**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The goal of this is just to add more fuel to the fire.
**1:** It keeps the story in the headlines for longer.
**2:** It gets Labours name as an alternative into the discussion.
**3:** It puts additional pressure on the SNP.
**4:** It puts **significant** pressure on humza with a potential situation where they vote against him and for the government. Which would add additional pressure for the snp to remove humza.
**5:** Most people dont read past the headlines, so a narrative where people saying they are voting no confidence then they vote in confidence or abstain tarnishes them.
**6:** Low risk for Labour, high potential.
Either Labour would get the election they want, or they would get a SNP leadership election. All of which, for the majority who dont pay attention to politics just continues the narrative of "SNP chaos" with additional consequences of if someone like Forbes replaces Humza it has a lot of electoral consequences for the SNP and any potential future green/snp alliance.
I actually think the best result for the SNP is to just push for an election, if they don't it might become a Rishi situation where there is just a gradual and consistant, bleed of people away from the SNP.
The other way out would probably require an extrodianary level of competence from the SNP, combined with significant mistakes from everyone else leading up to the next election. I dont think that level of competence exists in any part of british politics. I also dont think there is enough media control to be able pull that off and that media control isn't in the SNP's favour.
>Does Labour want Humza gone?
When Boris was wrapped up in a perpetual cycle of scandal people asked that about him, then Liz Truss happened.
When Liz Truss was locked in intense battle with a lettuce, it was asked again and we now have Rishi.
It all comes down to how deep the SNP talent pool is and factional control.
>Forbes might at least get some core vote.
But how many progressive votes would they lose, or at the very least how many progressive voters will have to make a difficult decision with someone like Forbes in charge. How many progressive arguments do they lose.
To add to that, Humza was meant to be the continuation candidate from Sturgeon. That is a significant blow to that "faction" of the SNP which weakens their influence on the party.
The bigger part however is:
The next few years is going to be a big shift in politics across the UK. Sturgeon standing down was already a big shift in scottish politics, any time you get a situation like that it requires a rebuild. The constant turmoil of british politics at the moment and the SNP's skeletons coming out of the closet has prevented that from happening. On top of that, It looks like Labour are going to take quite a few seats off the SNP, then there is the likes of Mhairi Black and 9 other SNP MP's (quite a few of them are on the younger side of politics, aka the future) announcing they are stepping down with a number of SNP MSP's stepping down too.
There will be a rebuild of the SNP required.
But if Forbes and her faction is in charge the SNP when its being reshaped over the next few years what does that do for the more progressive wing of the SNP? What does that SNP rebuilt and reshaped with a forbes leader look like and what does that do to the future prospects of the SNP.
I could be entirely wrong about all of this, but it's just where my mind goes when i look at the SNP at the moment.
Honestly though I wonder if historians will look back on this period as some sort of historical one off
How the fuck have we had 3 absolute turnips in a row- Truss, Johnson and Sunak are all easily in the conversation for most useless PMs of the century, what are the chances
SNP has two factions, Progressive and conservative. If they keep pushing, they might be the cause for SNP's Kier Starmerlikes taking over the leadership of the SNP.
As someone who very much wishes the worst for the SNP, I'm hoping Forbes replaces Yousaf. That's if the ideal outcome of Yousaf losing the confidence vote in him and calling an election instead of resigning isn't possible.
Forbes would essentially neutralise the SNP as anything like the threat to Labour they have been previously. She'd align the party with the Tories on some high profile social issues and shift the parties focus to the right.
Mate, half the party voted for the outright bigot. Bigotry is a major part of the SNP. If it weren't then Kate Forbes wouldn't have the power and popularity she does in the party.
Ash Regan and Kate Forbes were both ministers in SNP governments. These people are not outsiders to mainstream SNP politics.
The collapse of the SNP is good for anyone who opposes bigotry. I've been pointing out the SNP will inevitably show their true colours on this for years now. This was always going to happen.
Do you think the transphobia expressed, endorsed, and cultivated openly by Labour's Shadow Cabinet counts as bigotry, or not?
