He won’t last 12 months because the public have no trust in him.
We are at a point where a tiny membership is foisting leaders upon us that literally the vast majority do not want.
He won’t last 12 months because the public have no trust in him.
We are at a point where a tiny membership is foisting leaders upon us that literally the vast majority do not want.
I’m sure I’ve read that it wasn’t something Yousaf supported, and he has said about getting polling consistently above 50% and lower 50s before trying for a referendum. I’d have to look back and find exactly what he said.
Found it
He expressed concern over using the general election as a de facto referendum on Scottish independence, but said he wanted to work with his party to determine the best approach.
SNP leadership: Yousaf says his focus is on policies of independence
The Scottish health secretary launches his campaign to be Scotland's next first minister.www.bbc.co.uk
Thanks, will watch how that unfolds, once party pressure starts. But I welcome it. Would have preferred Nicola to have stayed, but if it was a choice between her with a Geferendum, and someone else without one, then someone else it is, for me.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
The U.K. is currently led by a man elected by 202 people...
Exactly my point.
I’m told to expect better from the SNP but right now, I’m feeling as though the country has had someone they simply do not trust nor want upon them as first minister.
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,064
While I get your general point about parties changing leaders and not having elections, it’s something that just doesn’t and has never happened. Not sure it does anywhere.
However Yousaf isn’t F.M yet and has to be elected by Holyrood, the SNP don’t have a majority and if all other parties didn’t want him they could technically vote him down which would lead to an election. As it is the Greens will support him especially as the other 3 leaders are standing against him.
We need a root and branch reform of our so called democracy.
The current system is rigged, broken and let’s us all down badly.
We then wonder why we get the politicians and governments we get!
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,064
Not against that myself, but which model are you thinking of as an example of one that works how you’d like it to ? I do think the Scottish one is at least superior to the Westminster one, and prefer myself, any model that results in more coalition led governments than single party government like the UK or U.S.A ones.
Last edited:
Bournemouth Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2015
- Messages
- 1,843
If the Scots want out, let it be. Personally Tony Blair‘s second worse move (first was the Iraq war) was to give the Scots and Welsh devolved powers. It would have been better if he had given England the same, but as it stands, we seem to have no voice.
We need full proportional representation.
Party politics, the tribal voting it brings often with no thought to what is best for all and more to do with power can fuck right off.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
There is no perfect system, alas, I also think that matters are not helped by the economic decline of the UK as a country. It’s likely to continue to throw up many more short-term leaders (on both sides of the border) who think they can do better but then find that circumstances are way beyond their control and are forced out/stood down. Might find the Spurs manager position looks more stable.