Scottish government coalition dissolved (25/4/24)

[danny la rouge]

Scottish Greens to vote against Humza Yousaf in no confidence motion

Lorna Slater said her party would back the Tory motion to unseat First Minister Humza Yousaf.

www.bbc.co.uk

The SNP-Green coalition seems to be over, and the current suggestion seems to be that the SNP dumped the Greens to get in the retaliation first.

So, it’ll be a minority SNP government.

 

[danny la rouge]

Greens angry.

SNP breaks off power-share agreement with Scottish Greens

Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater are sacked from government after First Minister Humza Yousaf ended the historic deal.

news.stv.tv

Humza Yousaf ended the deal on Thursday morning with Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater leaving government.

Slater accused the SNP of selling out future generations calling the decision “an act of political cowardice”.

“Voters deserve better, Scotland deserves better,” she said.

“Humza Yousaf has signalled that when it comes to political cooperation, he can no longer be trusted”

 

[Fedayn]

Lorna Slater saying Scotland deserves better, correct, it deserves better than Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater. and the rest of the absolute circus that is the Greens.

 

[weepiper]

I mean, I can't say I'm disappointed. But what comes next might not be better.

 

[kebabking]

Did I read on the twitter than the SNP membership/constituency parties wanted a vote on whether to continue the coalition, that the 'yes, it should continue' side would lose, and is this Yousaf simply being all decisive because everyone (including the SNP) thinks he's shit, and he knows that his leadership a) won't carry the membership, and b) can't take any knocks, so he has to simply avoid any kind of challenge formed by going against what tge membership wants?

Anyone know what the catalyst for this is - is there a big falling out between the Greens and SNP on policy, or is it all political positioning by either side thinking they're going to get a thumping at both the GE and the Scottish Parliament elections?

(An uninformed Englishman writes....)

 

[weepiper]

Did I read on the twitter than the SNP membership/constituency parties wanted a vote on whether to continue the coalition, that the 'yes, it should continue' side would lose, and is this Yousaf simply being all decisive because everyone (including the SNP) thinks he's shit, and he knows that his leadership a) won't carry the membership, and b) can't take any knocks, so he has to simply avoid any kind of challenge formed by going against what tge membership wants?

Anyone know what the catalyst for this is - is there a big falling out between the Greens and SNP on policy, or is it all political positioning by either side thinking they're going to get a thumping at both the GE and the Scottish Parliament elections?

(An uninformed Englishman writes....)

The SNP are in freefall with the fallout from Nicola Sturgeon resigning and the fraud charges against Peter Murrell, Humza Yousaf is a bit of a non-entity and there's been a lot of bad news stories rumbling away for a while (ferry contracts, hospital problems etc). Plus the current Scottish Greens are considered massively out of touch with the electorate in terms of being more concerned with identity politics so the SNP are hoping that publicly cutting ties will distract from their own shit show and save them a few votes.

 

[kebabking]

Cheers weepiper grateful.

Are the greens going to get a thumping as well or is their vote pretty solid, and it's just the the SNP (internal/electoral) coalition that's falling apart?

Sort of reversed image of the Lib Dems at the 2015 GE?

 

[Silas Loom]

I’d have thought that mutually supportive Labour administrations in Holyrood and in Westminster would be a good thing for Scots. Isn’t that the most likely eventual outcome?

 

[kebabking]

I’d have thought that mutually supportive Labour administrations in Holyrood and in Westminster would be a good thing for Scots. Isn’t that the most likely eventual outcome?

Labour in Scotland suffered from the perception - and probably a correct one - that it's effective people went to Westminster, and the duffers who were left went to Edinburgh. With the SNP, it was the other way round.


I lived in Glasgow in the 2000's under a Lab council, Lab SG, and Lab UK govt, and in truth the local services were just shit (nothing like as bad as today, which is why I take the view that people who spout that Lab are the same as the Tories obviously weren't living in the UK in that decade...) it wasn't money, it was just disarray and incompetence - there was all manner of problems with school meals, the health service was a bit ropey, stuff like the roads not being gritted in winter, it just just the feeling that it was low grade people who weren't accountable and who thought they were in a job for life.

The SNP at the time were hungry: disciplined, eager, good communication, 'the vision thing', and when they came in they absolutely sharpened up government and delivery - but they've been in power for nearly 20 years without effective challenge, their party machine is hugely compromised, and they became what Scottish Labour were in the 2000's, squabbling, lazy, entitled, up their own arse, not remotely scared of the electorate, and frankly a bit shit.

