Indyref 2 (2)

[Alibi]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

In which case he should have resigned the whip when the deal was struck, but then maybe he needed to SNP to sweep the report into his bullying under the carpet then.

Out of interest where did you hear that from?

Read about it somewhere a few months ago but can't recall where - the line was that rather than adopt an existing scheme that worked, she wanted to to do it her own way.  In my own view if there is a working scheme anywhere (I think Germany has one) why not just copy that rather than start from scratch.  Based on my own household, there is no chance that any coke can will ever reach one of these recycling machines without being crushed in the middle.  Where are you meant to store loads of uncrushed cans at home so that they can be scanned in?  The council bin collection scheme seems to be far simpler and much more convenient.

[Ally Bongo]

28 minutes ago, aaid said:

They don’t need to, they’re the puppet masters pulling the strings. 

Glad you can now see what everyone else can

[hampden_loon2878]

Hate is a very strong feeeling and One that I haven’t encountered much of, but I can honestly say I hate Nicola Sturgeon for what she has done to the SNP, she has absolutely destroyed it. 
 

and how weak is humza, shocking 

[PapofGlencoe]

I have my doubts they would have blocked the DRS in say 2008.  Looks like a power play to me.

We don't know if it wouldn't work, we weren't even allowed to try it out and tweak it after all the consultations...like a bunch of children.

 

[Orraloon]

7 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I have my doubts they would have blocked the DRS in say 2008.  Looks like a power play to me.

We don't know if it wouldn't work, we weren't even allowed to try it out and tweak it after all the consultations...like a bunch of children.

 

Exactly. Westminster waited until the scheme was almost ready to go then they pulled to plug. This is all about clipping the wings of the SG. All the power has always remained at Westminster, and this Tory mob want to make sure that everybody knows that. How folk can't see what's happening before their very eyes is almost beyond comprehension. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Orraloon

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

Unsurprisingly Yousaf and Sturgeon did not attend the vote to suspend Ewing

Fucking cowards

Do we know who voted to suspend him yet?

I actually agree with a lot of the policies Ewing opposes - like the DRS and the short-term let regulations - but I think it's the lack of internal debate within the party that might have led us to this point.

[scotlad]

33 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Exactly. Westminster waited until the scheme was almost ready to go then they pulled to plug. This is all about clipping the wings of the SG. All the power has always remained at Westminster, and this Tory mob want to make sure that everybody knows that. How folk can't see what's happening before their very eyes is almost beyond comprehension. 

Some people are wilfully ignorant.

Interestingly they haven't vetoed the safe drug consumption pilot, which they could have done. Maybe that's because it's no skin of their nose if it fails or perhaps it's because, unlike the GRA for instance, they feel it's a policy that's likely to have public support. 

[aaid]

27 minutes ago, scotlad said:

Some people are wilfully ignorant.

Interestingly they haven't vetoed the safe drug consumption pilot, which they could have done. Maybe that's because it's no skin of their nose if it fails or perhaps it's because, unlike the GRA for instance, they feel it's a policy that's likely to have public support. 

Because of the way it’s been done - the Lord Advocate taking a public interest approach on not prosecuting - there isn’t anything they can do about it.  That’s why Alister Jack made a big point that he wouldn’t be intervening - he couldn’t do even if he wanted to.

[Ally Bongo]

48 minutes ago, scotlad said:

Do we know who voted to suspend him yet?

I actually agree with a lot of the policies Ewing opposes - like the DRS and the short-term let regulations - but I think it's the lack of internal debate within the party that might have led us to this point.

Typically shrouded in secrecy

Mairi McAllan admitted on radio today she did 

Probable easier to find out those who didnt

[PapofGlencoe]

33 minutes ago, aaid said:

Because of the way it’s been done - the Lord Advocate taking a public interest approach on not prosecuting - there isn’t anything they can do about it.  That’s why Alister Jack made a big point that he wouldn’t be intervening - he couldn’t do even if he wanted to.

That's interesting, can you explain that further?  I had the impression it was very clearly a reserved matter, drug policy (as much as because that's been the SNPs get out for many years on not doing this).  Why couldn't the Lord Advocate do the same for the referendum?  Not trying to trick you up here, genuinely interested in how this works.

I assumed like scotlad they didn't because it enjoys some kind of support and they don't want to be seen to block absolutely everything, only when it suits.  basically the government have said they'll do it anyway and hope London doesn't intervene because of that.

Edited September 28, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[PapofGlencoe]

17 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Typically shrouded in secrecy

Mairi McAllan admitted on radio today she did 

Probable easier to find out those who didnt

He's only been suspended for a week, I don't think it's the end of the world.

