First Minister Race Heats Up

18995 Views 370 Replies 42 Participants Last post by Elibank, 1 mo ago

keirstream

Discussion Starter · 3 mo ago

Honestly, if this wasn't so serious for we Scots we would all think it was a huge joke.
The calibre of candidates to run our erstwhile proud country is so poor, no wonder Sturgeon held office for 8 years.
Prime candidates are;
Humza Youseff; What can you say about him? Dull as dishwater, failed claim against a nursery fhe accused of racism after he and his wife threw the rattle out of the pram when their wean was refused a place.
Recently, as Health Minister, presided over the longest waiting lists in history with Doctors issuing safety warnings all over the place. Sturgeon must have been fed up batting away calls for his resignation for incompetence. The biggest laugh though is, as Transport Minister, being fined and 6 points awarded for speeding and driving without insurance in Dingwall. How did he get away without his head rolling on that one?
He says he would unite the country?? Errrrr, I don't think so?

Kate Forbes; Well, her situation is fundamentally (I use that word advisedly) flawed in that she is a devout member of the Wee Free Kirk which stymies her flexibility to be objective somewhat. Or to embrace easily shift in cultures beyond their own interpretation of the bible. Mixing Church and State is a definite no no and her views on the gender debate renders her unelectable.

Ash Regan; Principled, but again a Pariah in the eyes of the left woke brigade after she resigned on the gender reform platform. Hence unelectable.

Angus Robertson; In my view, a dark horse outsider who has ruled himself out might just yet be persuaded I think? A safe pair of hands compared to the contenders above certainly. If he doesn't stand, then, we are in for a situation where the only viable candidate is Youseff? F.F.S?
Mind you, if Mhairi Black throws her hat in the ring it really will be a circus parade. W.T.F?

Whatever, I have previously said I have watched the Office of 1st Minister be gradually and relentlessly eroded since Donald Dewar held it. It is about to plumb new depths with the absolute paucity of talent in that line up.

See less See more

Reactions: 5

1 - 20 of 371 Posts

ozzyian

· #16 · 3 mo ago

Being a fan of absurdity I can see no bad candidates. From fun girl Forbes to that clueless bullsh!tter Yuseless to the prospect of having a Welsh sheila trying to wreck the union. I'm just hoping that pompous gobby shortarse Blackford has a go or maybe the toad faced sex pest himself fancies a comeback. Superb stuff that shows us in the finest possible light.

Reactions: 5

ozzyian

· #25 · 3 mo ago (Edited)

Actually I'm thinking roughly the same sort of way but I am actually wondering whether her relative political naivety could be seen as a distinct advantage for Joe McAverage - ie less of a rabid 'independence at any cost' outlook and mindset and more of a 'we better do a decent job with the powers we have'

The core big guns of the party look to me to be pretty much totally reflective (albeit not as charismatic - some would say) of what we've had in the last 2 leaders. You know what I mean, the sort of folk that have singled out oddball 'let's be different, especially if it can be used to cast England in a bad way' (or 'progressive' as they like to say

) policies and/or otherwise sheer project ineptitude, I'm obviously thinking Isla whatever his name is and the ferries fiasco.

So, to me, in Forbes we might have got a Scottish people focussed candidate who seems relatively moderate and in possession of some reasonable sense judgement (other than the fact that she relies on cloud based imaginary friends for her guidance of course) The downside is it's not me that decides, it's the core party and this isn't the priority for the core member. Thus I'm expecting Humza Useless and a continuation of groundhog day politics, albeit in his guise he may well lose the party a bit of support. But this will all basically signal 'no change' in basic attitude.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

ozzyian

· #53 · 3 mo ago

What a total farce this countries politics have become.