I wouldn't disagree with your view, unfortunately the last 30 years has taught me that (to use an American phrase) politicians - like nappies - should be changed regularly, and for the same reason. 10 years is the top end of the effective life of a government, and then it needs a good hosing down by the electorate....

 

[gosub]

Did I read on the twitter than the SNP membership/constituency parties wanted a vote on whether to continue the coalition, that the 'yes, it should continue' side would lose, and is this Yousaf simply being all decisive because everyone (including the SNP) thinks he's shit, and he knows that his leadership a) won't carry the membership, and b) can't take any knocks, so he has to simply avoid any kind of challenge formed by going against what tge membership wants?

Anyone know what the catalyst for this is - is there a big falling out between the Greens and SNP on policy, or is it all political positioning by either side thinking they're going to get a thumping at both the GE and the Scottish Parliament elections?

(An uninformed Englishman writes....)

Yousaf mocked for dropping climate targets in ‘accelerated’ green plan

Holyrood’s version of the Commons Speaker forced to intervene as the chamber erupts with laughter

www.telegraph.co.uk

https://archive.ph/4fGDh

 

[lazythursday]

Plus the current Scottish Greens are considered massively out of touch with the electorate in terms of being more concerned with identity politics

Does this just mean that they lean more to the trans side in that particularly toxic part of the culture war, or something more fundamental?

I can't see how the Greens could have stayed in the administration given the recent rowing back of climate targets - not without some extremely robust new policies in place anyway, regardless of any other issues.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

I’d have thought that mutually supportive Labour administrations in Holyrood and in Westminster would be a good thing for Scots. Isn’t that the most likely eventual outcome?

Hopefully not.

 

[danny la rouge]

Labour in Scotland suffered from the perception - and probably a correct one - that it's effective people went to Westminster, and the duffers who were left went to Edinburgh. With the SNP, it was the other way round.


I lived in Glasgow in the 2000's under a Lab council, Lab SG, and Lab UK govt, and in truth the local services were just shit (nothing like as bad as today, which is why I take the view that people who spout that Lab are the same as the Tories obviously weren't living in the UK in that decade...) it wasn't money, it was just disarray and incompetence - there was all manner of problems with school meals, the health service was a bit ropey, stuff like the roads not being gritted in winter, it just just the feeling that it was low grade people who weren't accountable and who thought they were in a job for life.

The SNP at the time were hungry: disciplined, eager, good communication, 'the vision thing', and when they came in they absolutely sharpened up government and delivery - but they've been in power for nearly 20 years without effective challenge, their party machine is hugely compromised, and they became what Scottish Labour were in the 2000's, squabbling, lazy, entitled, up their own arse, not remotely scared of the electorate, and frankly a bit shit.

I wouldn't disagree with your view, unfortunately the last 30 years has taught me that (to use an American phrase) politicians - like nappies - should be changed regularly, and for the same reason. 10 years is the top end of the effective life of a government, and then it needs a good hosing down by the electorate....

Yup to all of that, except probably the last paragraph. The capitalist-parliamentary system needs to go, not least because it won’t respond to the climate crisis effectively or in time. But realistically I don’t think that humans change our way of being before material circumstances make our old ways literally impossible.

As the SNP are making abundantly clear (not that they’re alone in this).

 

[gosub]

Yup to all of that, except probably the last paragraph. The capitalist-parliamentary system needs to go, not least because it won’t respond to the climate crisis effectively or in time. But realistically I don’t think that humans change our way of being before material circumstances make our old ways literally impossible.

As the SNP are making abundantly clear (not that they’re alone in this).

Communist China is building 2 coal fired power stations a week. Not sure pumping out propaganda saying you're meeting targets regardless of truth would be a step forward

 

[danny la rouge]

Communist China is building 2 coal fired power stations a week. Not sure pumping out propaganda saying you're meeting targets regardless of truth would be a step forward

Like many ground birds, most lark species have long hind claws, which are thought to provide stability while standing.

 

[lazythursday]

Communist China is building 2 coal fired power stations a week. Not sure pumping out propaganda saying you're meeting targets regardless of truth would be a step forward

The 'let's not bother because someone else is worse' line doesn't help anyone. China's attitude to the green transition is complex - yes they're still building coal power, but they're also the world leader in green tech, have rolled out more solar and EVs than anyone else, etc - and have at least set a net zero target now and will likely have more success in rolling out the actions necessary than many parts of the west (esp the US)

But Scotland was stupid in setting a target that anyone with any knowledge knew was going to be pretty much impossible to meet. Having said that, the Scottish government is definitely the leading part of the UK on many aspects of climate change.

