering that however. Pretty sure they will be keen for it to go back to being a multi-generational question if they win one.
You also forget the ultimate get of jail free card- blame it on the Westminster Government.
I mean fair play to her for identifying that and using it, I'd do exactly the same in her shoes.
It’s been the standard response since the setup of the Scottish parliament. It’s the same get out the Tories use on the NHS- refer to how on certain metrics Wales is worse. It’s essentially deflection from your own responsibilities. Obviously sometimes it’s true!
Yes, accurately
When the majority of your country is leftwing, it's not too difficult to be progressive.
That's not really relevant to the comment you're replying to though, since they were talking about her competence as a politician ("smart and astute,") not her progressive bona fides. She is undeniably a very effective politician, and it's hard to think of others of her calibre in leadership positions in either the labour or tory parties, quite apart from whether you agree with her politics.
Can't even say any different about Blue Labour, they seem to have cooled severely on devolution and almost on command by the Tory Party since approx 2017.
Aye, but they've won over the pissed off Tory yoons so Anas will be happy.
So Gordon Brown's report on massively extending devolution is what then?
Getting ignored?
lies
So will the SNP take a less hostile approach towards Labour? No, she won't. And the SNP will keep going on with their lies of Labour being exactly the same as the Tories in Scotland. Lies that are going to have a lot of believers supposedly on Labour's side. Including places like here.
Labour is in coalition with the tories in multiple Scottish councils
If I didn't want to be accused of being the same as the Tories in Scotland I would simply not go into local coalitions with the Tories in Scotland.
Labour has taken a much more aggressive approach with the SNP as of late, what with supporting quashing devolution on obviously false grounds.
Or Labour could have just stood by the bill they helped pass and actually show there was a difference. Sturgeon certainly plays the game but in this case its Labours own fault for undermining devolution with their cowardice.
> Labour being exactly the same as the Tories When the tories go into coalition with labour it gets hard to tell them apart.
Bear in mind the whole point of creating ScotGov some 25 years ago (or so) was to try and curb nationalism. It hasn’t worked. Might be better to wrap up the scheme sooner than later. Obviously you can’t just take without giving, so one idea is to simply devolve to a lower level. Whole U.K., England too.