The way I see it the most reasonable looking candidate for role of First Minister is being discounted because her imaginary friend directs her policy. That was the best and most reasonable candidate! Another candidate who has a different imaginary friend dictating what he thinks is hoping the first candidate is electorally damaged because she's white and spoke first

Imagine an alien landing in Hollyrood Park and casting his eye over this fkn carry on. He'd report back to his superiors 'don't bother with this species - on first assessment they are irrational and deluded'

Reactions: 5

ozzyian

· #55 · 3 mo ago

a lot of imaginary stuff going on

seems not everyone is happy about confronting the gorilla sitting in the corner, sorry I mentioned it now

ozzyian

· #58 · 3 mo ago (Edited)

Don't be too concerned there keirstream. Strangely enough last night in my dreams my God* communicated with me and told me that he was going to 'smite down' the followers of false prophets - not because he disagrees with their stance on gay marriage - he couldn't care less - but simply because, in his own words, he is 'badass as f***'

Quite what this will do to the leadership contest I am not sure. It might enable someone in who makes their own decisions about what's right and wrong. Though obviously I'm thinking more about the role of FM and not head of the SNP.

* Thor, as it happens

See less See more

Reactions: 2

ozzyian

· #77 · 3 mo ago

Loxie said:
I find it quite surprising that religion has played such a part in this contest. In all the bizarre twists and turns of Truss v Sunak I cant remember religion being mentioned once, mind you I confess I took very little interest in the details. How Gay Marriage is any sort of issue in this day and age is quite beyond me. It raises a fascinating question about who should be tolerated in the context of a secular state?

When you've got the idiots putting blokes in the sheilas pokey because, well, I'm not actually sure it's so utterly bizarre - you may as well justify your resistance to it by saying imaginary friends were telling you what to do.

The real solution, I spose is not to have bizarre idiots anywhere near authority in the first place. Too late for that now though.

Reactions: 3

ozzyian

· #80 · 3 mo ago

Fruin said:
It seems that some of the most avid posters on all threads about Scottish politics, think that a person's religion should always be a factor in their ability to govern. While I may hold some sympathy with that view, it should not be particular to Scottish politics. In the UK, King Charles is the head of the Church Of England and all MPs must swear alliegance to him 🤔.

But I thought Scotgov was a lot more 'progressive' You would have thought it the antithesis of proper governance as it appears so regressive.

When it comes to leadership though it shouldn't ever feature. It's a conflict for me because if we must have one of them as FM, to me she's least worst

ozzyian

· #115 · 3 mo ago

Safranfoer said:
Personally I think we should hold people to greater task in both the areas you reference, which broadly come down to the same issue of declaring conflicts of interest, and making a commitment to representing your constituents' interests above your own that is treated way more seriously than it is at the moment.

Business interests should be disclosed annually, with heavy penalties for either late disclosures or omissions, and conflicts of interest should be dealt with upfront by resignation from the business interest, should you wish to pursue public life. No one is making anyone be an MP - it's a choice. If that's the choice for you - then commit to it. These guidelines broadly exist - they're just not enforced. We don't need to do anything other than actually vet politicians, and crack down on poor behaviour. A bit of discipline.

Same with anyone that practices a religious faith. Becoming an MP is a choice, and one that comes with a responsibility to everyone that elects you. Full disclosure up front and if the individual can't commit to acting in accordance with their constituents' wishes if those wishes conflict with the way they interpret or practice their religion, then that's a conflict of interest that needs to be dealt with by resignation, from either the faith or public life. A choice.

It's absolutely fine to say, I couldn't in all conscience support expansions in civil rights for same sex couples, it goes against my religious beliefs and what my holy texts tell me. I respect that even if I don't agree with it. But if you represent same sex couples and have any influence on their life... it's a conflict of interest that should be dealt with like any other.

Thats a nicely put way of exactly what I was thinking. I think significant financial interest and significant religious interest are about the same and both incompatible with a position whereby impartial and impassionate policy decisions need to be made for the good of those they serve.