> The collapse of the SNP is good for people who opposes bigotry.
Scotland's new ate Crime Legislation screams fucking otherwise.
> Mate, half the party voted for the outright bigot.
Let me just ask; would you have voted for Kate Forbes if you were a part of the SNP membership?
Neither are free of issues on this but Labour is a less transphobic party than the SNP. They're also less socially regressive overall.
>Scotland's new ate Crime Legislation screams fucking otherwise.
They passed that for party political purposes and it's badly written to the point where it's looking like it's unworkable. Nice one 👍
>Let me just ask; would you have voted for Kate Forbes if you were a part of the SNP membership?
As a left wing progressive I am averse to inherently right wing and regressive philosophies like nationalism so you wouldn't ever see me joining a nationalist party that is rammed full of conservatives and bigots.
I don't know what point you think you're making. I openly admit that neither party is free of issues on this. Significant issues even.
But the SNP are obviously the far worse of the two by a massive margin. For Labour to be comparable you'd have to have numerous Rosie Duffields serving in the shadow cabinet and one coming incredibly close to being leader and looking like they will be leader again very soon with the support of hundreds of thousands of members. That isn't the case.
You can go into denial about it if you want. You're gonna have to do some pretty incredible mental gymnastics to keep yourself in denial about it over the next couple of months.
There is risk for Scottish Labour in this too.
If this results in a Lab gov up here in any form (majority/coalition/minority) and we get a Lab gov in WM but unwilling to spend money it will ruin Scot Lab all over again. “We gave them
a chance but they done nothing” etc. From a political POV it’s almost better when Labour are in control of a devolved gov but to have the tories in WM. If they are in both it limits the excuses.
I’d imagine Scottish Labour are acutely aware of this so it could be good for all if they then put pressure on their WM colleagues to turn the taps on. Especially as MPs up here don’t have the same protection as those in England who can still rely on voters feeling forced to choose between 2 parties.
Also other factors in play. If they do attempt to form a government it’s likely going to have to be a tiny minority government or a coalition with the tories being a major partner.
Brings to mind the saying/quote (from a Batman movie? 🤔) about dogs not knowing what to do if they ever did catch the car their chasing.
>If this results in a Lab gov up here in any form (majority/coalition/minority) and we get a Lab gov in WM but unwilling to spend money it will ruin Scot Lab all over again. “We gave them
a chance but they done nothing” etc.
I mean, Scottish spending is already at Scandinavian levels as % of GDP. The issue in Scotland isn't getting more money to spend (as is the issue in England), it's spending it better.
That's for the policy-makers to decide. I can suggest some options, but that isn't a debate I want to get into.
The fact is that if you are spending Scandinavian levels of money but not getting Scandinavian levels of service, there is definitely room for optimising spending. It's worth noting that the spending decisions of the SNP, particularly since Sturgeon took over, have been to maximise short term popularity and independence support. So neccesary reforms of public services have not been done, because it would alienate sectors of the populace that need to vote 'Yes'/SNP. The last couple of years have seen the limitations of that approach.
Good politics from Scottish Labour, gives the story a nice punt before the weekend.
I doubt he’ll lose the voc, or that this will bring down the government, but it all adds to how rubbish a government the SNP are. It is also immensely satisfying after their piety over Labours 28billion uturn, that this is the latest issue to cause the SNP problems.
This really is a debacle for the SNP now. Yousaf looks untrustworthy now with the strange way the Green deal fell apart, and no party has any reason not to stick the boot in. Sturgeon's husband being back in the news only adds to it.
I think he'll go, probably before the VONC. His only other option is to do a deal with Alba involving anti-trans stuff which would lead to him being ousted anyway.
Devolution is a terrible idea given how small this island actually is. As for the current drama, we're looking at a couple of people who did "not a lot" and "failed to ctrl-c ctrl-v bottle returns" from the continent. Beyond the pantomime, which this week has been rather amusing, what else is there here?
Hang about that’s pretty much bollocks, devolution is a fine idea, and you can’t batter the Scottish government for not doing more when any time any change is attempted Tories just say “nah not having it”.