I'm fifty fifty on it myself.  I don't necessarily think voting against Slater was voting against the government per se.  But equally he's voted against a government minister, he can't have expected no repercussions.  otherwise Yousaf would look weak.

[Orraloon]

12 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

That's interesting, can you explain that further?  I had the impression it was very clearly a reserved matter, drug policy (as much as because that's been the SNPs get out for many years on not doing this).  Why couldn't the Lord Advocate do the same for the referendum?  Not trying to trick you up here, genuinely interested in how this works.

It is a reserved matter and possession of a controlled drug will still be a criminal offence. What the Lord Advocate has done is to say that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute for possession in these consumption rooms. How they procure and get their drugs to the consumption room is a different matter and could be open to interpretation. Some things will need to be ironed out as to how the police operate around the consumption rooms.

[PapofGlencoe]

4 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It is a reserved matter and possession of a controlled drug will still be a criminal offence. What the Lord Advocate has done is to say that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute for possession in these consumption rooms. How they procure and get their drugs to the consumption room is a different matter and could be open to interpretation. Some things will need to be ironed out as to how the police operate around the consumption rooms.

Oh right thanks.  to me, prosecuting the drug afflicted people and the Government setting up drug consumption rooms are related but quite different matters though?

One is how the law is applied over the individual; the other is a government policy.   Which i thought was reserved.

taking this argument to its conclusion, the Lord Advocate could say anyone voting in an independence referendum would not be prosecuted.   It doesn't mean the Scottish government are permitted to set up the referendum.  Am i being daft? 😆

 

[aaid]

21 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

That's interesting, can you explain that further?  I had the impression it was very clearly a reserved matter, drug policy (as much as because that's been the SNPs get out for many years on not doing this).  Why couldn't the Lord Advocate do the same for the referendum?  Not trying to trick you up here, genuinely interested in how this works.

I assumed like scotlad they didn't because it enjoys some kind of support and they don't want to be seen to block absolutely everything, only when it suits.  basically the government have said they'll do it anyway and hope London doesn't intervene because of that.

The position of Lord Advocate encompasses two different and distinct roles, one is essentially as the government's lawyer.  it was in this role that she engaged with the supreme court over the referendum and also last week with the GRR bill.  This role is by its definition political in that the LA will attend cabinet and if required parliament.   If you ever do the parliament tour, they will tell you that that there are 131 seats in the chamber, for 129 MSPs, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General (the LA's deputy).

The other role is the chief prosecutor of Scotland, effectively the head of COPFS. This role is independent of government and is why when there are criminal cases with political ramifications - eg Alex Salmond - the LA and SG will recuse themselves.

It's in this role that she has stated that it's not in the public interest to prosecute people using SCRs.  Drug misuse and assisting drug misuse are still illegal but won't be prosecuted in Scotland.   To try and override that power of the Lord Advocate would be to try and override the power an office has had not only since before devolution but since before the union, it dates to the 15th century.  I think that constitutional wrecking that might be a stretch for even Alister Jack.

The answer to your referendum question is pretty simple - it's not a matter of criminal law.

[PapofGlencoe]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

The position of Lord Advocate encompasses two different and distinct roles, one is essentially as the government's lawyer.  it was in this role that she engaged with the supreme court over the referendum and also last week with the GRR bill.  This role is by its definition political in that the LA will attend cabinet and if required parliament.   If you ever do the parliament tour, they will tell you that that there are 131 seats in the chamber, for 129 MSPs, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General (the LA's deputy).

The other role is the chief prosecutor of Scotland, effectively the head of COPFS. This role is independent of government and is why when there are criminal cases with political ramifications - eg Alex Salmond - the LA and SG will recuse themselves.

It's in this role that she has stated that it's not in the public interest to prosecute people using SCRs.  Drug misuse and assisting drug misuse are still illegal but won't be prosecuted in Scotland.   To try and override that power of the Lord Advocate would be to try and override the power an office has had not only since before devolution but since before the union, it dates to the 15th century.  I think that constitutional wrecking that might be a stretch for even Alister Jack.

The answer to your referendum question is pretty simple - it's not a matter of criminal law.

Thanks that's a good summary actually.  Although i'm still not totally clear about the SCR part of this equation.

Setting up SCRs is not a criminal act or an action of the LA.  It's a scottish government  policy.  Which is presumably governed by the Scotland Act.  

Edited September 28, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[aaid]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Thanks that's a good summary actually.  Although i'm still not totally clear about the SCR part of this equation.

Setting up SCRs is not a criminal act or an action of the LA.  It's a scottish government  policy.  Which is presumably governed by the Scotland Act.  