If the question of who they serve is brought into question it just simply removes the required integrity as we have seen in Westminster and that either does or should alienate the public. I say 'should' because either about 30% of the population are TAF or just football supporters. So we get what we get.

ozzyian

· #158 · 3 mo ago

keirstream said:
These policies are blatant attempts by a cynical party in government to buy votes in an attempt to tip the balance on the Indy vote. People aren't buying it as they can see the bigger picture.
It would all fall flat on it's face, like Ferguson Marine, after a successful Indy vote.
That, in a nutshell, is why you can't get straight answers to straight questions from the S.N.P. or Scotgov on policy and funding of an independent Scotland. They don't have answers, just spin and smoking mirrors.

Plenty are though. As you know it's an age old tactic used by every cheat - Faridge, Trump, Corbyn etc. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on it's a reliable way to hook the disenfranchised and angry.

What's more it's good business to create more disenfranchised by repeating essentially the same grievance but in a different way, as the SNP have discovered to their benefit (admittedly with no shortage of welcome help from the below par inhabitants of Westminster)

Groundhog day politics will continue to hold us in limbo as far as I can see, it's now entrenched.

Reactions: 1

ozzyian

· #187 · 3 mo ago

It's ok, the leadership quickly realised about the accidental overprint and sent the 6000 forms for destruction. The forms have already been pulped by the contract winner Yousaf Recycling Ltd.

Reactions: 5

ozzyian

· #190 · 3 mo ago

Grassy_Knollington said:
Soon to be found in a skip round the back of some shops then?

That would be a more democratic outcome for them than what might happen

Reactions: 1

ozzyian

· #192 · 3 mo ago

Horsbrugh said:
He/she or whatever, does not believe in biological women, having the right to object to Trans women, who are still biological men, having free access to women’s spaces. He/she is so angry, he/she has called for death and violence to all TERF’s (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. That group of feminists that claims that trans women-aren't really women, as biological determinism is only a fallacy when it used against them, not when they use it against others.)
And they wonder why they are losing members?

0:19 / 0:21

But surely that is just the normal conclusion on a male to female transgender journey?

Reactions: 2

ozzyian

· #210 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

We are now in the position where those weasels over at the greens (who, in a real democracy would wield about 2 5ths of FA of the authority) are now dictating who Scotlands next First Minister will be. This is in a closed party vote by saying they won't 'support' (read: pervert democracy) the SNP if the greens preferred candidate doesn't win

Incredible really how low this parliament has sunk after the high hopes and high ideals at its inception. TBH I think we should push for a referendum to turn back devolution. It's just become a futile diddy parliament where various nutters are gaming the system and its real purpose is overlooked.

Reactions: 5

ozzyian

· #215 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

I honestly don't know the answer.

Safranfoer said:
Is Humza Yousaf... good? What kind of lens should I view the news through? I'm seeing lots of people saying his election has effectively given Scotland to Labour. Is this true? How?!

Think accident prone smarmy Middle Eastern Chris Grayling with a Scottish accent. An excellent candidate for FM if your sole priority is maintaining the union.

For an outsider it must be difficult to work out who is the best of a bad bunch (it is for an insider too) but suffice to say that Yousaf was the candidate demanded by the Scottish Greens.

The Scottish Greens of course are the 'progressive' force that was behind the attempted law changes so that the rapist bloke self certifying his new gender whilst in the back of the prison van on his way to jail could do his stretch in the Sheilas pokey.

That is just a recent highlight amongst all the other nutter stuff they get up to (whilst ignoring the politically inconvenient environmental issues like aquaculture - who are in bed with the sneep so seem to be pretty much unaccountable)

Reactions: 2

ozzyian

· #217 · 2 mo ago

mows said:
Safest pair of hands for St Nicki and her pretendy hubby and all the stones starting to be unturned.
I think its going to be a turid time for the SNP whatever just now.
We will have to wait and see if yousless is infact his own man or not.
Letting the greens with less than 1% of the vote appear to have 51% of the say in SNP isnt going down well.
New ideas and new policies are required.
Not more of the same.
All of them were z lister candidates, but at least the other 2 might have shook things up a bit.