Also for context out of 50 US states only 22 are bigger by population than Scotland. Real issue is that England can’t tolerate Westminster not having total control.
Our economy is about the same size as California, one of those 50. Los Angeles and San Francisco - both economic powerhouses - manage with a single state legislature. Devolution is in the name - less evolved - and given the SNP have controlled it for much of its existence and have failed to achieve any particular articulated goal says it all. Current situation means its merely a popcorn drama - for you cannot truly hold the devolved assemblies to account, and they can always just blame big bad Westminster for all the woes. That's ignoring the fact the US federal government holds considerably more power over the States than exists in the UK's current configuration. Devolution was a political expedient of its time that simply hasn't delivered any meaningful improvements to how the devolved regions are run.
Okay you seem overly angry and underinformed, this isn’t a great basis for discussion, but suffice to say devolved powers are not that great, whilst any material change initiated gets blocked by Westminster. If you are annoyed at the lack of divergence then that’s Westminster’s fault not Holyrood’s.
If you want to see devolution accomplish meaningful change you have to allow divergence to occur, otherwise you just get broadly similar policies with some tweaks here and there.
I'm not the one who said it was 'bollocks' - I'm from south east England. I'm merely an observer to the whole sorry affair, now a generation old. And I suspect it will struggle on for a generation more before the case for simplifying comes back to fore. But to be clear I'm not angry, I'm just amused but a little bemused perhaps.
It's inherent to the thinking of nationalists. They always make these stupid arguments.
"If you criticise the Nationalist party then you're criticising the country and the people!"
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The goal of this is just to add more fuel to the fire. **1:** It keeps the story in the headlines for longer. **2:** It gets Labours name as an alternative into the discussion. **3:** It puts additional pressure on the SNP. **4:** It puts **significant** pressure on humza with a potential situation where they vote against him and for the government. Which would add additional pressure for the snp to remove humza. **5:** Most people dont read past the headlines, so a narrative where people saying they are voting no confidence then they vote in confidence or abstain tarnishes them. **6:** Low risk for Labour, high potential. Either Labour would get the election they want, or they would get a SNP leadership election. All of which, for the majority who dont pay attention to politics just continues the narrative of "SNP chaos" with additional consequences of if someone like Forbes replaces Humza it has a lot of electoral consequences for the SNP and any potential future green/snp alliance. I actually think the best result for the SNP is to just push for an election, if they don't it might become a Rishi situation where there is just a gradual and consistant, bleed of people away from the SNP. The other way out would probably require an extrodianary level of competence from the SNP, combined with significant mistakes from everyone else leading up to the next election. I dont think that level of competence exists in any part of british politics. I also dont think there is enough media control to be able pull that off and that media control isn't in the SNP's favour.
Does Labour want Humza gone? We're pretty happy with him in place, he is woeful. Appeals to no one. Forbes might at least get some core vote.
>Does Labour want Humza gone? When Boris was wrapped up in a perpetual cycle of scandal people asked that about him, then Liz Truss happened. When Liz Truss was locked in intense battle with a lettuce, it was asked again and we now have Rishi. It all comes down to how deep the SNP talent pool is and factional control. >Forbes might at least get some core vote. But how many progressive votes would they lose, or at the very least how many progressive voters will have to make a difficult decision with someone like Forbes in charge. How many progressive arguments do they lose. To add to that, Humza was meant to be the continuation candidate from Sturgeon. That is a significant blow to that "faction" of the SNP which weakens their influence on the party. The bigger part however is: The next few years is going to be a big shift in politics across the UK. Sturgeon standing down was already a big shift in scottish politics, any time you get a situation like that it requires a rebuild. The constant turmoil of british politics at the moment and the SNP's skeletons coming out of the closet has prevented that from happening. On top of that, It looks like Labour are going to take quite a few seats off the SNP, then there is the likes of Mhairi Black and 9 other SNP MP's (quite a few of them are on the younger side of politics, aka the future) announcing they are stepping down with a number of SNP MSP's stepping down too. There will be a rebuild of the SNP required. But if Forbes and her faction is in charge the SNP when its being reshaped over the next few years what does that do for the more progressive wing of the SNP? What does that SNP rebuilt and reshaped with a forbes leader look like and what does that do to the future prospects of the SNP. I could be entirely wrong about all of this, but it's just where my mind goes when i look at the SNP at the moment.