 

[andysays]

Did I read on the twitter than the SNP membership/constituency parties wanted a vote on whether to continue the coalition, that the 'yes, it should continue' side would lose, and is this Yousaf simply being all decisive because everyone (including the SNP) thinks he's shit, and he knows that his leadership a) won't carry the membership, and b) can't take any knocks, so he has to simply avoid any kind of challenge formed by going against what tge membership wants?

Anyone know what the catalyst for this is - is there a big falling out between the Greens and SNP on policy, or is it all political positioning by either side thinking they're going to get a thumping at both the GE and the Scottish Parliament elections?

(An uninformed Englishman writes....)

I think I read a few days ago that Scottish Greens were having such a vote, after the SNP dropped previously agreed climate targets.

As danny suggested this looks like a move to preempt the result of that vote.

 

[kebabking]

So...

Tories have tabled a motion of No Confidence in the FM personally.

The Greens have said they'll vote for the motion.

Apparently the maths is very close, and if not very close, then bad news for the FM.

Can anyone tell me if they think that Yousaf continuing to the next elections is better news for the various opposition parties than the SNP taking a hit, and having to change leaders at the behest of the other parties, but getting the opportunity to elect a leader who might not be so bad?

 

[danny la rouge]

So...

Tories have tabled a motion of No Confidence in the FM personally.

The Greens have said they'll vote for the motion.

Apparently the maths is very close, and if not very close, then bad news for the FM.

Can anyone tell me if they think that Yousaf continuing to the next elections is better news for the various opposition parties than the SNP taking a hit, and having to change leaders at the behest of the other parties, but getting the opportunity to elect a leader who might not be so bad?

Hard to know. There’s so much up in the air. People are really, really disappointed in the SNP. It comes of such high hopes, as if they were going to be different. Which of course they weren’t.

Honestly, Yousaf isn’t making much of an impact. He’s pretty anonymous. But being forced to choose another leader? That’d be bruising to them, to say the least. Especially as, as we saw, there wasn’t a wealth of talent stepping up the last time. HY was the least worst of some pretty terrible candidates.

The next Holyrood GE isn’t due* until May ‘26, and a lot can happen by then. So who know what’ll happen in Holyrood. Aside from further SNP decline. Labour in Scotland are not making any showing in the Scottish Parliament. Their leader is pretty anonymous too.

As for Westminster? This will probably push people Labour’s way. I’m unconvinced they’ve been redeemed here. But nationalising the railways won’t do them any harm.

*NC in the government could change that.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just reading about the arithmetic.

“The SNP have 63 MSPs. Their opponents have 65. One switcher to the government could result in a tied vote in which the presiding officer (equivalent of the Commons speaker) would be expected to back no change.” Say the BBC.

That comes down to whether the Alba MSP, Ash Regan votes with the SNP or not. She will want something for doing so.

Remember this is NC in Yousaf, not in the government.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yousaf's fate hangs on single MSP as Greens will vote to oust First Minister

Balance of power hangs with former SNP rival as the First Minister faces the biggest threat to his career.

news.stv.tv

How will Ash Regan vote?​

It’s a non-binding vote, meaning Yousaf doesn’t have to quit, but it would send a powerful message and damage his ability to govern.

Asked by STV News whether she would vote for or against her former colleague, she said she had not yet decided.

She said: “First of all, we don’t know what the substance of this is going to be, it’s a bit early to say, I’ll have to look at what comes out.

“But I am in the process of writing to Humza today and in that letter I’m asking him to say how he is going to be progressing independence, how he intends to defend the rights of women and children and also how he is going to return to competent government.”

She said her decision would ultimately depend on “what Humza’s answers to those are”.

 

[andysays]

From the BBC

The Scottish Greens have also now announced their seven MSPs will back the no-confidence vote – so it all depends on the sole Alba MSP Ash Regan. Ms Regan is a former SNP MSP who defected to Alba - which is led by Alex Salmond - after finishing third behind Mr Yousaf and Kate Forbes in last year's SNP leadership contest.

If she was to either abstain or vote in favour of the motion, it would be enough to see the no-confidence vote carried. But if she sided with the SNP, it would result in a 64-64 tie. In that scenario, the presiding officer casts a deciding vote, which by tradition is always for the status quo - meaning Humza Yousaf would win the confidence vote.