Hopefully wrong.

But as Bojo was the dream ticket for independence.

Youseless may well be the dream ticket for the union.

I'm honestly surprised the number is that high. But as you say their weasling has perverted their public support to political influence ratio on the grandest of scales. I wonder what we can expect next as flagship nutter policy to be fully supported in a dishonest quid pro gaming of the system.

The problem with Yousuf is that although we can expect nationalism to suffer a setback and this could be seen as a positive the fact is we still have to put up with him in charge of health, policing, ferries, mental vanity law change projects etc etc.

Reactions: 1

ozzyian

· #225 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

Grassy_Knollington said:
I think they will suggest a ‘Council of Nature’ to scrutinise all new policies. This Council will be a 5 creature panel of democratically selected domestic and wild animals who will have to agree to all new laws. They’ll have to work out the detailed arrangements of course.

For instance a Dog could bark once for ‘yes’ and twice for ‘no’ after the legislation was read to them.

Also, no thick animals will be allowed, or perverts either, that means Rabbits are out, but Owls might be a good choice.

This is just an idea of mine, but I do think that they in charge of them in the Greens would probably support it.

Well after their dalliance with back of an envelope gender self certification got the perverts all excited and ready to use the chicks changing rooms and that fella Isla Bryson damn near got himself into the sheilas pokey (fox in henhouse style - to continue your animal theme) then I for one would welcome a step back to comparatively sensible and moderate policies such as the Council of Nature like you suggest.

Tell me, would you limit the C of N remit to environmental issues or do you see them capable of steering policy on lets say alternatives to the ferries unsuitable propulsion systems or chairing a report into the failings of the integration of the regions into Police Scotland? What about the thorny issue of land ownership in the highlands? Surely a minefield of conflict of interests as I'm sure you are aware those red deer stags can be real pricks about whose land is whose especially during the rut.

Reactions: 2

ozzyian

· #226 · 2 mo ago

Grassy_Knollington said:
I think they will suggest a ‘Council of Nature’ to scrutinise all new policies. This Council will be a 5 creature panel of democratically selected domestic and wild animals who will have to agree to all new laws. They’ll have to work out the detailed arrangements of course.

For instance a Dog could bark once for ‘yes’ and twice for ‘no’ after the legislation was read to them.

Also, no thick animals will be allowed, or perverts either, that means Rabbits are out, but Owls might be a good choice.

This is just an idea of mine, but I do think that they in charge of them in the Greens would probably support it.

Just thinking further on this point. You do realise that those comments are discriminatory? This is not what the Scottish Greens stand for.

ozzyian

· #229 · 2 mo ago

ozzyian

· #245 · 2 mo ago

I think he missed out 'every childcare business owner where I live.....'

Reactions: 4

ozzyian

· #246 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

Fruin said:
You are on dodgy ground comparing the SNP with UKIP!

This is a very unionist view of what the SNP do. Of course, they do point out what Westminster policies and decisions have a negative impact on Scotland, but they are hardly short of targets to hit in that regard. They also have to govern effectively to remain in power, because once they are out they are just an opposition voice and the chance of independence is much slimmer with a Westminster led party at the helm in Holyrood.

Years and years ago I made this same comparison to a staunch SNP friend of mine, he was as incredulous as you. To me they both have core common similarities and 'attributes' especially when it comes to invigorating and activating fundamental support. I still think this way.

Thankfully faridge and co have never had the opportunity to exercise any administrative authority and if they did I would no doubt agree that their traditional ideology appeals to a different sort of person which I suspect is what you are looking at. Gabriel Gatehouse expresses the war of extremes well - albeit his subject is Trumpism, but his views are applicable to extreme politics and how they are justified everywhere.

1 - 20 of 371 Posts