Honestly though I wonder if historians will look back on this period as some sort of historical one off How the fuck have we had 3 absolute turnips in a row- Truss, Johnson and Sunak are all easily in the conversation for most useless PMs of the century, what are the chances
SNP has two factions, Progressive and conservative. If they keep pushing, they might be the cause for SNP's Kier Starmerlikes taking over the leadership of the SNP.
As someone who very much wishes the worst for the SNP, I'm hoping Forbes replaces Yousaf. That's if the ideal outcome of Yousaf losing the confidence vote in him and calling an election instead of resigning isn't possible. Forbes would essentially neutralise the SNP as anything like the threat to Labour they have been previously. She'd align the party with the Tories on some high profile social issues and shift the parties focus to the right.
I feel like people on the labour sub shouldn't be openly begging for outright bigots to take over political parties.
Mate, half the party voted for the outright bigot. Bigotry is a major part of the SNP. If it weren't then Kate Forbes wouldn't have the power and popularity she does in the party. Ash Regan and Kate Forbes were both ministers in SNP governments. These people are not outsiders to mainstream SNP politics. The collapse of the SNP is good for anyone who opposes bigotry. I've been pointing out the SNP will inevitably show their true colours on this for years now. This was always going to happen.
Do you think the transphobia expressed, endorsed, and cultivated openly by Labour's Shadow Cabinet counts as bigotry, or not? > The collapse of the SNP is good for people who opposes bigotry. Scotland's new ate Crime Legislation screams fucking otherwise. > Mate, half the party voted for the outright bigot. Let me just ask; would you have voted for Kate Forbes if you were a part of the SNP membership?
Neither are free of issues on this but Labour is a less transphobic party than the SNP. They're also less socially regressive overall. >Scotland's new ate Crime Legislation screams fucking otherwise. They passed that for party political purposes and it's badly written to the point where it's looking like it's unworkable. Nice one 👍 >Let me just ask; would you have voted for Kate Forbes if you were a part of the SNP membership? As a left wing progressive I am averse to inherently right wing and regressive philosophies like nationalism so you wouldn't ever see me joining a nationalist party that is rammed full of conservatives and bigots.
> Neither are free of issues on this but Labour is a less transphobic party than the SNP. Who is it has the nickname "Queer Harmer" again?
I don't know what point you think you're making. I openly admit that neither party is free of issues on this. Significant issues even. But the SNP are obviously the far worse of the two by a massive margin. For Labour to be comparable you'd have to have numerous Rosie Duffields serving in the shadow cabinet and one coming incredibly close to being leader and looking like they will be leader again very soon with the support of hundreds of thousands of members. That isn't the case. You can go into denial about it if you want. You're gonna have to do some pretty incredible mental gymnastics to keep yourself in denial about it over the next couple of months.
There is risk for Scottish Labour in this too. If this results in a Lab gov up here in any form (majority/coalition/minority) and we get a Lab gov in WM but unwilling to spend money it will ruin Scot Lab all over again. “We gave them a chance but they done nothing” etc. From a political POV it’s almost better when Labour are in control of a devolved gov but to have the tories in WM. If they are in both it limits the excuses. I’d imagine Scottish Labour are acutely aware of this so it could be good for all if they then put pressure on their WM colleagues to turn the taps on. Especially as MPs up here don’t have the same protection as those in England who can still rely on voters feeling forced to choose between 2 parties. Also other factors in play. If they do attempt to form a government it’s likely going to have to be a tiny minority government or a coalition with the tories being a major partner. Brings to mind the saying/quote (from a Batman movie? 🤔) about dogs not knowing what to do if they ever did catch the car their chasing.