Ms Regan is therefore in a strong bargaining position to strike a deal with the SNP in return for her support.

 

[danny la rouge]

From the BBC

Duh, BBC, I said that at 6pm. Losers.

 

[andysays]

Duh, BBC, I said that at 6pm. Losers.

"Updated 1 hour ago"

Although Alec Salmond was apparently saying this earlier in the afternoon

Ash Regan is 'most powerful MSP' - Salmond

Scotland's former first minister and the leader of the Alba Party Alex Salmond has said that Humza Yousaf has made Alba's Ash Regan the "most powerful MSP in the Scottish parliament".

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Out of curiosity (I'm south of the Thames, not just south of the border) what happens if the VoNC passes?

In Westminster, it's usually a party that has VoNC on a leader (in which case it's up to the party to elect a new leader according to party rules) or you can have a VoNC on the government of the day - and if government loses (which I don't think has happened very often) then a general election tends to be called, although I think in theory that if any other party can form a government and win a confidence vote, then they can. I'm not sure if Westminster can have a confidence vote on the PM.

Would there be a Holyrood election if the vote passes? Or would the SNP have a chance to elect a new leader and try to avoid immediately losing another VoNC? Or would other parties be given a chance to form an 'everybody else' coalition? (I'm guessing the chances of this would be fairly remote, but hasn't there been some local councils in scotland where the tories and labour have at least co-operated to keep the SNP out?)

 

[andysays]

Out of curiosity (I'm south of the Thames, not just south of the border) what happens if the VoNC passes?

In Westminster, it's usually a party that has VoNC on a leader (in which case it's up to the party to elect a new leader according to party rules) or you can have a VoNC on the government of the day - and if government loses (which I don't think has happened very often) then a general election tends to be called, although I think in theory that if any other party can form a government and win a confidence vote, then they can. I'm not sure if Westminster can have a confidence vote on the PM.

Would there be a Holyrood election if the vote passes? Or would the SNP have a chance to elect a new leader and try to avoid immediately losing another VoNC? Or would other parties be given a chance to form an 'everybody else' coalition? (I'm guessing the chances of this would be fairly remote, but hasn't there been some local councils in scotland where the tories and labour have at least co-operated to keep the SNP out?)

According to the BBC

What happens if the vote is passed?

If a majority of MSPs do not have confidence in the first minister, he would be expected to resign - although he is not obliged to do so. In practice, it would be hard to continue in the role without the backing of parliament. In the event Yousaf resigning as first minister, MSPs would have 28 days to elect a replacement. If they failed to do so, it would lead to an election being called.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

According to the BBC

Thanks. I missed that bit.

Although that raises another question - is FM elected by (all) MSP's, or is it (like in Westminster) the leader of the majority party?

 

[Balbi]

Ash Regan's the one who resigned as a cabinet minister over the gender recognition reform bill, then went and joined Salmonds mob when she didn't win the leadership, isn't these?

Never mind that twenty other countries have had that law, some of them for over a decade now, and weirdly none of the things that the "defend the rights of women and children" crowd claim will happen have happened.

I'm sure having the SNP beholden to a member of Alba will transform their declining fortunes with the electorate and won't lead to a bigger Labour win at the next election - or won't just see an election this year as everything falls apart even faster.

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks. I missed that bit.

Although that raises another question - is FM elected by (all) MSP's, or is it (like in Westminster) the leader of the majority party?

Leader of largest party, practically speaking. But technically Ash Regan, in a party of one MSP, could be if she had a majority of MSPs willing to support that. Just like Westminster.

 

[steeplejack]

The best outcome for the SNP is to lose the vote and for Cosmounaut Yousaf to break up with the mother ship on re-entry. Continuity Sturgeonism in 2024, even if it wasn't tainted by a police investigation, is about as welcome as a turd on a trampoline. The SNP were exhausted three years ago and it has been a zombie government for some time. Yousaf's leadership has been pisspoor and no one takes him seriously.

Governance at all levels in the UK is going to be a very hard job in the next few years for whoever has to do it. There is no money, there is nothing left to sell, and there is no vision or competence whatever to get us out of the blind alley we have been backed into by generations of mediocre centrist /right / far right "there is no alternative" types.

It's better for the SNP to go and go quickly. The longer Yousaf and his clapped out fellow travellers cling on, the worse the result will be later in the year for Westminster, let alone in 2026 at Holyrood.

I did think until pretty recently that the SNP might just hold their own despite the doom-laden predictions for the general election. Not now.