Not exactly.  It is SG policy to trial SCRs. The actual SCR will be run by Homeless Health Services in Glasgow, which I assume is a specialist NHS facility, they already support addicts who are supplied heroin under prescription to safely inject it.  It will be on their existing premises in the Calton.

What is illegal are taking a controlled substance and allowing premises at which you work or own to be used for taking a controlled substance both of which are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The decision not to prosecute, is particularly to provide protection for the nurses - and the NHS - without who you cannot have the safe protection room.

The Scotland Act isn’t relevant here.

[Hertsscot]

I think it's a good thing to trial these, they're not a magic bullet and obviously other strategies are needed as well. 

I appreciate that the Unionist politicians want to use any stick to beat the SNP but I would have liked to have had some analysis on the news about why Scotland has the highest drugs death in Europe.

Would I be wrong in thinking that poverty, decline of heavy industry, unemployment etc would all be contributing factors and that these predate the SNP Government and Holrood by many decades?

I can't believe that Scots are somehow more genetically disposed than others to take drugs, so the alternative is environmental factors, which includes Government policies.

 

[TDYER63]

4 hours ago, scotlad said:

Do we know who voted to suspend him yet?

I actually agree with a lot of the policies Ewing opposes - like the DRS and the short-term let regulations - but I think it's the lack of internal debate within the party that might have led us to this point.

I feel the same . There is no disputing whatsoever what an effective and loyal politician he has been for the SNP , and a real asset to the party, but I disagree with his opinion on the policies you mentioned , plus I am not too enamoured by his views on equal marriage and same sex adoption.

Supporters and MP/MSP’s seem to be looking through rose tinted glasses, on both sides, and as you say, the lack of respectful debate within the party has intensified this situation.

One thing is for sure, The SNP will not survive in its current form much longer if all this shite continues. 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I think it's a good thing to trial these, they're not a magic bullet and obviously other strategies are needed as well. 

I appreciate that the Unionist politicians want to use any stick to beat the SNP but I would have liked to have had some analysis on the news about why Scotland has the highest drugs death in Europe.

Would I be wrong in thinking that poverty, decline of heavy industry, unemployment etc would all be contributing factors and that these predate the SNP Government and Holrood by many decades?

I can't believe that Scots are somehow more genetically disposed than others to take drugs, so the alternative is environmental factors, which includes Government policies.

 

There’s a number of contributing factors, some of what you mention, but I think the biggest one, the one that is causing the deaths is that users are taking a specific cocktail of drugs that are particularly deadly and which aren’t so popular in the rest of the UK.  Street Valium I think it’s called

[Hertsscot]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

There’s a number of contributing factors, some of what you mention, but I think the biggest one, the one that is causing the deaths is that users are taking a specific cocktail of drugs that are particularly deadly and which aren’t so popular in the rest of the UK.  Street Valium I think it’s called

Thanks for the reply. I'll look street valium. I'd like to think I'm reasonably well informed about drugs (taught about them for most of my career) but I'm not as familiar with the Scottish context. I know drug related deaths are counted differently compared to England but also wonder whether there has ever been a time when drug deaths in Scotland were less than in England

[aaid]

On 9/26/2023 at 7:24 PM, Ally Bongo said:

My MP is Angela Crawley and MSP is Christina McKelvie who had clearly whipped the branch

Christina McKelvie is backing Grant Costello.

Patrick Grady must have some backing within the party - oh that’s right, he doesn’t as he failed vetting for re-election. 

[Ally Bongo]

54 minutes ago, aaid said:

Christina McKelvie is backing Grant Costello.

Patrick Grady must have some backing within the party - oh that’s right, he doesn’t as he failed vetting for re-election. 

Thanks for making my point - McKelvie is a huge part of the problem and not the solution. A total zoomer that i once backed (with reservations) .

Grant, I have never had a job outside of politics, Costello is another huge part of the woo woo brigade

And as i have already alluded, they are trying to oust Lisa Cameron because of her actions on GRR - Not because of Patrick Grady who the party already backed and kept his MP salary 

It's convenient for the SNP that his constituency will no longer exist at the next GE

 

[hampden_loon2878]

heard a whisper today of 14 snp msps ready to vote against the government after the byelection is over with

Edited September 29, 2023 by hampden_loon2878

[Ally Bongo]

The challenge to Lisa Cameron could be a defining moment

If she continues to be the SNP candidate then the SNP might be saveable and the revolution might begin

 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

heard a whisper today of 14 snp msps ready to vote against the government after the byelection is over with

Vote against them in what exactly?