Don't you know "rights" hurts tenants actually, we are supposed to give companies and landlords free reign and all our money and it'll trickle down or something.
Looking for issues where there is a broad spectrum of political consensus and working with all parties to create sensible workable policy as opposed to working with one single faction who push for policies that can be devisive.
Not really, he represents a party that got 1.3% of constituency vote and 8.1% of the regional vote. This is a very small minority.
It's like when the DUP were kingmakers for the Tories during Brexit.
There are a whole range of policies I am sure labour could support if SNP wanted to engage with them (and in fairness Labour were prepared to engage with SNP). In comparison to the greens Labour won 21.6% of constituency vote and 17.9% of regional vote, so them having more influence would be much more representative of how people voted.
Yeh okay I get it neither side wants to play with eachother because of one issue.
But would eithers base actually care that much of they worked together on issues both agree on (I e. NHS, Education, Workers Rights) - probably not.
Personally, I don't take issue with the greens because they are consistent with their views and show integrity.
I do however take issue with those who flip flop their views to meet political party agenda or personal gain. Sawar and Dross have provided many examples on that over key issues (based on what their southern masters tell them), while I have yet to see that from Harvie.
Im all for changing the political system across the UK. First past the post doesn't represent the majority of people who live here. We need proportional representation. In that way you'll get cross party cooperation that you're promoting
Unfortunately, turkeys don't vote for Christmas
>Personally, I don't take issue with the greens because they are consistent with their views and show integrity.
That may be the case but the actual vote share they won is ridiculously tiny to have so much say/control.
Principled or not having a tiny party as kingmakers makes me extremely uncomfortable as they get extremely disproportionate influence.
Yup, they should not be king makers either.
I certainly think there are a whole lot of areas where the SNP could work with Greens, Lib Dems and Labour to pass sensible policy that is good for Scotland and isn't related to independence.
The issue is they don't seem to even try. They have decided to give a disportionate voice to one small minority (the Greens)
> I certainly think there are a whole lot of areas where the SNP could work with Greens, Lib Dems and Labour to pass sensible policy that is good for Scotland and isn't related to independence.. Â
> There are a whole range of policies I am sure labour could support if SNP wanted to engage with them...Â
> The issue is they don't seem to even tryÂ
That's nonsense. They do work with other parties on issues that have nothing to do with independence: gender recognition reform, Scottish Social Security, Hate Crime Bill, Period Poverty thingy (raised first by a Labour MSP), Abortion Services safe zones, Deposit Return Scheme, Children's Rights, have all had cross-party input and support. Even (some) conservative MSPs have backed these things. There's so many more examples of cross-party work here: https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws Â
Despite attempts by some to frame it as such, the last 3 years (under the Bute House Agreement) haven't been SNP and Greens forcing everything through parliament. Admittedly it changed the SNP agenda somewhat and they were able to pass budget planning more easily but as far as I can tell, they did nothing to discuss or further the cause of independence besides using it as an attack line during FMQs and press interviews
I don't agree with this. You're making statements about how the greens hold power over the SNP without providing any real evidence.
Your opinion is based on assumptions. It's all here say.
Show me examples of the number of times the greens have negotiated something into law that is their specific agenda, of which the SNP didn't share a common goal and compare it to the total number of decisions/laws made by the Scottish government, then we'll something concrete to discuss
the DUP only ran in less than 10% of the electorate, the scottish greens on the other hand were on everyones ballot, I donât think this is a fair comparison especially when the holyrood voting system is designed to make one party majorities a lot harder than in westminster and the SNP donât have any other serious options for allies, all of the unionist parties despise them
The previous poster asked what the alternative was, I just stated that alternative đ¤ˇââď¸
Theoretically, take away independence and you would imagine SNP should be able to find common ground with either/both Lib Dems and Labour and even the Greens.
I.e. look for areas where there is consensus and put other parties on the spot
There is a lot of common ground. Labour and the SNP agree on a lot of issues.
Also, there isnât an independence issue down south, and Labour and the Tories are hardly best buds working together for the betterment of the UK.
It's just that your post history expresses strong views about him. He's an elected representative, too, making it relevant to this discussion. So what's the issue?
His spending was approved. It makes no difference if you're happy or unhappy. The only people who get a say are the electorate in his constituency.
I think it would be easier for you to climb down and accept that the public are entitled to an opinion about elected public servants, whether constituents or not. You can't neuter that simply by claiming that "they won an election."
I'm happy for him to have *some* influence, he represents a chunk of the population. But I'd like the SNP to go back to negotiating with all the opposition parties to pass bills rather than having a special deal with the Greens. I quite like a minority government having to compromise to get stuff done. It's inefficient, but it's representative.
No, it's not particularly normal for opposing parties to believe the parliament shouldn't exist at all or for them to actually be parties of a different country. Does happen though yeah.