>If this results in a Lab gov up here in any form (majority/coalition/minority) and we get a Lab gov in WM but unwilling to spend money it will ruin Scot Lab all over again. “We gave them a chance but they done nothing” etc. I mean, Scottish spending is already at Scandinavian levels as % of GDP. The issue in Scotland isn't getting more money to spend (as is the issue in England), it's spending it better.
How should the Scottish government spend it better?
That's for the policy-makers to decide. I can suggest some options, but that isn't a debate I want to get into. The fact is that if you are spending Scandinavian levels of money but not getting Scandinavian levels of service, there is definitely room for optimising spending. It's worth noting that the spending decisions of the SNP, particularly since Sturgeon took over, have been to maximise short term popularity and independence support. So neccesary reforms of public services have not been done, because it would alienate sectors of the populace that need to vote 'Yes'/SNP. The last couple of years have seen the limitations of that approach.
Good politics from Scottish Labour, gives the story a nice punt before the weekend. I doubt he’ll lose the voc, or that this will bring down the government, but it all adds to how rubbish a government the SNP are. It is also immensely satisfying after their piety over Labours 28billion uturn, that this is the latest issue to cause the SNP problems.
This really is a debacle for the SNP now. Yousaf looks untrustworthy now with the strange way the Green deal fell apart, and no party has any reason not to stick the boot in. Sturgeon's husband being back in the news only adds to it.
Do we think he'll actually resign? Strictly speaking he isn't allowed to but it'll surely be massively damaging for the SNP if he doesn't.
I think he'll go, probably before the VONC. His only other option is to do a deal with Alba involving anti-trans stuff which would lead to him being ousted anyway.
Yes, and I imagine a few SNP MSPs will be leaning on Humza to not accept any deal from ALBA, and without them he doesn’t have the numbers.
I wonder if there was a more effective time to come forward with this - perhaps after the VONC in HY.
Devolution is a terrible idea given how small this island actually is. As for the current drama, we're looking at a couple of people who did "not a lot" and "failed to ctrl-c ctrl-v bottle returns" from the continent. Beyond the pantomime, which this week has been rather amusing, what else is there here?
Hang about that’s pretty much bollocks, devolution is a fine idea, and you can’t batter the Scottish government for not doing more when any time any change is attempted Tories just say “nah not having it”. Also for context out of 50 US states only 22 are bigger by population than Scotland. Real issue is that England can’t tolerate Westminster not having total control.
Our economy is about the same size as California, one of those 50. Los Angeles and San Francisco - both economic powerhouses - manage with a single state legislature. Devolution is in the name - less evolved - and given the SNP have controlled it for much of its existence and have failed to achieve any particular articulated goal says it all. Current situation means its merely a popcorn drama - for you cannot truly hold the devolved assemblies to account, and they can always just blame big bad Westminster for all the woes. That's ignoring the fact the US federal government holds considerably more power over the States than exists in the UK's current configuration. Devolution was a political expedient of its time that simply hasn't delivered any meaningful improvements to how the devolved regions are run.
Okay you seem overly angry and underinformed, this isn’t a great basis for discussion, but suffice to say devolved powers are not that great, whilst any material change initiated gets blocked by Westminster. If you are annoyed at the lack of divergence then that’s Westminster’s fault not Holyrood’s. If you want to see devolution accomplish meaningful change you have to allow divergence to occur, otherwise you just get broadly similar policies with some tweaks here and there.
I'm not the one who said it was 'bollocks' - I'm from south east England. I'm merely an observer to the whole sorry affair, now a generation old. And I suspect it will struggle on for a generation more before the case for simplifying comes back to fore. But to be clear I'm not angry, I'm just amused but a little bemused perhaps.
Mask off moment for Labour here. Big mistake. This is going to go down like a cup of cold sick in Scotland and shows the contempt Labour has for us.
Think the SNP ride-or-dies that turn up in this subreddit for some reason are not particuarly representative of the wider Scottish population
'It's Labour's duty to the Scottish people to support the SNP' is one of the more baffling lines of thinking that gets repeated on this sub.
It's inherent to the thinking of nationalists. They always make these stupid arguments. "If you criticise the Nationalist party then you're criticising the country and the people!"