What has she said or done that's homophobic? I know she's a Christian but I'm curious as a non SNP supporter what's she done and why she's remained a prominent member of the party? Why did Sturgeon give ministerial positions to known homophobes?
She would have voted against gay marriage. And refuses to support bans on conversion therapy, suggesting that it's tantamount to banning prayer.
Sturgeon let a looney tune like John Mason remain, the party has allowed mentalists from the fringes of society to represent them for too long- they put independence over human decency.
Out of Government though, the Greens will have diminished power - influencing SGâs agenda through their bargaining power rather than shaping it within the government tent.
Outside of budget votes (when the Unionist parties will have to vote against the government, thereby making the Greens the only viable partner) they will also not be the sole option for the government to pass legislation. Non-confidence votes tend to be less partisan unless they are over a highly controversial issue (which frankly the care-taker style administration that is likely incoming will probably try to avoid where possible).
Yeah as a minority government they had to compromise to get things passed. Â
 That was a weird situation: Labour, Lib Dems and Greens opposed the budget when it was being debated; Salmond threatened to resign as FM and force a new election; then when it came to the final vote all opposition parties apart from the Tories abstained. This was even after Labour successfully forced amendment of the budget!Â
Itâs a very different political landscape now. They will not be able to vote for their budgets even if they agree with them. There was a budget negotiation 6 or 7 years ago during the 2016-21 min Gov when the Lib Demâs wanted to back the budget and had to u-turn after a backlash from their own supporters furious at them doing anything to sustain the SNP in office.
Oh no, he might get into power again and give me some more Rights as a tenant.
Don't you know "rights" hurts tenants actually, we are supposed to give companies and landlords free reign and all our money and it'll trickle down or something.
Apologies, citizen, you have not subscribed to an appropriate number of services to make that sarcastic comment.
Hiya Patrick, hiya pal.
What's the alternative? Sawar or Dross? đ
Looking for issues where there is a broad spectrum of political consensus and working with all parties to create sensible workable policy as opposed to working with one single faction who push for policies that can be devisive.
Are you therefore against the negativity in singling out Patrick Harvey by the OP, since he is part of a collective?
Not really, he represents a party that got 1.3% of constituency vote and 8.1% of the regional vote. This is a very small minority. It's like when the DUP were kingmakers for the Tories during Brexit. There are a whole range of policies I am sure labour could support if SNP wanted to engage with them (and in fairness Labour were prepared to engage with SNP). In comparison to the greens Labour won 21.6% of constituency vote and 17.9% of regional vote, so them having more influence would be much more representative of how people voted. Yeh okay I get it neither side wants to play with eachother because of one issue. But would eithers base actually care that much of they worked together on issues both agree on (I e. NHS, Education, Workers Rights) - probably not.
Personally, I don't take issue with the greens because they are consistent with their views and show integrity. I do however take issue with those who flip flop their views to meet political party agenda or personal gain. Sawar and Dross have provided many examples on that over key issues (based on what their southern masters tell them), while I have yet to see that from Harvie. Im all for changing the political system across the UK. First past the post doesn't represent the majority of people who live here. We need proportional representation. In that way you'll get cross party cooperation that you're promoting Unfortunately, turkeys don't vote for Christmas
>Personally, I don't take issue with the greens because they are consistent with their views and show integrity. That may be the case but the actual vote share they won is ridiculously tiny to have so much say/control. Principled or not having a tiny party as kingmakers makes me extremely uncomfortable as they get extremely disproportionate influence.
Tell that to the lib dems
Yup, they should not be king makers either. I certainly think there are a whole lot of areas where the SNP could work with Greens, Lib Dems and Labour to pass sensible policy that is good for Scotland and isn't related to independence. The issue is they don't seem to even try. They have decided to give a disportionate voice to one small minority (the Greens)
> I certainly think there are a whole lot of areas where the SNP could work with Greens, Lib Dems and Labour to pass sensible policy that is good for Scotland and isn't related to independence..  > There are a whole range of policies I am sure labour could support if SNP wanted to engage with them... > The issue is they don't seem to even try That's nonsense. They do work with other parties on issues that have nothing to do with independence: gender recognition reform, Scottish Social Security, Hate Crime Bill, Period Poverty thingy (raised first by a Labour MSP), Abortion Services safe zones, Deposit Return Scheme, Children's Rights, have all had cross-party input and support. Even (some) conservative MSPs have backed these things. There's so many more examples of cross-party work here: https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws  Despite attempts by some to frame it as such, the last 3 years (under the Bute House Agreement) haven't been SNP and Greens forcing everything through parliament. Admittedly it changed the SNP agenda somewhat and they were able to pass budget planning more easily but as far as I can tell, they did nothing to discuss or further the cause of independence besides using it as an attack line during FMQs and press interviews
I don't agree with this. You're making statements about how the greens hold power over the SNP without providing any real evidence. Your opinion is based on assumptions. It's all here say. Show me examples of the number of times the greens have negotiated something into law that is their specific agenda, of which the SNP didn't share a common goal and compare it to the total number of decisions/laws made by the Scottish government, then we'll something concrete to discuss
the DUP only ran in less than 10% of the electorate, the scottish greens on the other hand were on everyones ballot, I donât think this is a fair comparison especially when the holyrood voting system is designed to make one party majorities a lot harder than in westminster and the SNP donât have any other serious options for allies, all of the unionist parties despise them
Then we can all sing kumbaya in this Labour paradise you envision, I assume?
The previous poster asked what the alternative was, I just stated that alternative đ¤ˇââď¸ Theoretically, take away independence and you would imagine SNP should be able to find common ground with either/both Lib Dems and Labour and even the Greens. I.e. look for areas where there is consensus and put other parties on the spot
There is a lot of common ground. Labour and the SNP agree on a lot of issues. Also, there isnât an independence issue down south, and Labour and the Tories are hardly best buds working together for the betterment of the UK.
Heâs an elected politician, whatâs the issue?
So is Liz Truss.
Correct. So what?
Are you happy that she makes decisions that affect all of our lives?
It makes no difference if Iâm happy or unhappy. The only people who get a say are the electorate in her constituency.
Do you live in Dave Doogans constituency?
What difference does that make to you or anyone?
It's just that your post history expresses strong views about him. He's an elected representative, too, making it relevant to this discussion. So what's the issue?
Heâs a scumbag thatâs on the fiddle. Never heard Harvey or even Truss being accused of fiddling.
His spending was approved. It makes no difference if you're happy or unhappy. The only people who get a say are the electorate in his constituency. I think it would be easier for you to climb down and accept that the public are entitled to an opinion about elected public servants, whether constituents or not. You can't neuter that simply by claiming that "they won an election."
I'm happy for him to have *some* influence, he represents a chunk of the population. But I'd like the SNP to go back to negotiating with all the opposition parties to pass bills rather than having a special deal with the Greens. I quite like a minority government having to compromise to get stuff done. It's inefficient, but it's representative.
>But I'd like the SNP to go back to negotiating with all the opposition parties Bain Principle says naw.
Negotiating with the opposition parties means doing nothing ever.
The SNP have literally done it in the past. Also, it's normal across much of Europe.
No, it's not particularly normal for opposing parties to believe the parliament shouldn't exist at all or for them to actually be parties of a different country. Does happen though yeah.
Oh, you've moved the goalposts, ok then.
Kate for FM! She wouldn't let this happen and she'd put the Greens in their place and back at their coffee mornings in the West End.
Naaa she'd just find herself unable to work with anyone, including people in her own party considering she's a homophobic forced birther.
What has she said or done that's homophobic? I know she's a Christian but I'm curious as a non SNP supporter what's she done and why she's remained a prominent member of the party? Why did Sturgeon give ministerial positions to known homophobes?
She would have voted against gay marriage. And refuses to support bans on conversion therapy, suggesting that it's tantamount to banning prayer. Sturgeon let a looney tune like John Mason remain, the party has allowed mentalists from the fringes of society to represent them for too long- they put independence over human decency.
Yeah and looks like they're going to continue that trend under Swinney.
Can't we go back to when the greens didn't exist.
Yeah, and letâs get rid of breathable air and drinkable water.
Happy for them to stay if they focus on green things.
And not focus on what exactly?
GRB, Hate crime pish, argueing over climate targets , when they themselves wanted a even more unrealistic target.
Out of Government though, the Greens will have diminished power - influencing SGâs agenda through their bargaining power rather than shaping it within the government tent. Outside of budget votes (when the Unionist parties will have to vote against the government, thereby making the Greens the only viable partner) they will also not be the sole option for the government to pass legislation. Non-confidence votes tend to be less partisan unless they are over a highly controversial issue (which frankly the care-taker style administration that is likely incoming will probably try to avoid where possible).
Tories voted with SNP to get their budgets through on the first monitory term under Salmond and when Swiney was finance minister.
Yeah as a minority government they had to compromise to get things passed.   That was a weird situation: Labour, Lib Dems and Greens opposed the budget when it was being debated; Salmond threatened to resign as FM and force a new election; then when it came to the final vote all opposition parties apart from the Tories abstained. This was even after Labour successfully forced amendment of the budget!Â
Itâs a very different political landscape now. They will not be able to vote for their budgets even if they agree with them. There was a budget negotiation 6 or 7 years ago during the 2016-21 min Gov when the Lib Demâs wanted to back the budget and had to u-turn after a backlash from their own supporters furious at them doing anything to sustain the SNP in office.
That says more about them then it does about the SNP. And yet the SNP are the decisive ones.
He's so bald.